The Right To Bear Arms

[Lesh]

Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution

Article 1 Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".

Just the OPPOSITE of your claims

There it is in black and white.

No interpretation required

 

[Ambivalent1]

Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution

Article 1 Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".

Just the OPPOSITE of your claims

There it is in black and white.

No interpretation required

I'll lay my weapons on the floor....you try and take them. I said YOU.

 

[Rigby5]

Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution

Article 1 Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".

Just the OPPOSITE of your claims

There it is in black and white.

No interpretation required

Totally wrong.
Sure the only use the federal government would have for a militia would be to call it up in defense for an invasion, civil war, or rebellion, but clearly the federal government was not at all the main purpose or need for the militia.
Remember there were no police back then at all, and even what law enforcement agencies there were, would be too slow to get anywhere to do any good.
So clearly the main purpose of the militia was local, for the threat of pirates, gangs, native attacks, border incursions, etc., and that would also include to put down attempts at tyranny by the federal government. The fact the constitution would not say that, does not change anything. The main uses for the militia were local.

 

[PredFan]

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Here, I'll post this again as you all seem so desperate to bury it. Here are the words of the WRITER of the Constitution. You can take all of your blathering and stick it where the Sun don't shine, because THIS is the only person who's opinion on the subject matters.


"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

But oddly...we base our laws and nation on the CONSTITUTION.

And the Constitution describes a "Well Regulated Militia" used to put down insurrections...and that is EXACTLY what it was used fr several times in the early days of our Republic

Yes, the CONSTITUTION written by this man. His quotes prove that all of your infantile misinterpretations of what he wrote are just that, infantile misinterpretations.

Our nation is ruled by the Constitution...not by what this guy or that guy claims.

The Constitution was NOT written by any one man. It was a compromise among many.

I stand by the Constitution

And it is impossible to deny the obvious fact that the Bill of Rights strictly prohibits ANY federal weapons regulations in the least. Any and all weapons jurisdiction is clearly completely denied to the federal government. And not just by the 2nd Amendment, but the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments as well.

Anyone who even knows the least bit of US history knows this country was founded on rebellion against tyranny, and that was the single most important consideration the founders wanted to ensure could always happen again, when needed.
And they were all pretty clear they assumed it would periodically be needed. Anyone who knows history should know this. It simply is a fact that all government always become progressively corrupt. The fact there is ANY federal weapons legislation proves that. That is just as criminal as waterboarding.

The country grew up and out and outgrew some of the things that our founding fathers put forth. Like the Organized Militia being there there to overthrow the government in the event of tyranny. Their own federal republic was the end to that when the nation got so large that the organized militia started becoming the bully boys of the Governors. And when wars outside and inside the US boundries grew so large and expensive that the Federals needed to have the ability to train, fund and call up the State Organized Militias called State Guards. The National Guard can no longer be called an Organized Militia although in the face of a local emergency they do operate in that capacity. But the States still have the option to form a State Organized Militia seperate from the National Guard for local emergencies and some do.

We have a revolution every 2 and 4 years just like our FFs wanted. Okay, we have gotten pretty sloppy at it lately and need to get it back to where it's supposed to be (if it ever was). But it's one of the best systems in the world. Now, if we could just get MONEY the hell out of it and start jailing the corrupt ones. But good luck with that. But don't t look for an armed Revolution to come out of it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

"Using Heller". Heller very specifically decouples the Militia Clause from the 2A (ridiculously)...because Scalia knew that was a losing argument

It doesn't matter if it is decoupled from the Militia or not as by U.S. Code the Unorganized Militia is THE PEOPLE. The theory was the private citizens, not the government, needed to be armed, and ready, and they were to provide their own ARMS.

the militia is callable to Arms.

No,, the Organized Militia is only callable to arms by the Federal Government with the Governors permission. The National Guard and regular citizens are NOT part of the Organized Militia.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution

Article 1 Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".

Just the OPPOSITE of your claims

There it is in black and white.

No interpretation required

Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS: a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn. There was no one there to be violent. The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect. Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.

Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason. The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves. The Courts settle that and no charges stuck. But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast. The Courts sided with the Farmers. BTW, Shay wasn't the leader. He was just one of the Farmers. Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and were arrested. Not a single shot was fired. Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me. But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees. You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation. The United States Constitution had not be written yet.

 

[Lakhota]

The NRA sucks!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

View attachment 238623

This sort of childish stupidity renders conservatives that much more ridiculous.

 

[Lesh]

Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution

Article 1 Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".

Just the OPPOSITE of your claims

There it is in black and white.

No interpretation required

I'll lay my weapons on the floor....you try and take them. I said YOU.

Hey asshole. I'm not talking about taking ANYONE'S weapon way ya dumb moron. I'm just telling you that "gun rights" do NOT come from the 2A...unless of course you are part of a "Well Regulated Militia".. Beyond that state and local laws apply.

 

[Lesh]

Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution

Article 1 Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".

Just the OPPOSITE of your claims

There it is in black and white.

No interpretation required

Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS: a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn. There was no one there to be violent. The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect. Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.

Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason. The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves. The Courts settle that and no charges stuck. But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast. The Courts sided with the Farmers. BTW, Shay wasn't the leader. He was just one of the Farmers. Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and were arrested. Not a single shot was fired. Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me. But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees. You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation. The United States Constitution had not be written yet.

You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.

The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose

 

[Rigby5]

Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution

Article 1 Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".

Just the OPPOSITE of your claims

There it is in black and white.

No interpretation required

Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS: a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn. There was no one there to be violent. The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect. Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.

Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason. The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves. The Courts settle that and no charges stuck. But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast. The Courts sided with the Farmers. BTW, Shay wasn't the leader. He was just one of the Farmers. Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and were arrested. Not a single shot was fired. Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me. But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees. You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation. The United States Constitution had not be written yet.

You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.

The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose

That makes no sense.
Of course putting down an immoral insurrection is one of the possible uses of the militia, but not at all likely, not the main federal use, and not at all the main purpose of the militia. The main purpose of the militia has always been, and always will be, to prevent crime. Remember there were no police originally, and in reality police prevent not a single crime these days, since they get there too late.
The odds of a moral insurrection that should not be interfered with is much higher than an immoral one that should be stopped.
And clearly we are way past the point of needing a moral insurrection. Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc., are all examples illegal invasions or regime change committed by the US. And there are also thousands of illegal waterboarding, renditions, assassinations, and other war crimes continually committed by the US. So we are way past having a illegal government. For example, clearly any federal weapons laws violate the Bill of Rights are are clearly illegal.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution

Article 1 Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".

Just the OPPOSITE of your claims

There it is in black and white.

No interpretation required

Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS: a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn. There was no one there to be violent. The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect. Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.

Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason. The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves. The Courts settle that and no charges stuck. But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast. The Courts sided with the Farmers. BTW, Shay wasn't the leader. He was just one of the Farmers. Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and were arrested. Not a single shot was fired. Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me. But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees. You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation. The United States Constitution had not be written yet.

You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.

The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose

I side with the way it came out. The system worked. The courts evened the playing field and protected the farmers. Farmers are not Lawyers. The Governor and his ilk were the lawyers. The Courts were used to correct a very vile and evil Governor and his crony government. What you have actually shown is if we give it a chance, the system does work and it doesn't take guns to do it.

Besides, the Organized Militia would last about an afternoon against the US Military. Outside of a local event that the Law Enforcement would handle, there won't be any Insurrections. It's kind of like John Wayne has an entire Marine Division and they are attacked by one lone Indian Brave armed with a spear. How do you think that will result? Will the Lone Injun win the day? Or will the Lone Injun do better if he takes his grevences to the court system. Yah, Yah, I know, any Marine with even a smidgen of indian blood will change sides right?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution

Article 1 Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".

Just the OPPOSITE of your claims

There it is in black and white.

No interpretation required

Here is the definition of INSURRECTIONS: a violent uprising against an authority or government.

Whiskey Rebellion doesn't fit the definition since there was NO violence since the whiskey makers had previously moved to Kentucky from Penn. There was no one there to be violent. The 3 state Militias arrived and found no one there to insurrect. Those damned rumrunners took all the fun out of it.

Shay's Rebellion does fit until you look at the reason. The real crime was the corrupt State Government that was taxing the hell out of the Farmers leaving them hungry in the empty fields they couldn't even afford to plant much less grow food for themselves. The Courts settle that and no charges stuck. But there was one hell of a change in the State Government fast. The Courts sided with the Farmers. BTW, Shay wasn't the leader. He was just one of the Farmers. Yes, they were headed to the State Militia Armory to arm themselves but the Militia got there ahead of them and the farmers backed off and were arrested. Not a single shot was fired. Not much off an Insurrection if you ask me. But the State Government wanted blood and decided to prosecute and the courts disagreed and dropped all charges including the Governors hanging decrees. You spend all your time railing against insurrections and yet this one shows the system actually works even under the old Articles of Confederation. The United States Constitution had not be written yet.

You're defense is all over the place. Your CLAIM is that the militia is not there in part to deal with insurrection...but to back that up you attack the several USES of the militia where it was called out for insurrections.

The fact that you side with the insurrectionists does in now way mean the militia wasn't called out for that purpose

That makes no sense.
Of course putting down an immoral insurrection is one of the possible uses of the militia, but not at all likely, not the main federal use, and not at all the main purpose of the militia. The main purpose of the militia has always been, and always will be, to prevent crime. Remember there were no police originally, and in reality police prevent not a single crime these days, since they get there too late.
The odds of a moral insurrection that should not be interfered with is much higher than an immoral one that should be stopped.
And clearly we are way past the point of needing a moral insurrection. Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Libya, Egypt, Palestine, Afghanistan, etc., are all examples illegal invasions or regime change committed by the US. And there are also thousands of illegal waterboarding, renditions, assassinations, and other war crimes continually committed by the US. So we are way past having a illegal government. For example, clearly any federal weapons laws violate the Bill of Rights are are clearly illegal.

You say I make no sense yet you parrot back much of what I have said. Then you tack on the last 2nd amendment BS onto it trying to use the beginning as a smoke screen to make your empty argument appear sound.

As long as the public safety stays within state lines,, it's the States responsibility. But when it constantly crosses the state lines, it is now called Interstate and anything Interstate whether it be transportation, trade or crime becomes a Federal problem. This is what became of the 1934 Firearms Act. One state would stop it or slow it down in their area and it would crop us with the same weapons in another area in another state and the slaughter would continue. NO State was organized enough to stop this. And then, it took the cooperation of all levels of government 10 years to put a stop to it.

 

[PredFan]

View attachment 238623

This sort of childish stupidity renders conservatives that much more ridiculous.

Meh. Coming from a partisan hack moron like you, your response has no impact.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Here, I'll post this again as you all seem so desperate to bury it. Here are the words of the WRITER of the Constitution. You can take all of your blathering and stick it where the Sun don't shine, because THIS is the only person who's opinion on the subject matters.


"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

You can post it all you want, it’s still irrelevant.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

The only opinion that matters is the opinion of the Supreme Court – not that of one individual, including Jefferson.

And the Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected to militia service – not to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected Federal government reflecting the will of the majority of the people; the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

 

[westwall]

View attachment 238623

This sort of childish stupidity renders conservatives that much more ridiculous.

Do you take pride in being the village idiot or are you simply clueless? Progressives have had their ass handed to them on multiple occasions, especially you, sweetcheeks, because you ignore the well known philosophy of the men who wrote the Constitution. You ignore the usage of the English language of the time to pervert the actual meaning of the COTUS at every opportunity.

Your problem is we are smarter than you, and far better read than you so we actually know what we are talking about. Unlike you.

 

[westwall]

Wow. Reinventing history doesn't change the Constitution

Article 1 Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion were....read this slowly....INSURRECTIONS...whether you agree with them or not...and THAT is part of why we HAD a "Well Regulated Militia".

Just the OPPOSITE of your claims

There it is in black and white.

No interpretation required

I'll lay my weapons on the floor....you try and take them. I said YOU.

Hey asshole. I'm not talking about taking ANYONE'S weapon way ya dumb moron. I'm just telling you that "gun rights" do NOT come from the 2A...unless of course you are part of a "Well Regulated Militia".. Beyond that state and local laws apply.

You are partially correct. The 2nd only TELLS you what is yours by Right of birth.

Thanks for giving me the chance to clarify.

 

[Lesh]

Here, I'll post this again as you all seem so desperate to bury it. Here are the words of the WRITER of the Constitution. You can take all of your blathering and stick it where the Sun don't shine, because THIS is the only person who's opinion on the subject matters.


"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787

"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

You can post it all you want, it’s still irrelevant.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

The only opinion that matters is the opinion of the Supreme Court – not that of one individual, including Jefferson.

And the Supreme Court has held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected to militia service – not to ‘overthrow’ a lawfully elected Federal government reflecting the will of the majority of the people; the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First.

Whch if you actually look at the 2A...makes no sense given the Militia Clause...but then Scalia knew that was a losing argument so he had to "decouple" the militia from the 2A...because....well because he wanted to..despite every previous ruling that did NOT do so

 

[Lesh]

You are partially correct. The 2nd only TELLS you what is yours by Right of birth.

Says nothing about birth...but as a member of a "well Regulated Militia"...yea