The Right To Bear Arms

[westwall]

View attachment 994630

Amen!

It's his interpretation that is the fraud.

Amen!

 

[jc456]

View attachment 994630

Amen!

post what the 2nd amendment says, giving someone else's interpretation for his benefit, doesn't cut any mustard. Pssst means it doesn't mean it's fact.

 

[jc456]

by your definition there are not enough conservatives to elect an alderman

not in Chicago, ever hear of one?

 

[jc456]

hallelujah , brother.

is a song?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

View attachment 994630

Amen!

It was also never the intent of the Framers that private citizens – not part of a government sanctioned militia – be allowed to possess any type of firearm for the purpose of defending against a Federal government perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

Indeed, it was the intent of the Framers that if a state were to defend itself against a lawless Federal government, it would do so only with members of an official state militia authorized by the state government – not by armed private citizens.

Residents of a state have no right to possess weapons consistent with that of the state militia or Federal military because they are not members of the state-authorized and recognized militia –consequently, they may be denied possession of such weapons.

 

[flack]

It was also never the intent of the Framers that private citizens – not part of a government sanctioned militia – be allowed to possess any type of firearm for the purpose of defending against a Federal government perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

Indeed, it was the intent of the Framers that if a state were to defend itself against a lawless Federal government, it would do so only with members of an official state militia authorized by the state government – not by armed private citizens.

Residents of a state have no right to possess weapons consistent with that of the state militia or Federal military because they are not members of the state-authorized and recognized militia –consequently, they may be denied possession of such weapons.

That's some good stuff you're smoking there.

 

[KissMy]

Yep,

Without the second the government can just take all of our rights away.

2A hasn't prevented any of our rights from being taken away.

 

[Harry Dresden]

View attachment 994630

Amen!

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed......who are those people?....

 

[jc456]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed......who are those people?....

dude, what's hilarious is their argument, the founders didn't want AR15's included, because they must have existed back then for them to make that designation. seriously you can't get more willfully ignorant than a demofk.

Instead, it means that the right of the people is to be able to match the firearms coming at them. Defending one's self. Again, demofks don't want you to defend yourself.

 

[Polishprince]

It was also never the intent of the Framers that private citizens – not part of a government sanctioned militia – be allowed to possess any type of firearm for the purpose of defending against a Federal government perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

Indeed, it was the intent of the Framers that if a state were to defend itself against a lawless Federal government, it would do so only with members of an official state militia authorized by the state government – not by armed private citizens.

Residents of a state have no right to possess weapons consistent with that of the state militia or Federal military because they are not members of the state-authorized and recognized militia –consequently, they may be denied possession of such weapons.

So in your view, the 2nd Amendment only gives a right to bear arms to the Military?

Then what is its purpose, in your liberal view?

Every nation, even the most despotic, allows and requires its military to have firearms. They don't need a 2nd Amendment in Cuba or Nicaragua , the armies in those places are armed to the teeth.

 

[jc456]

So in your view, the 2nd Amendment only gives a right to bear arms to the Military?

Then what is its purpose, in your liberal view?

Every nation, even the most despotic, allows and requires its military to have firearms. They don't need a 2nd Amendment in Cuba or Nicaragua , the armies in those places are armed to the teeth.

it was written to not allow a militia to take over the citizens with power the citizen didn't have. Equality, the big word demofks splash on the internet all over the world.

 

[PoliticalChic]

View attachment 994630

Amen!

As is the case with everything from your sort, it is a lie.



George Mason, Father of the Bill of Rights: "I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)



The Constitution gave Congress the power to raise and support a national army, and to organize “the Militia.” This is because an army didn’t naturally exist, while “the Militia” only had to be organized: it always existed. (See enumerated powers in Article 1,Section 8.)



The Supreme Court, in US v. Miller, (1939) “…militia system…implied the general obligation of all adult male inhabitants to possess arms, and, with certain exceptions, to cooperate in the work of defence.” It concluded that the militia was primarily civilians.



Today, federal law defines “the militia of the United States” to include all able-bodied males from 17 to 45 and members of the National Guard up to age 64, but excluding those who have no intention of becoming citizens, and active military personnel. (US Code Title 10, sect. 311-313)



[10 U.S. Code § 311 - Exchange of defense personnel between United States and friendly foreign countries: authority]

 

[westwall]

It was also never the intent of the Framers that private citizens – not part of a government sanctioned militia – be allowed to possess any type of firearm for the purpose of defending against a Federal government perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

Indeed, it was the intent of the Framers that if a state were to defend itself against a lawless Federal government, it would do so only with members of an official state militia authorized by the state government – not by armed private citizens.

Residents of a state have no right to possess weapons consistent with that of the state militia or Federal military because they are not members of the state-authorized and recognized militia –consequently, they may be denied possession of such weapons.

Bullshit. The Founders were very clear that the Bill of Rights were nine limitations on what the government could do to a individual and ONE final option when the government became tyrannical, as they all do.

Face it chones, the Founders were far smarter than you.

They knew you little fascists would come along.

And they prepared for it.

 

[JusticeHammer]

View attachment 994630

Amen!

Warren Burger was wrong. The militias were made up of citizens.

 

[JusticeHammer]

hallelujah , brother.

He's lying like all demscum do.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Warren Burger was wrong. The militias were made up of citizens.

/—/ They were citizens soldiers, Minute Men. Watch The Patriot. It portrays the militia very well even though they took a few liberties in the story line.

 

[Blackrook]

The Democrats want to take our guns so they can do to us what they do to fetuses.

 

[Soupnazi630]

View attachment 994630

Amen!

He is full of shit

 

[Redfish]

Biggest threat to the 2nd by far are the Gun BUbbas (NRA)who believe they should have the right to have anything they want for a weapon

if guns are banned only criminals and the government will have guns. Welcome to NORTH KOREA.

 

[jc456]

Biggest threat to the 2nd by far are the Gun BUbbas (NRA)who believe they should have the right to have anything they want for a weapon

why is that wrong?