A message from a veteran about firearms in this country

[Rigby5]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

Wrong.
First of all, during the time of the Founders, the phrase "well regulated" meant fully functional, well practiced, ready to go.
As in a well regulated clock, regular bowel movements, or in the constitution when it refers to the authority to "regulate interstate commerce", meaning to ensure no states are able to restrict commerce through their state.
The idea being that they did NOT want as mercenary standing army because they correctly understood that could not be trusted.
So they preferred an armed population instead that could provide citizen soldiers when necessary.
There is no such thing as a "collective right".
Rights have to be inherent to each individual, or else you could not create anything collectively.
Collective means you delegate your right to a representative group, and you can't do that unless you have that right inherently as an individual.
The military can't fulfill the need for arms because they can't be used domestically, and there is a domestic need for men at arms.
That can be for state needs, municipal needs like a posse, or individual home protection.

 

[Rigby5]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

in Shariah law-----muslims can be fully armed-----non muslims are completely disarmed. Lots of our mass murderers observe shariah law

Wrong.
Sharia law is completely against weapon or gun control of any kind.
For example, the Mamalukes of Egypt were a sort of foreign legion of troops who were not Muslim, but were paid by Muslims to fight for them.
And in fact, the main armed forces who won battles for Mohammad, where Jews.
{...
mamaluke, or marmeluke) is a term most commonly referring to non-Arab, ethnically diverse (mostly Turkic, Caucasian, Eastern and Southeastern European) slave-soldiers and freed slaves to which were assigned military and administrative duties, serving the ruling Arab dynasties in the Muslim world.[2][4][5][6]

The most enduring Mamluk realm was the knightly military class in Egypt in the Middle Ages, which developed from the ranks of slave soldiers.[2][5] Originally the Mamluks were slaves of Turkic origin from the Eurasian Steppe,[2][5][6][7] but the institution of military slavery spread to include Circassians,[2][5][6][8] Abkhazians,[9][10][11] Georgians,[2][5][12][13][14] other peoples of the Caucasus,[2][5][6][15] and Russians,[6] as well as peoples from the Balkans such as Albanians,[5][16] Greeks,[5] and South Slavs[5][16][17] (see Saqaliba). They also recruited from the Egyptians.[18] The "Mamluk/Ghulam Phenomenon",[4] as David Ayalon dubbed the creation of the specific warrior class,[19] was of great political importance; for one thing, it endured for nearly 1,000 years, from the ninth to the nineteenth centuries.

Over time, Mamluks became a powerful military knightly class in various Muslim societies that were controlled by Arab rulers.[2] Particularly in Egypt,[2] but also in the Levant, Mesopotamia, and India, mamluks held political and military power. In some cases, they attained the rank of sultan, while in others they held regional power as emirs or beys. Most notably, Mamluk factions seized the sultanate centered on Egypt and Syria, and controlled it as the Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517).[2] The Mamluk Sultanate famously defeated the Ilkhanate at the Battle of Ain Jalut. They had earlier fought the western European Christian Crusaders in 1154–1169 and 1213–1221, effectively driving them out of Egypt and the Levant. In 1302 the Mamluk Sultanate formally expelled the last Crusaders from the Levant, ending the era of the Crusades.[5][20]

While Mamluks were purchased as property,[2] their status was above ordinary slaves, who were not allowed to carry weapons or perform certain tasks. In places such as Egypt, from the Ayyubid dynasty to the time of Muhammad Ali of Egypt, mamluks were considered to be "true lords" and "true warriors", with social status above the general population in Egypt and the Levant.[5] In a sense, they were like enslaved mercenaries.[2][18][21]
...}

 

[irosie91]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

in Shariah law-----muslims can be fully armed-----non muslims are completely disarmed. Lots of our mass murderers observe shariah law

Wrong.
Sharia law is completely against weapon or gun control of any kind.
For example, the Mamalukes of Egypt were a sort of foreign legion of troops who were not Muslim, but were paid by Muslims to fight for them.
And in fact, the main armed forces who won battles for Mohammad, where Jews.
{...
mamaluke, or marmeluke) is a term most commonly referring to non-Arab, ethnically diverse (mostly Turkic, Caucasian, Eastern and Southeastern European) slave-soldiers and freed slaves to which were assigned military and administrative duties, serving the ruling Arab dynasties in the Muslim world.[2][4][5][6]

The most enduring Mamluk realm was the knightly military class in Egypt in the Middle Ages, which developed from the ranks of slave soldiers.[2][5] Originally the Mamluks were slaves of Turkic origin from the Eurasian Steppe,[2][5][6][7] but the institution of military slavery spread to include Circassians,[2][5][6][8] Abkhazians,[9][10][11] Georgians,[2][5][12][13][14] other peoples of the Caucasus,[2][5][6][15] and Russians,[6] as well as peoples from the Balkans such as Albanians,[5][16] Greeks,[5] and South Slavs[5][16][17] (see Saqaliba). They also recruited from the Egyptians.[18] The "Mamluk/Ghulam Phenomenon",[4] as David Ayalon dubbed the creation of the specific warrior class,[19] was of great political importance; for one thing, it endured for nearly 1,000 years, from the ninth to the nineteenth centuries.

Over time, Mamluks became a powerful military knightly class in various Muslim societies that were controlled by Arab rulers.[2] Particularly in Egypt,[2] but also in the Levant, Mesopotamia, and India, mamluks held political and military power. In some cases, they attained the rank of sultan, while in others they held regional power as emirs or beys. Most notably, Mamluk factions seized the sultanate centered on Egypt and Syria, and controlled it as the Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517).[2] The Mamluk Sultanate famously defeated the Ilkhanate at the Battle of Ain Jalut. They had earlier fought the western European Christian Crusaders in 1154–1169 and 1213–1221, effectively driving them out of Egypt and the Levant. In 1302 the Mamluk Sultanate formally expelled the last Crusaders from the Levant, ending the era of the Crusades.[5][20]

While Mamluks were purchased as property,[2] their status was above ordinary slaves, who were not allowed to carry weapons or perform certain tasks. In places such as Egypt, from the Ayyubid dynasty to the time of Muhammad Ali of Egypt, mamluks were considered to be "true lords" and "true warriors", with social status above the general population in Egypt and the Levant.[5] In a sense, they were like enslaved mercenaries.[2][18][21]
...}

Most of the above is BULL CRAP ----something like a novel of "historic fiction" It is true
that the islamic invaders in the LEVANT used enslaved people as soldiers----and that's about
it. The FACT is that under the vile stench of shariah law non muslims (dhimmis) are barred from using "weapons" Enslaved people, OF COURSE, have been used as soldiers and cannon
fodder and such activities have afforded enslaved people various measures of "status"----even
in the USA civil war

 

[Richard-H]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

 

[TNHarley]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Do you understnd now?

 

[Richard-H]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

 

[TNHarley]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

All of you federal supremacists have the same argument and its so hilarious!
IDK if you know what "people" are. IDK if you ever read quotes from the people that WROTE the second. IDK if you realize in that time period, "well regulated", in this context, meant people have access to ammunition and their guns be in good working order. IDK if you realize the founders were against standing armies. Thats why they wanted the PEOPLE of the state, to protect it in times of need.
It seems you are completely ignorant on the subject. And thats ok! There are many other federal supremacists with the same lack of knowledge as you. Because if they had knowledge, they wouldnt be federal supremacists.
Im here to teach. I dont judge

 

[Richard-H]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

All of you federal supremacists have the same argument and its so hilarious!
IDK if you know what "people" are. IDK if you ever read quotes from the people that WROTE the second. IDK if you realize in that time period, "well regulated", in this context, meant people have access to ammunition and their guns be in good working order. IDK if you realize the founders were against standing armies. Thats why they wanted the PEOPLE of the state, to protect it in times of need.
It seems you are completely ignorant on the subject. And thats ok! There are many other federal supremacists with the same lack of knowledge as you. Because if they had knowledge, they wouldnt be federal supremacists.
Im here to teach. I dont judge

There were many arguments about the second amendment at the time it was written. You've chosen to cherry pick the ones that you agree with.

However, reading the amendment as it is stated supports my argument. Madison's style of writing was to separate descriptive phrases by commas.

 

[Rigby5]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

in Shariah law-----muslims can be fully armed-----non muslims are completely disarmed. Lots of our mass murderers observe shariah law

Wrong.
Sharia law is completely against weapon or gun control of any kind.
For example, the Mamalukes of Egypt were a sort of foreign legion of troops who were not Muslim, but were paid by Muslims to fight for them.
And in fact, the main armed forces who won battles for Mohammad, where Jews.
{...
mamaluke, or marmeluke) is a term most commonly referring to non-Arab, ethnically diverse (mostly Turkic, Caucasian, Eastern and Southeastern European) slave-soldiers and freed slaves to which were assigned military and administrative duties, serving the ruling Arab dynasties in the Muslim world.[2][4][5][6]

The most enduring Mamluk realm was the knightly military class in Egypt in the Middle Ages, which developed from the ranks of slave soldiers.[2][5] Originally the Mamluks were slaves of Turkic origin from the Eurasian Steppe,[2][5][6][7] but the institution of military slavery spread to include Circassians,[2][5][6][8] Abkhazians,[9][10][11] Georgians,[2][5][12][13][14] other peoples of the Caucasus,[2][5][6][15] and Russians,[6] as well as peoples from the Balkans such as Albanians,[5][16] Greeks,[5] and South Slavs[5][16][17] (see Saqaliba). They also recruited from the Egyptians.[18] The "Mamluk/Ghulam Phenomenon",[4] as David Ayalon dubbed the creation of the specific warrior class,[19] was of great political importance; for one thing, it endured for nearly 1,000 years, from the ninth to the nineteenth centuries.

Over time, Mamluks became a powerful military knightly class in various Muslim societies that were controlled by Arab rulers.[2] Particularly in Egypt,[2] but also in the Levant, Mesopotamia, and India, mamluks held political and military power. In some cases, they attained the rank of sultan, while in others they held regional power as emirs or beys. Most notably, Mamluk factions seized the sultanate centered on Egypt and Syria, and controlled it as the Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517).[2] The Mamluk Sultanate famously defeated the Ilkhanate at the Battle of Ain Jalut. They had earlier fought the western European Christian Crusaders in 1154–1169 and 1213–1221, effectively driving them out of Egypt and the Levant. In 1302 the Mamluk Sultanate formally expelled the last Crusaders from the Levant, ending the era of the Crusades.[5][20]

While Mamluks were purchased as property,[2] their status was above ordinary slaves, who were not allowed to carry weapons or perform certain tasks. In places such as Egypt, from the Ayyubid dynasty to the time of Muhammad Ali of Egypt, mamluks were considered to be "true lords" and "true warriors", with social status above the general population in Egypt and the Levant.[5] In a sense, they were like enslaved mercenaries.[2][18][21]
...}

Most of the above is BULL CRAP ----something like a novel of "historic fiction" It is true
that the islamic invaders in the LEVANT used enslaved people as soldiers----and that's about
it. The FACT is that under the vile stench of shariah law non muslims (dhimmis) are barred from using "weapons" Enslaved people, OF COURSE, have been used as soldiers and cannon
fodder and such activities have afforded enslaved people various measures of "status"----even
in the USA civil war

Wrong.
First of all, Sharia predated Mohammad and is Judaic law from the Old Testament.
Second is that most of Mohammad's armed forced when he attacked Mecca from Medina, where 11 of the 12 Hebrew tribes.
So at no time did Mohammad ever have a problem with other religions being armed.

 

[TNHarley]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

All of you federal supremacists have the same argument and its so hilarious!
IDK if you know what "people" are. IDK if you ever read quotes from the people that WROTE the second. IDK if you realize in that time period, "well regulated", in this context, meant people have access to ammunition and their guns be in good working order. IDK if you realize the founders were against standing armies. Thats why they wanted the PEOPLE of the state, to protect it in times of need.
It seems you are completely ignorant on the subject. And thats ok! There are many other federal supremacists with the same lack of knowledge as you. Because if they had knowledge, they wouldnt be federal supremacists.
Im here to teach. I dont judge

There were many arguments about the second amendment at the time it was written. You've chosen to cherry pick the ones that you agree with.

However, reading the amendment as it is stated supports my argument. Madison's style of writing was to separate descriptive phrases by commas.

No i didnt.
No it doesnt.
There is literally hundreds of quotes from the founders that back up my position. Do you have any?

 

[Rigby5]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

No, there never was really any sort of assault weapons ban.
What was called an "Assault Weapons Ban" in 1994 did not stop the manufacture or sale of domestic AR-15s.
All it did was to ensure the bayonet lug and flash suppressor were not installed.

But NO, there is no such thing as a right that is not inalienable and natural with birth.
Gun ownership is inalienable because it is the means by which people are able to defend themselves.
And the right of self defense does come with birth.
The fact you can have restrictions like no guns to be brought into a government building is because there you would endanger others if you were armed, and the building security already makes you safe enough so your own arms are unnecessary.
That is not an infringement on your inherent right of defense.

There actually can be no such thing as a constitutional right since rights have to already exist before they can be legislated.
Rights can neve be arbitrary, created, or destroyed.
What you may be thinking if that after the 14 amendment and the incorporation of the Bill of Rights, the idea being that if individual rights were so important that the feds had to be prohibited from infringing on them, then maybe states and municipalities should also be prohibited as well?
These are NOT rights created by the Constitution, but are an attempt to use the Bill of Rights to determine what some natural rights may be, by looking at the shadow these natural rights cast on the Bill of Rights. Its called the Penumbra Effect.

{...
In United States constitutional law, the penumbra includes a group of rights derived, by implication, from other rights explicitly protected in the Bill of Rights.[2] These rights have been identified through a process of "reasoning-by-interpolation", where specific principles are recognized from "general idea" that are explicitly expressed in other constitutional provisions.[3] Although researchers have traced the origin of the term to the nineteenth century, the term first gained significant popular attention in 1965, when Justice William O. Douglas's majority opinion in Griswold v. Connecticut identified a right to privacy in the penumbra of the constitution.[4]
...}

Penumbra (law) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I am a veteran of the United States Army. I served as a 12B (Combat Engineer) in the 37th Engineer Battalion, part of the illustrious 82nd Airborne Division

I cannot, for the life of me, understand why any civilian needs or wants to own an assault rifle. During OSUT (a form of initial training where Basic and AIT are rolled into one course), we learned that our rifles were deadly weapons, designed solely for killing the enemy on a battlefield. When we trained with our weapons, we had to shoot a "qualification" test. We were presented with forty popup targets, one after another at different distances, from fifty to three hundred meters, all in very quick succession. We had to kill at least twenty three targets to pass the test, but most of us, including those of us who never fired a gun before, easily shot thirty or more targets. All this was in the span of less than two minutes, and we even had to reload once in that time. I don't get why any civilian needs to kill thirty people in two minutes, unless he is deliberately causing carnage and mass death.

The civilian AR15 is just a M-4 carbine by any other name. The only difference is that it does not have burst capacity. That is not nearly as big a difference as the NRA makes it out to be. We never, ever used burst mode in the military, since it wasted ammo, was inaccurate, and generally useless. Besides for that difference, the AR 15 is the exact same as the M4. The M4's features are designed to kill a large number of people in a short amount of time, including a detachable magazine which allows for rapid reloading and a buffer tube and muzzle brake which dampens recoil, so that a shooter can fire off a large number of rounds with minimal affect on accuracy.

All the arguments about " I need my AR 15 for hunting" or "I need my Ar15 for self defense" are entirely ridiculous. The 5.56 Nato round, which the Ar15 uses, is designed to pierce body armor. Which deer wears body armor? And your fantasies about shooting fifteen home invaders at once is just that: a fantasy which will likely never happen. The only real purpose of the AR 15 in American society is to kill large numbers of clubgoers, schoolchildren, or innocent bystanders at a time.

And for those of you who claim that "my Ar15 will protect me from tyranny," guess what, you're wrong. In my time in the military, I saw that no civilian rebellion would ever stand a chance against us. We have M1 Abrams tanks which can survive multiple rocket hits. We have drones which can bomb your house while being controlled by a person a thousand miles away. If worst came to worst, we have nuclear weapons which can quickly bring a seceding city or state into the stone age.

let's also talk about concealed carry. You are civilians. You are not deployed to a foreign country halfway around the globe. You are not fighting basically an entire for the sake of securing their oil supplies. You are not under constant threat of attack from people defending their homes from foreign invaders.

Therefore, you have no reason to carry a gun in public. Nobody needs to carry a handgun into mcDonald's or into a bank. You are not in a war zone.

And don;t give me the bs that concealed carry decreases crime. It has been proven, by STANFORD UNIVERSITY, that concealed carry actually INCREASES violent crime:

Right-to-carry gun laws linked to increase in violent crime, Stanford research shows

Trust me, I used to be an NRA member myself when i was 18. I bought into the propaganda because i was stupid, uninformed, and thought it was fun to play with guns. After joining the military, I learned to treat firearms, especially assault rifles, as tools of death and destruction, something which should be kept out of most civilian hands.

The right wing claims to respect veterans, so please listen to the words of a former soldier. I trained with assault rifles. I carried an assault rifle as part of my job. I can tell you that the military M-4 and the Ar-15 are nearly identical, and that no civilian needs a weapon designed to kill dozens of people in a matter of minutes.

Thank you for your service. Xi and the CCP <3 you!

 

[irosie91]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

in Shariah law-----muslims can be fully armed-----non muslims are completely disarmed. Lots of our mass murderers observe shariah law

Wrong.
Sharia law is completely against weapon or gun control of any kind.
For example, the Mamalukes of Egypt were a sort of foreign legion of troops who were not Muslim, but were paid by Muslims to fight for them.
And in fact, the main armed forces who won battles for Mohammad, where Jews.
{...
mamaluke, or marmeluke) is a term most commonly referring to non-Arab, ethnically diverse (mostly Turkic, Caucasian, Eastern and Southeastern European) slave-soldiers and freed slaves to which were assigned military and administrative duties, serving the ruling Arab dynasties in the Muslim world.[2][4][5][6]

The most enduring Mamluk realm was the knightly military class in Egypt in the Middle Ages, which developed from the ranks of slave soldiers.[2][5] Originally the Mamluks were slaves of Turkic origin from the Eurasian Steppe,[2][5][6][7] but the institution of military slavery spread to include Circassians,[2][5][6][8] Abkhazians,[9][10][11] Georgians,[2][5][12][13][14] other peoples of the Caucasus,[2][5][6][15] and Russians,[6] as well as peoples from the Balkans such as Albanians,[5][16] Greeks,[5] and South Slavs[5][16][17] (see Saqaliba). They also recruited from the Egyptians.[18] The "Mamluk/Ghulam Phenomenon",[4] as David Ayalon dubbed the creation of the specific warrior class,[19] was of great political importance; for one thing, it endured for nearly 1,000 years, from the ninth to the nineteenth centuries.

Over time, Mamluks became a powerful military knightly class in various Muslim societies that were controlled by Arab rulers.[2] Particularly in Egypt,[2] but also in the Levant, Mesopotamia, and India, mamluks held political and military power. In some cases, they attained the rank of sultan, while in others they held regional power as emirs or beys. Most notably, Mamluk factions seized the sultanate centered on Egypt and Syria, and controlled it as the Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517).[2] The Mamluk Sultanate famously defeated the Ilkhanate at the Battle of Ain Jalut. They had earlier fought the western European Christian Crusaders in 1154–1169 and 1213–1221, effectively driving them out of Egypt and the Levant. In 1302 the Mamluk Sultanate formally expelled the last Crusaders from the Levant, ending the era of the Crusades.[5][20]

While Mamluks were purchased as property,[2] their status was above ordinary slaves, who were not allowed to carry weapons or perform certain tasks. In places such as Egypt, from the Ayyubid dynasty to the time of Muhammad Ali of Egypt, mamluks were considered to be "true lords" and "true warriors", with social status above the general population in Egypt and the Levant.[5] In a sense, they were like enslaved mercenaries.[2][18][21]
...}

Most of the above is BULL CRAP ----something like a novel of "historic fiction" It is true
that the islamic invaders in the LEVANT used enslaved people as soldiers----and that's about
it. The FACT is that under the vile stench of shariah law non muslims (dhimmis) are barred from using "weapons" Enslaved people, OF COURSE, have been used as soldiers and cannon
fodder and such activities have afforded enslaved people various measures of "status"----even
in the USA civil war

Wrong.
First of all, Sharia predated Mohammad and is Judaic law from the Old Testament.
Second is that most of Mohammad's armed forced when he attacked Mecca from Medina, where 11 of the 12 Hebrew tribes.
So at no time did Mohammad ever have a problem with other religions being armed.

"FIRST OF ALL" the statement "shariah predates Muhummad and is judaic law from the
Old Testament" is PSYCHOTIC What "12 Hebrew tribes" in arabia? I will help.----By
the USUAL manner that language is defined-----ie by ACCEPTED USAGE---the term SHARIAH
Law refers to islamic law as determined by muslim scholars who interpret the actions, recorded
words of Muhummad and the "KORAN" dictated to Muhummad by JIBRIL in the bat cave.
The body of laws and manner of Jurisprudence has as little to do with "JUDAIC" law as
does viking law. . In fact, Shariah is far more influenced by CANON LAW in the denial of
jews the right to own or use weapons-----and RIDE HORSES (or camels) Are you drunk?

 

[sartre play]

Talking about the right to own guns & not talking about the numbers who die from guns is just telling half the story. Gun owners should be in the main of people unhappy about the misuse of guns.

 

[Rigby5]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

That is not what the 2nd amendment says.
All it really says is that there is to be no federal weapons jurisdiction at all.
That is clear as you say, because obviously states need a militia.
But just because it did not say it in the 2nd amendment, it is no less true that cities also need posses and individuals also need to be able to protect their homes and family.
Giving one reason why something is true does not imply there are not many other reasons as well.
If A then B, and NOT A, does not imply NOT B.
That is because if C then B can also be true.
The need for the feds to be able to call on citizens for an armed militia is not the only reason why the feds were to be banned weapons jurisdiction.
In fact, it is an almost silly case, that the feds should not infringe upon its own future citizen soldiers.
Only a really foolish federal government would have done that in the first place.

States represent the people, but are not the people and it is the people who are the source of all rights, not states.
There is no such thing as state's rights.

 

[irosie91]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

in Shariah law-----muslims can be fully armed-----non muslims are completely disarmed. Lots of our mass murderers observe shariah law

Wrong.
Sharia law is completely against weapon or gun control of any kind.
For example, the Mamalukes of Egypt were a sort of foreign legion of troops who were not Muslim, but were paid by Muslims to fight for them.
And in fact, the main armed forces who won battles for Mohammad, where Jews.
{...
mamaluke, or marmeluke) is a term most commonly referring to non-Arab, ethnically diverse (mostly Turkic, Caucasian, Eastern and Southeastern European) slave-soldiers and freed slaves to which were assigned military and administrative duties, serving the ruling Arab dynasties in the Muslim world.[2][4][5][6]

The most enduring Mamluk realm was the knightly military class in Egypt in the Middle Ages, which developed from the ranks of slave soldiers.[2][5] Originally the Mamluks were slaves of Turkic origin from the Eurasian Steppe,[2][5][6][7] but the institution of military slavery spread to include Circassians,[2][5][6][8] Abkhazians,[9][10][11] Georgians,[2][5][12][13][14] other peoples of the Caucasus,[2][5][6][15] and Russians,[6] as well as peoples from the Balkans such as Albanians,[5][16] Greeks,[5] and South Slavs[5][16][17] (see Saqaliba). They also recruited from the Egyptians.[18] The "Mamluk/Ghulam Phenomenon",[4] as David Ayalon dubbed the creation of the specific warrior class,[19] was of great political importance; for one thing, it endured for nearly 1,000 years, from the ninth to the nineteenth centuries.

Over time, Mamluks became a powerful military knightly class in various Muslim societies that were controlled by Arab rulers.[2] Particularly in Egypt,[2] but also in the Levant, Mesopotamia, and India, mamluks held political and military power. In some cases, they attained the rank of sultan, while in others they held regional power as emirs or beys. Most notably, Mamluk factions seized the sultanate centered on Egypt and Syria, and controlled it as the Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517).[2] The Mamluk Sultanate famously defeated the Ilkhanate at the Battle of Ain Jalut. They had earlier fought the western European Christian Crusaders in 1154–1169 and 1213–1221, effectively driving them out of Egypt and the Levant. In 1302 the Mamluk Sultanate formally expelled the last Crusaders from the Levant, ending the era of the Crusades.[5][20]

While Mamluks were purchased as property,[2] their status was above ordinary slaves, who were not allowed to carry weapons or perform certain tasks. In places such as Egypt, from the Ayyubid dynasty to the time of Muhammad Ali of Egypt, mamluks were considered to be "true lords" and "true warriors", with social status above the general population in Egypt and the Levant.[5] In a sense, they were like enslaved mercenaries.[2][18][21]
...}

Most of the above is BULL CRAP ----something like a novel of "historic fiction" It is true
that the islamic invaders in the LEVANT used enslaved people as soldiers----and that's about
it. The FACT is that under the vile stench of shariah law non muslims (dhimmis) are barred from using "weapons" Enslaved people, OF COURSE, have been used as soldiers and cannon
fodder and such activities have afforded enslaved people various measures of "status"----even
in the USA civil war

oh gee-----now I understand-----RIGBY is a muslim. Muslims are actually taught that
the OT and the NT are just FRUDULENTLY PERVERTED VERSIONS OF THE REAL THING
WHICH (are you ready? ) IS THE KHARAHAN as dictated in the bat cave by JIBRIL.
Jibril is GABRIEL famous for meeting Jacob on the LADDER-----and changing his name
to ISRAEL after a little arm-wrestling.

 

[Rigby5]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

All of you federal supremacists have the same argument and its so hilarious!
IDK if you know what "people" are. IDK if you ever read quotes from the people that WROTE the second. IDK if you realize in that time period, "well regulated", in this context, meant people have access to ammunition and their guns be in good working order. IDK if you realize the founders were against standing armies. Thats why they wanted the PEOPLE of the state, to protect it in times of need.
It seems you are completely ignorant on the subject. And thats ok! There are many other federal supremacists with the same lack of knowledge as you. Because if they had knowledge, they wouldnt be federal supremacists.
Im here to teach. I dont judge

There were many arguments about the second amendment at the time it was written. You've chosen to cherry pick the ones that you agree with.

However, reading the amendment as it is stated supports my argument. Madison's style of writing was to separate descriptive phrases by commas.

I have NEVER heard of any arguments about the 2nd amendment at the time it was written.
I have only read that everyone pretty much agreed that to rebel from one corrupt collective government, only to allow another one to be even more abusive, would be insane.

The only time when the interpretation of the 2nd amendment changed and started looking like it could allow some federal weapons legislation was after 1906 or so, when the National Guard was created.
Only then did some people suggest that the 2nd amendment might have become moot.
But clearly rational people do not believe that, since there are still state, municipal, and individual needs for defensive arms.

 

[irosie91]

The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.

The Constitution was made to be amended.

Wrong.
The only mention of arms in the constitution is the prohibition against any federal weapons jurisdiction in the 2nd Amendment.
That is not granting or creating a right, and the constitution can't create rights.
Rights have to exist first, before we could have the authority to write a constitution or make a government.
It can be good to amend the Constitution, but not to reduce the restriction on federal weapons laws, but to restate them more strongly, since for some reason the existing restrictions are being ignored and the federal government is illegally legislating weapons restrictions.

There has already been federal bans on assault weapons, which have been upheld by the SCOTUS.

So apparently SCOTUS disagrees with you.

BTW - Pretty much all courts have recognized the difference between Constitutional rights and inalienable rights:

Inalienable rights are also known as 'natural' rights. People are born with these rights. Nobody is born with a gun, so gun ownership is NOT an inalienable right.

Let me teach ya something
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Do you understnd now?

Yes. Clearly the States have a Constitutional right to maintain a well-regulated militia. The States represent the people. The second and third parts of that statement describe the 'Well Regulated Militia'. You seem to think that there's the word 'AND' after the second comma. There is not.

All of you federal supremacists have the same argument and its so hilarious!
IDK if you know what "people" are. IDK if you ever read quotes from the people that WROTE the second. IDK if you realize in that time period, "well regulated", in this context, meant people have access to ammunition and their guns be in good working order. IDK if you realize the founders were against standing armies. Thats why they wanted the PEOPLE of the state, to protect it in times of need.
It seems you are completely ignorant on the subject. And thats ok! There are many other federal supremacists with the same lack of knowledge as you. Because if they had knowledge, they wouldnt be federal supremacists.
Im here to teach. I dont judge

There were many arguments about the second amendment at the time it was written. You've chosen to cherry pick the ones that you agree with.

However, reading the amendment as it is stated supports my argument. Madison's style of writing was to separate descriptive phrases by commas.

I have NEVER heard of any arguments about the 2nd amendment at the time it was written.
I have only read that everyone pretty much agreed that to rebel from one corrupt collective government, only to allow another one to be even more abusive, would be insane.

The only time when the interpretation of the 2nd amendment changed and started looking like it could allow some federal weapons legislation was after 1906 or so, when the National Guard was created.
Only then did some people suggest that the 2nd amendment might have become moot.
But clearly rational people do not believe that, since there are still state, municipal, and individual needs for defensive arms.

I am HORRFIED to find myself in agreement (at least partially) with Rigby on this point.
The second amendment came about really early in the developement of the Constitution ---
at a time when BRITS were still installing their own militias and mercenaries in DA COLONIES,
or at the very least-----the memories thereof were fresh

 

[Rigby5]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

in Shariah law-----muslims can be fully armed-----non muslims are completely disarmed. Lots of our mass murderers observe shariah law

Wrong.
Sharia law is completely against weapon or gun control of any kind.
For example, the Mamalukes of Egypt were a sort of foreign legion of troops who were not Muslim, but were paid by Muslims to fight for them.
And in fact, the main armed forces who won battles for Mohammad, where Jews.
{...
mamaluke, or marmeluke) is a term most commonly referring to non-Arab, ethnically diverse (mostly Turkic, Caucasian, Eastern and Southeastern European) slave-soldiers and freed slaves to which were assigned military and administrative duties, serving the ruling Arab dynasties in the Muslim world.[2][4][5][6]

The most enduring Mamluk realm was the knightly military class in Egypt in the Middle Ages, which developed from the ranks of slave soldiers.[2][5] Originally the Mamluks were slaves of Turkic origin from the Eurasian Steppe,[2][5][6][7] but the institution of military slavery spread to include Circassians,[2][5][6][8] Abkhazians,[9][10][11] Georgians,[2][5][12][13][14] other peoples of the Caucasus,[2][5][6][15] and Russians,[6] as well as peoples from the Balkans such as Albanians,[5][16] Greeks,[5] and South Slavs[5][16][17] (see Saqaliba). They also recruited from the Egyptians.[18] The "Mamluk/Ghulam Phenomenon",[4] as David Ayalon dubbed the creation of the specific warrior class,[19] was of great political importance; for one thing, it endured for nearly 1,000 years, from the ninth to the nineteenth centuries.

Over time, Mamluks became a powerful military knightly class in various Muslim societies that were controlled by Arab rulers.[2] Particularly in Egypt,[2] but also in the Levant, Mesopotamia, and India, mamluks held political and military power. In some cases, they attained the rank of sultan, while in others they held regional power as emirs or beys. Most notably, Mamluk factions seized the sultanate centered on Egypt and Syria, and controlled it as the Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517).[2] The Mamluk Sultanate famously defeated the Ilkhanate at the Battle of Ain Jalut. They had earlier fought the western European Christian Crusaders in 1154–1169 and 1213–1221, effectively driving them out of Egypt and the Levant. In 1302 the Mamluk Sultanate formally expelled the last Crusaders from the Levant, ending the era of the Crusades.[5][20]

While Mamluks were purchased as property,[2] their status was above ordinary slaves, who were not allowed to carry weapons or perform certain tasks. In places such as Egypt, from the Ayyubid dynasty to the time of Muhammad Ali of Egypt, mamluks were considered to be "true lords" and "true warriors", with social status above the general population in Egypt and the Levant.[5] In a sense, they were like enslaved mercenaries.[2][18][21]
...}

Most of the above is BULL CRAP ----something like a novel of "historic fiction" It is true
that the islamic invaders in the LEVANT used enslaved people as soldiers----and that's about
it. The FACT is that under the vile stench of shariah law non muslims (dhimmis) are barred from using "weapons" Enslaved people, OF COURSE, have been used as soldiers and cannon
fodder and such activities have afforded enslaved people various measures of "status"----even
in the USA civil war

Wrong.
First of all, Sharia predated Mohammad and is Judaic law from the Old Testament.
Second is that most of Mohammad's armed forced when he attacked Mecca from Medina, where 11 of the 12 Hebrew tribes.
So at no time did Mohammad ever have a problem with other religions being armed.

"FIRST OF ALL" the statement "shariah predates Muhummad and is judaic law from the
Old Testament" is PSYCHOTIC What "12 Hebrew tribes" in arabia? I will help.----By
the USUAL manner that language is defined-----ie by ACCEPTED USAGE---the term SHARIAH
Law refers to islamic law as determined by muslim scholars who interpret the actions, recorded
words of Muhummad and the "KORAN" dictated to Muhummad by JIBRIL in the bat cave.
The body of laws and manner of Jurisprudence has as little to do with "JUDAIC" law as
does viking law. . In fact, Shariah is far more influenced by CANON LAW in the denial of
jews the right to own or use weapons-----and RIDE HORSES (or camels) Are you drunk?

If you do not know that the 12 Hebrew tribes went to Arabia after the Roman Diaspora Decree, than you really don't know anything about Jewish history.
That is about the most significant time period in Jewish history.
All I can suggest is that you read up a little:

Did Prophet Muhammad kill 700 Jews? | Islam Ahmadiyya

www.alislam.org

Here are the tribe names:
{...
Some of the Jewish tribes of Arabia historically attested include:

• Banu Harith or Bnei Chorath[3][4][5]
• Banu Qaynuqa[3][4]
• Banu Shutayba[3][4]
• Jafna Clan of the Banu Tha'laba who were exiled members of the Banu Ghassan - while both tribes were not Jewish, they did have Jewish members; whereas the Jafna Clan was solely Jewish[3][4][6][unreliable source?]
• Banu Zaura[7]
• Banu Zurayq[3][4] In Islamic lore, Labid ben Asam was a Jewish sorcerer who cast a spell on Muhammad that made him ill for several months and prevented him from having sexual relations with his wives[8]
• Banu Quda'a — Himyarite tribe of converts to Judaism[9]
• Banu Qurayza — sub-clan of the al-Kāhinān, located in Yathrib (Medina)
• Banu Nadir — sub-clan of the al-Kāhinān, located in Yathrib (Medina)
• Banu Juw — sub-clan of the Banu Qaynuqa, Fled to North Africa.
• Banu Aws
• Banu Awf

...}

As to Sharia, thing like stoning adulterers is not in the Quran.
Clearly the Quran says that only beheading is to be used for executions, because it is quickest and least painful.
Stoning adulterers comes instead from the Judaic Old Testament.

There has never been any denial of weapons or horses to any religion, by Moslems.
In fact, when the Crusaders invaded, Jews fought along side Moslems against the Crusaders.
We know because they were massacred by the Crusaders when captured, and this is well recorded fact.

 

[Rigby5]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

in Shariah law-----muslims can be fully armed-----non muslims are completely disarmed. Lots of our mass murderers observe shariah law

Wrong.
Sharia law is completely against weapon or gun control of any kind.
For example, the Mamalukes of Egypt were a sort of foreign legion of troops who were not Muslim, but were paid by Muslims to fight for them.
And in fact, the main armed forces who won battles for Mohammad, where Jews.
{...
mamaluke, or marmeluke) is a term most commonly referring to non-Arab, ethnically diverse (mostly Turkic, Caucasian, Eastern and Southeastern European) slave-soldiers and freed slaves to which were assigned military and administrative duties, serving the ruling Arab dynasties in the Muslim world.[2][4][5][6]

The most enduring Mamluk realm was the knightly military class in Egypt in the Middle Ages, which developed from the ranks of slave soldiers.[2][5] Originally the Mamluks were slaves of Turkic origin from the Eurasian Steppe,[2][5][6][7] but the institution of military slavery spread to include Circassians,[2][5][6][8] Abkhazians,[9][10][11] Georgians,[2][5][12][13][14] other peoples of the Caucasus,[2][5][6][15] and Russians,[6] as well as peoples from the Balkans such as Albanians,[5][16] Greeks,[5] and South Slavs[5][16][17] (see Saqaliba). They also recruited from the Egyptians.[18] The "Mamluk/Ghulam Phenomenon",[4] as David Ayalon dubbed the creation of the specific warrior class,[19] was of great political importance; for one thing, it endured for nearly 1,000 years, from the ninth to the nineteenth centuries.

Over time, Mamluks became a powerful military knightly class in various Muslim societies that were controlled by Arab rulers.[2] Particularly in Egypt,[2] but also in the Levant, Mesopotamia, and India, mamluks held political and military power. In some cases, they attained the rank of sultan, while in others they held regional power as emirs or beys. Most notably, Mamluk factions seized the sultanate centered on Egypt and Syria, and controlled it as the Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517).[2] The Mamluk Sultanate famously defeated the Ilkhanate at the Battle of Ain Jalut. They had earlier fought the western European Christian Crusaders in 1154–1169 and 1213–1221, effectively driving them out of Egypt and the Levant. In 1302 the Mamluk Sultanate formally expelled the last Crusaders from the Levant, ending the era of the Crusades.[5][20]

While Mamluks were purchased as property,[2] their status was above ordinary slaves, who were not allowed to carry weapons or perform certain tasks. In places such as Egypt, from the Ayyubid dynasty to the time of Muhammad Ali of Egypt, mamluks were considered to be "true lords" and "true warriors", with social status above the general population in Egypt and the Levant.[5] In a sense, they were like enslaved mercenaries.[2][18][21]
...}

Most of the above is BULL CRAP ----something like a novel of "historic fiction" It is true
that the islamic invaders in the LEVANT used enslaved people as soldiers----and that's about
it. The FACT is that under the vile stench of shariah law non muslims (dhimmis) are barred from using "weapons" Enslaved people, OF COURSE, have been used as soldiers and cannon
fodder and such activities have afforded enslaved people various measures of "status"----even
in the USA civil war

oh gee-----now I understand-----RIGBY is a muslim. Muslims are actually taught that
the OT and the NT are just FRUDULENTLY PERVERTED VERSIONS OF THE REAL THING
WHICH (are you ready? ) IS THE KHARAHAN as dictated in the bat cave by JIBRIL.
Jibril is GABRIEL famous for meeting Jacob on the LADDER-----and changing his name
to ISRAEL after a little arm-wrestling.

No, I am Ashkenazi Jew, from Austria and the Netherlands.