Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
That it was disbanded is irrelevant to the issue.No...The professional army was federal, while the militias were strictly state-run organizations.Original intent had the army made up of people from the militias.
We weren't meant, at least constitutionally, to have professional soldiers.
A professional army was provided for in the Constitution and its funding is limited to 2-year periods....You can look it up.
Oh right.
Which is why the Continental army was disbanded.
No professional army is provided for..
Okay, smartass, then you can own 1-2 of these ARMS:
And after you pass the background test... 1 of these:
Fine if we use your logic then you have no freedom of speech on the internet, on a computer or phone. Further you have no right to privacy while using a phone, the internet or any other modern device.
As per the Bush administration..
You don't.
its conservatives not understanding it thats the problem, nowhere does it say people can have guns, never.
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.
Seems simple... a little too simple... So of course it must actually mean you ~!don't!~ have the right to bear arms... Yes, that's it!
It says "the people", i.e. a complete gun ban would be unconstitutional. It does not prohibit preventing certain individuals from owning weapons. So, things like licenses and background checks are only common sense methods for making sure they don't fall into the wrong hands. If the amendment was meant to be universal, they would have used the word "person", as found in other amendments.
The intent behind this was for the American People to have the ability to form a militia should their own government become too oppressive and thus have the ability to protect themselves. The abuses are in the history of all of Europe and the great minds which came from all of those countries knew it had to be a part of this new nation. The individual had to have the means to defend himself against his own government. It's pretty damn plain.
No it wasn't.
Congress has the power to call out the militia to suppress insurrection.
Read the Constitution.
Helps if you actually read the Constitution.
To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;
Article I | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.
and this part is mentioned in the constitution where ? Ill save you the bother its not
Fine if we use your logic then you have no freedom of speech on the internet, on a computer or phone. Further you have no right to privacy while using a phone, the internet or any other modern device.
As per the Bush administration..
You don't.
Then after the expansion of the Bush administration they can kill you even if your a US citizen, or just toss you in jail for umm, ever... until they figure out a reason why they put you there. Tell us swallow, what horrible policies of Bush and the evil Republicans did the Dems and their Demi-God Obama repeal? Hell, you can just start crapping out a list like unwanted diarrhea when it comes to Bush era policies Dems and Obama expanded upon
No it wasn't.
Congress has the power to call out the militia to suppress insurrection.
Read the Constitution.
Helps if you actually read the Constitution.
Article I | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute
You suck at this..
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
it gives the right to bear arms to a "well regulated militia", not to people, not to individuals or home or business owners, that was to legislate for the raising of a police force. lawyers argued that you or your house or your family could be considered a militia, which is why you have guns now, but that was never the intention and its not even what the constitution says.
USSC disagrees with you, comrade.
USSC disagrees with you, comrade.
Yet many on the idiot fringe where odd-dude resides argue Marbury v. Madison is flawed; no where in the Constitution is the authority/power given to the USSC to decide on the Constitutionality of a law.
How about that odd-dude? Where do you stand, with the idiot fringe or on their far edge?
how the hell does anyone think a gun protects them from the us govt in 2012 jesus christ, have you seen the guns theyve got, it hasnt protected al qaeda very well has it
USSC disagrees with you, comrade.
Yet many on the idiot fringe where odd-dude resides argue Marbury v. Madison is flawed; no where in the Constitution is the authority/power given to the USSC to decide on the Constitutionality of a law.
How about that odd-dude? Where do you stand, with the idiot fringe or on their far edge?
Obamacare is a socialist policy fool. Whatch your mouth libtard idiot.who were allowed to bear arms in their work with the militia once it was raised, the police force is also made up of private citizens, so is the air force so should everyone be able to have a stealth bomber ?
ps - there are no socialist policies in america and even if there were a gun couldnt protect you from them you fucking clown
I have a degree in politics. you dont know what socialism is.
USSC disagrees with you, comrade.
Yet many on the idiot fringe where odd-dude resides argue Marbury v. Madison is flawed; no where in the Constitution is the authority/power given to the USSC to decide on the Constitutionality of a law.
How about that odd-dude? Where do you stand, with the idiot fringe or on their far edge?
Not true. The Constitution specifically states that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction on any matter between a State and the Federal Government and between an individual and the federal Government.
Yet many on the idiot fringe where odd-dude resides argue Marbury v. Madison is flawed; no where in the Constitution is the authority/power given to the USSC to decide on the Constitutionality of a law.
How about that odd-dude? Where do you stand, with the idiot fringe or on their far edge?
Not true. The Constitution specifically states that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction on any matter between a State and the Federal Government and between an individual and the federal Government.
You idiot, Judicial Review is the issue at hand.
lol you need to educate yourself about socialism.
as for the supreme court they interpreted that individuals can be considered militias, so can have guns. clearly individuals are not militias, ergo the constitution says no guns for individuals.
USSC disagrees with you, comrade.
Yet many on the idiot fringe where odd-dude resides argue Marbury v. Madison is flawed; no where in the Constitution is the authority/power given to the USSC to decide on the Constitutionality of a law.
How about that odd-dude? Where do you stand, with the idiot fringe or on their far edge?
You might want to read Article 3, Section 2. Ya might learn something.
Yet many on the idiot fringe where odd-dude resides argue Marbury v. Madison is flawed; no where in the Constitution is the authority/power given to the USSC to decide on the Constitutionality of a law.
How about that odd-dude? Where do you stand, with the idiot fringe or on their far edge?
You might want to read Article 3, Section 2. Ya might learn something.
Quote wherein Judicial Review is listed as a power provided to the USSC?
Read this or any article on Judicial Review:
Marbury v. Madison and the Establishment of Judicial Review
That means that Heller is the law of the land, tovarich.Yet many on the idiot fringe where odd-dude resides argue Marbury v. Madison is flawed; no where in the Constitution is the authority/power given to the USSC to decide on the Constitutionality of a law.
How about that odd-dude? Where do you stand, with the idiot fringe or on their far edge?
You might want to read Article 3, Section 2. Ya might learn something.
Quote wherein Judicial Review is listed as a power provided to the USSC?
Read this or any article on Judicial Review:
Marbury v. Madison and the Establishment of Judicial Review
