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.
Exactly - Shay's Rebellion, 1787What do you think they used to put down Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion
Moron
Only government owned arms were kept in armories. Read the various militia laws from both the states and the federal government, they all say the member is required to provide his own weapon, powder and shot AND they specify minimum quantities. Look it up yourself because you won’t believe anything anyone else shows you.I believe, anyone with some understanding towards firearms and the 2nd A towards a required Militia - knows this.
"Military"flintlock hand-weapons were also stored in the armory, since not everyone's private "firearm" was suitable for a war, aka for a Militia.
Only Rambo wannabe, gun-weirdos, additionally plagued with conspiracy illness - live in denial.
BRITISH cannon. You dolt.Exactly - Shay's Rebellion, 1787
With the Militia at the time being nothing else but the extended arm of the US governments Army or today's National Guard
So much for the gun wackos fantasy, "to defend against an own oppressive government"
Quite a few frontier forts had cannon. I’m not talking about army forts, but places like Boonsboro in Kentucky.Nope. In their homes. There were bulk quantities of powder in the armory so that the people could replenish their supply. But EVERYONE was armed back then.
And there were no cannon save for one PRIVATE organization. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston.
You too are historically inaccurate.
Do you remember what the colonials who fought at Lexington and Concord were called? MINUTEMEN. They could respond instantly because their weapons and powder were kept at home.Of course there was cannon you dolt.
What do you think Lexington and Concord was about?
What do you think they used to put down Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion
Moron
Yes, but they were given by the British. They still belonged to the British.Quite a few frontier forts had cannon. I’m not talking about army forts, but places like Boonsboro in Kentucky.
That's exactly as to what I had stated you dolt.Only government owned arms were kept in armories.
Right - and who is TODAY'S, US MILITIA??? it doesn't exist - it's called National GuardRead the various militia laws from both the states and the federal government, they all say the member is required to provide his own weapon, powder and shot AND they specify minimum quantities. Look it up yourself because you won’t believe anything anyone else shows you.
That's exactly as to what I had stated you dolt.
Right - and who is TODAY'S, US MILITIA??? it doesn't exist - it's called National Guard
As such in your own conviction towards your above statement - non-Militia members do not have an "right" to bear arms. - not even to mention Ammo.
The 2nd A - only applies towards an armed citizenry that is registered, and thus can be delegated towards serving in a Militia. E.g. the British-US war of 1812-15 - with an exception; the Militia was formed via MARTIAL LAW in New-Orleans - by Jackson. Thus commanding every legible man (with or without arms) to join the Militia.
And as I had stated numerous times - nobody cared about some Frontier Jim in 1783 - shooting wildlife and Injuins.
If you want to remain in a 18th century frontier world - then go and look for one.
As for your Minutemen - they existed before the 2nd A came in.
Minuteman, in U.S. history, an American Revolution militiaman who agreed to be ready for military duty “at a minute’s warning.”
A militiamen - not some runaround crackpot gunslinger colonialist.
The first minutemen were organized in Worcester county, Massachusetts, in September 1774, when revolutionary leaders sought to eliminate Tories from the old militia by requiring the resignation of all officers and reconstituting the men into seven regiments with new officers.
On July 18, 1775, the Continental Congress recommended that other colonies organize units of minutemen; Maryland, New Hampshire, and Connecticut are known to have complied.
And the 2nd A was written in 1790 and ratified in 1791. Clearly and undeniably - only in regards to Militia members.
There is no Militia in today's USA - due to the NATIONAL GUARD.And you love to harp on the militia, the militia is EVERY man between 16 and 65.
There is no Militia in today's USA - due to the NATIONAL GUARD.
Who commanded and controlled the US Militia in e.g. 1820? some private weirdo, or the US government?
As such those, self declared citizen militias (99% MAGA's) are illegal. It's YOU people, who threaten democracy and other peoples "rights" via a show and demonstration of a weaponized horde of nuts.
You guys are the main reason, as to why I will NOT surrender my guns.
Militia groups have for years argued that their actions are constitutionally protected. But legal analysts say the Constitution does not protect private military groups that are unconnected to or outside the authority of the government. In fact, all 50 states prohibit and restrict private militia groups and militia activity with several different kinds of laws as well as provisions included in most state constitutions.
LOL retard learn the english language. The sentence does not say that one must be a member of a militia to possess and use arms. Further the Supreme Court already ruled it is an individual right not dependent on a person belonging to a militia.That's exactly as to what I had stated you dolt.
Right - and who is TODAY'S, US MILITIA??? it doesn't exist - it's called National Guard
As such in your own conviction towards your above statement - non-Militia members do not have an "right" to bear arms. - not even to mention Ammo.
The 2nd A - only applies towards an armed citizenry that is registered and trained, and thus can be delegated towards serving in a Militia in the event of a war. E.g. the British-US war of 1812-15 - with an exception; the Militia was formed via MARTIAL LAW in New-Orleans - by Jackson. Thus commanding every legible man (trained or untrained with or without arms) to join the Militia.
And as I had stated numerous times - nobody cared about some Frontier Jim in 1783 - shooting wildlife and Injuins.
If you want to remain in a 18th century frontier world - then go and look for one.
As for your Minutemen - they existed before the 2nd A came in.
Minuteman, in U.S. history, an American Revolution militiaman who agreed to be ready for military duty “at a minute’s warning.”
A militiamen - not some runaround, untrained crackpot gunslinger colonialist.
The first minutemen were organized in Worcester county, Massachusetts, in September 1774, when revolutionary leaders sought to eliminate Tories from the old militia by requiring the resignation of all officers and reconstituting the men into seven regiments with new officers.
On July 18, 1775, the Continental Congress recommended that other colonies organize units of minutemen; Maryland, New Hampshire, and Connecticut are known to have complied.
And the 2nd A was written in 1790 and ratified in 1791. Clearly and undeniably - only in regards to a Militia and as such only to Militia members.
If there would be a Militia - there is none, then it would be under the direction and control of the government - aka the respective state.Wrong. The Militia is STILL every able bodied man from 16 to 65. It has never gone away, nor will it.
Tests are unconstitutional for a right. But why you ask? Because whomever decides what the test will be can craft it to exclude whomever they wish.If there would be a Militia - there is none, then it would be under the direction and control of the government - aka the respective state.
Therefore free to enforce whatever laws deemed necessary.
All I am saying is:
1. a respective SC - especially under lefty-democratic rule can simply "eliminate"/amend the 2nd A
2. I personally have absolutely no problem with a Gun License test - that would solve most of the problems related to the misuse of firearms.
Why you have a problem with a Gun License Test - only you know.
Abortion was not banned it was returned to the States where it belongs.
Not if a constitutional right is respectively amended, and Where does it state in the 2nd amendment - that mentally challenged people or e.g. convicted people are excluded from bearing arms?Tests are unconstitutional for a right.
Never heard of an e.g. Driver License Test being "crafted" to exclude, "whomever" from obtaining/passing it.But why you ask? Because whomever decides what the test will be can craft it to exclude whomever they wish.
firearms are a right abortion is notare we going to turn over gun rights to the states?
No politics in driver's license dumb ass. Ever hear about how the south excluded blacks from voting with their tests to vote? Of course you are too stupid to know the Supreme Court already ruled on that.Not if a constitutional right is respectively amended, and Where does it state in the 2nd amendment - that mentally challenged people or e.g. convicted people are excluded from bearing arms?
Yet they are "rightfully" excluded, forbidden to posses arms.
And in order to get a physiological evaluation - one needs to be tested.
Never heard of an e.g. Driver License Test being "crafted" to exclude, "whomever" from obtaining/passing it.
If there would be a Militia - there is none, then it would be under the direction and control of the government - aka the respective state.
Therefore free to enforce whatever laws deemed necessary.
All I am saying is:
1. a respective SC - especially under lefty-democratic rule can simply "eliminate"/amend the 2nd A
2. I personally have absolutely no problem with a Gun License test - that would solve most of the problems related to the misuse of firearms.
Why you have a problem with a Gun License Test - only you know.
Not if a constitutional right is respectively amended, and Where does it state in the 2nd amendment - that mentally challenged people or e.g. convicted people are excluded from bearing arms?
Yet they are "rightfully" excluded, forbidden to posses arms.
And in order to get a physiological evaluation - one needs to be tested.
Never heard of an e.g. Driver License Test being "crafted" to exclude, "whomever" from obtaining/passing it.
Just as he has a right to own and use the AR15 in his safe.Therefore an unloaded Musket hanging over "Frontier Jim's, cabin fireplace - is a WEAPON. to which he has a constitutional right.
Ammunition is an integral component to the right to arms without which the right to own and use a firearm cannot be meaningfully exercised.Therefore no one has a "right" towards ammo...
Nonsense.The 2nd A is NOT in anyway - connected to the "right of self-defense" via e.g. firearms.
Because the right to keep and bear arms necessarily relates to uses outside service in the militia -- no one, see, has the right to serve in the militia.But the latter was simply introduced as a separate law, in view of millions of firearms with AMMO, being around, and being used for non-Militia related issues.
Let me know when you get 38 states to agree with you.As such I personally prefer a "regulation amendment" towards "arms" (aka a gun-holder license test
Where did those private individuals who owned cannon store the guns, the shot and the powder?Guess where they stored the canon and shot and powder for that militia?
