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.
no ones found him guilty of insurrection,,
The MILITIA consists of individuals (private citizens) and thus naturally includes/confirms their individual right - e.g. towards bearing arms.The Bill of Rights was never intended to protect a state's militia. They were individual rights.
it requires it to actually happen,,Actually, that's not true. The 14th Amendment doesn't require a criminal conviction in federal court. The Constitution simply requires due process. A state court, an administrative hearing...that's due process. If we're being literal here, let's be literal, then.
It's peculiar how you're an originalist with regard to the 14th Amendment, but not the 2nd.
it requires it to actually happen,,
youre getting off topic,,
it does require it to actually happen,,lol, you're exposed. Nothing in the constitution requires a conviction in federal criminal court.
it does require it to actually happen,,
got a link to a conviction in there??A state court decided he committed insurrection.
A secretary of state decided he committed insurrection.
Due process. Therefore, technically, in the eyes of the law, it happened.
got a link to a conviction in there??
all you have is the opinion of a leftist,,
not how it works,,,Again, not sure why this is so hard to understand.
Colorado SCOTUS ruled in a civil suit that Trump committed insurrection.
In Maine the Secretary of Sate came to a similar conclusion.
The 14th Amendment says nothing about needing a criminal conviction.
No government will protect the liberties of its citizens. The framers knew that and built in all the checks and balances that liberals have spent since 1913 eliminating or bypassing. The appointed senators were supposed to be a check on the elected House of Representatives, they were a check on the Presidency and the courts were a check on the first two.I honestly don't think we can ever trust the government to protect our Liberties.
For instance, just look at those two dizzy idiots Gay Barry appointed to the Supreme Court and that dumbass low IQ DEI Negro that Potatohead appointed. They will never protect our Liberties.
We can't trust the Executive Branch, the Legislative Branch or the Judicial Branch to protect individual Liberty. Just look at what the Executive and Judicial Branches are doing to Trump and the Patriots that protested against a stolen election. Meanwhile they didn't do jackshit about the 2020 Negro Insurrection that caused tremendous damage to this country. They aren't even protecting the American people from a massive invasion of the Southern border.
Lool at the States and Locals that are ignoring the Heller, McDonald and Bruen rulings.
The Founding Fathers knew that we could never trust government and that is the main reason we have the Second Amendment.
LOL sentence structure means that the first part is unimportant as per an expert on the english language. All the first part does is suggest one thing of what is many that the second part applies too.You left off the first part of that sentence. Maybe go back to grammar school and learn about sentence structure and embedded meaning, lol.
LOL sentence structure means that the first part is unimportant
as per an expert on the english language.
All the first part does is suggest one thing of what is many that the second part applies too.
not how it works,,,
The MILITIA consists of individuals (private citizens) and thus naturally includes/confirms their individual right - e.g. towards bearing arms.
Since not everyone living in the frontier area was a militia member - but faced the factual threat of wild life, and Injunis wanting their land back, no one bothered nor forbade them to bear arms. In view of the latter, it was therefore in the US governments foremost interest for private citizens to own arms, to rob them Injuins of their lands and wipe or drive them out.
You still hunting Injuins on your weekends?
For anything else call the police, sheriff, the NG or the US Armed Forces, or e.g. a Park-ranger.
the only one full of shit is you the controlling phrase is the second and the first is just what of many things it can be for.Oh really, so why the fuck did James Madison write it, and why the fuck did Congress debate it and take nearly two years before they finally ratified that amendment with that specific language? See, I can't take you seriously when you write nonsensical shit like this.
You're not. I actually am, as I taught university-level communication for more than a decade before switching careers.
You're full of shit. Just stop.
the only one full of shit is you the controlling phrase is the second and the first is just what of many things it can be for.
you say that but its clear you dont know what that means,,Now how what works? I'm agreeing with you that we should use originalism to interpret the Constitution's originally intended meaning. I'm an originalist, which is what true conservatives used to be. Lately, though, they've become mythologists.
And when the first amendment was written there was no television, radio, or national medium for it, there wasn't even a pony express, using your line of "thinking" [that is being so kind and generous] as a guideline the obvious intent would then be that "freedom of press" was only meant to exist at the local [town] level.the guns at the time were -
There are no courts or judges in Article 1. Administrative hearings enforce Gov't fiats, be it executive or legislative.A state court, an administrative hearing...that's due process. If we're being literal here, let's be literal, then.
[sigh]...... the guns at the time were -
Revolutionary War Guns | Facts, Information & History
These revolutionary war guns are the firearms most represented throughout the course of the revolutionary war. Find out more facts & information.www.revolutionary-war.net
