A well regulated militia.

[RWNJ]

There are those, mostly liberals, who believe that gun ownership should be restricted to militias; as per their interpretation of the Second Amendment. I would have no problem with this. I would simply join a militia. I would encourage every patriot to do the same. This would be a good thing, in my opinion. We would no longer be individual gun owners. We would be a trained group of gun owners. Something that would, no doubt, give liberals nightmares.

 

[OKTexas]

So tell me oh ignorant one, how are people who age out going to protect themselves and their families, do you really want people too old to be in a militia defenseless?

 

[Auld Phart]

I'm curious what RWNJ stands for?

Right Wing New Jersey?

 

[RWNJ]

So tell me oh ignorant one, how are people who age out going to protect themselves and their families, do you really want people too old to be in a militia defenseless?

If you are too old and decrepit to pull a trigger, then a gun wouldn't do you any good. Would it? Besides, they don't have to take the field to be useful. They could remain behind and protect friends and family. Still part of the militia. Still useful.

 

[RWNJ]

I'm curious what RWNJ stands for?

Right Wing New Jersey?

Right wing nut job. It's what everyone calls me, so I decided to make it a joke.

 

[OKTexas]

So tell me oh ignorant one, how are people who age out going to protect themselves and their families, do you really want people too old to be in a militia defenseless?

If you are too old and decrepit to pull a trigger, then a gun wouldn't do you any good. Would it? Besides, they don't have to take the field to be useful. They could remain behind and protect friends and family. Still part of the militia. Still useful.

Still living in fantasy land, have you bothered to actually read the Constitution? Congress establishes the training requirements and qualifications for militia service. Militias were intended to be a failsafe when we had no standing army and a failsafe for states if the feds got too ignorant. The "right of the people to keep and bear arms" in the 2nd is not related to militia service, it is to allow for self defense regardless of where the threat comes from.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Liberals are always saying the 2nd means you must be part of a citizens militia.

Yeah.....join the militia and come under intense government scrutiny.
Sounds like a blast!!!

Fucken idiots.

 

[ding]

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

[ding]

The 2nd Amendment is the last check against tyranny. The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

 

[Timmy]

The left wants sensible gun control . Not "gun bans". Right away you cons go to extremes.

 

[boedicca]

There are those, mostly liberals, who believe that gun ownership should be restricted to militias; as per their interpretation of the Second Amendment. I would have no problem with this. I would simply join a militia. I would encourage every patriot to do the same. This would be a good thing, in my opinion. We would no longer be individual gun owners. We would be a trained group of gun owners. Something that would, no doubt, give liberals nightmares.

You should have a big problem with this. The 2nd Amendment is an Individual Right, not a collective one. Well Regulated back in the Revolutionary Era meant "properly functioning" - not government regulated. In order for Individuals to be able to hold Government Accountable, they need to be free to own and learn how to use their weapons.

 

[boedicca]

The left wants sensible gun control . Not "gun bans". Right away you cons go to extremes.

"Sensible Gun Control" is to Abolishing the 2nd Amendment what ObamaCare is to Single Payer Nationalized Health Care.

Just sayin'.

 

[Auld Phart]

The left wants sensible gun control . Not "gun bans". Right away you cons go to extremes.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

The left wants sensible gun control . Not "gun bans". Right away you cons go to extremes.

The operative word being "control."


Shall not be infringed.

 

[Timmy]

The left wants sensible gun control . Not "gun bans". Right away you cons go to extremes.

"Sensible Gun Control" is to Abolishing the 2nd Amendment what ObamaCare is to Single Payer Nationalized Health Care.

Just sayin'.

Ummm . No it's not .

Is it so bad to keep guns away from crazies and criminals?

Or should we have them available out of vending machines ?

 

[Timmy]

The left wants sensible gun control . Not "gun bans". Right away you cons go to extremes.

The operative word being "control."


Shall not be infringed.

"Well regulated"

If you want to cherry pick lines .

 

[boedicca]

The left wants sensible gun control . Not "gun bans". Right away you cons go to extremes.

"Sensible Gun Control" is to Abolishing the 2nd Amendment what ObamaCare is to Single Payer Nationalized Health Care.

Just sayin'.

Ummm . No it's not .

Is it so bad to keep guns away from crazies and criminals?

Or should we have them available out of vending machines ?

Sensible Gun Control doesn't mean keeping guns away from Crazies and Criminals. They always find a way to get a gun if they really want one.

And what about all of the numerous gun control measures that are already in place? Aren't they SENSIBLE? If not, why not get rid of those as they are NOT SENSIBLE?

 

[boedicca]

The left wants sensible gun control . Not "gun bans". Right away you cons go to extremes.

The operative word being "control."


Shall not be infringed.

"Well regulated"

If you want to cherry pick lines .

Poor ignorant lil' Timmy. Try reading up on what that phrase meant in the late 18th century.

 

[Auld Phart]

The left wants sensible gun control . Not "gun bans". Right away you cons go to extremes.

"Sensible Gun Control" is to Abolishing the 2nd Amendment what ObamaCare is to Single Payer Nationalized Health Care.

Just sayin'.

Ummm . No it's not .

Is it so bad to keep guns away from crazies and criminals?

Or should we have them available out of vending machines ?

Is it so bad to keep guns away from crazies and criminals?

There are thousands of laws on the books already to prevent crazies and criminals from getting firearms.

AND THEY DON'T WORK

 

[Yousaidwhat]

The left wants sensible gun control . Not "gun bans". Right away you cons go to extremes.

The operative word being "control."


Shall not be infringed.

"Well regulated"

If you want to cherry pick lines .

Slick.

We have plenty of laws that are not being enforced.

Your intended control will not get us to agree.