Assault Weapons Ban would be unconstitutional. "A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"

[Lesh]

Perhaps you can name a state where private militias are legal.

The state of imagination of fanatical firearm fondlers. Elsewhere, the Constitution applies.

The U.S. Constitution and state laws use the term “militia” to refer to all able-bodied residents between certain ages who may be called forth by the government when there is a specific need; but private individuals have no legal authority to activate themselves for militia duty outside the authority of the federal or state government. The ... Second Amendment does not protect private militia activity, pointing to decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1886 and 2008 making clear that the Second Amendment “does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations.” ...​

​

All 50 states prohibit private, unauthorized groups from engaging in activities reserved for the state militia, including law enforcement activities. ​

​

Fact Sheets on Unlawful Militias for All 50 States Now Available from Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection

www.law.georgetown.edu

.​

The people are the militia they are the last defense against tyranny of the democrats

And you are an idiot.

and as always you're illinformed

So which states are private, non governmental approved militias legal in?

you don't allow tyrants sole authority over self-defense state or federal
That's why we have a second amendment

That's an interesting idea. Now, can you name a state that private militias are legal in?

North Carolina
G.S. 127A-7 The unorganized militia shall consist of all other able-bodied citizens of the State and of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have or shall declare their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be at least 17 years of age, except those who have been convicted of a felony or discharged from any component of the military under other than honorable conditions.

I'm not aware of any N. Carolina militias that have been in continuous existence since 1792.

North Carolina General Statutes § 127A-10 Corps entitled to retain privileges - Legal Research

North Carolina General Statutes includes North Carolina state laws on civil procedure, common law, evidence, criminal law, criminal procedure, offenses against public morals, motor vehicles, wills, landlord and tenant, divorce, and marriage.

law.onecle.com

View attachment 479249

Because you do not seem to know what the unorganized militia is.

From Heller:
"...the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. "

Essentially, the unorganized militia has always existed by definition.

The Dick Act established two classes of militia. The NG being one and the "unorganized militia" being the other.

It ONLY cover MALES 17-45. No one else. It also doesn't cover postal workers and a host of other exceptions

And Miller established that militia weapons CAN be regulated (machine guns etc.)

Personal protection was never part of the 2A until Scalia and his judicial activism in Heller

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Perhaps you can name a state where private militias are legal.

The state of imagination of fanatical firearm fondlers. Elsewhere, the Constitution applies.

The U.S. Constitution and state laws use the term “militia” to refer to all able-bodied residents between certain ages who may be called forth by the government when there is a specific need; but private individuals have no legal authority to activate themselves for militia duty outside the authority of the federal or state government. The ... Second Amendment does not protect private militia activity, pointing to decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1886 and 2008 making clear that the Second Amendment “does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations.” ...​

​

All 50 states prohibit private, unauthorized groups from engaging in activities reserved for the state militia, including law enforcement activities. ​

​

Fact Sheets on Unlawful Militias for All 50 States Now Available from Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection

www.law.georgetown.edu

.​

The people are the militia they are the last defense against tyranny of the democrats

And you are an idiot.

and as always you're illinformed

So which states are private, non governmental approved militias legal in?

you don't allow tyrants sole authority over self-defense state or federal
That's why we have a second amendment

That's an interesting idea. Now, can you name a state that private militias are legal in?

North Carolina
G.S. 127A-7 The unorganized militia shall consist of all other able-bodied citizens of the State and of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have or shall declare their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be at least 17 years of age, except those who have been convicted of a felony or discharged from any component of the military under other than honorable conditions.

I'm not aware of any N. Carolina militias that have been in continuous existence since 1792.

North Carolina General Statutes § 127A-10 Corps entitled to retain privileges - Legal Research

North Carolina General Statutes includes North Carolina state laws on civil procedure, common law, evidence, criminal law, criminal procedure, offenses against public morals, motor vehicles, wills, landlord and tenant, divorce, and marriage.

law.onecle.com

View attachment 479249

It's irrelevant if you are unaware or not
other than that pound sound bitch

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are a member of a State Militia? The 2nd Amendment has been misinterpreted for years.....and people like the GOPQ and the soon to be defunct NRA have taken advantage of the lie.

no dumbass the founders called the people the militia. The misinterpretation has been made by idiots like you.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Perhaps you can name a state where private militias are legal.

The state of imagination of fanatical firearm fondlers. Elsewhere, the Constitution applies.

The U.S. Constitution and state laws use the term “militia” to refer to all able-bodied residents between certain ages who may be called forth by the government when there is a specific need; but private individuals have no legal authority to activate themselves for militia duty outside the authority of the federal or state government. The ... Second Amendment does not protect private militia activity, pointing to decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1886 and 2008 making clear that the Second Amendment “does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations.” ...​

​

All 50 states prohibit private, unauthorized groups from engaging in activities reserved for the state militia, including law enforcement activities. ​

​

Fact Sheets on Unlawful Militias for All 50 States Now Available from Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection

www.law.georgetown.edu

.​

The people are the militia they are the last defense against tyranny of the democrats

And you are an idiot.

and as always you're illinformed

So which states are private, non governmental approved militias legal in?

you don't allow tyrants sole authority over self-defense state or federal
That's why we have a second amendment

That's an interesting idea. Now, can you name a state that private militias are legal in?

North Carolina
G.S. 127A-7 The unorganized militia shall consist of all other able-bodied citizens of the State and of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have or shall declare their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be at least 17 years of age, except those who have been convicted of a felony or discharged from any component of the military under other than honorable conditions.

I'm not aware of any N. Carolina militias that have been in continuous existence since 1792.

North Carolina General Statutes § 127A-10 Corps entitled to retain privileges - Legal Research

North Carolina General Statutes includes North Carolina state laws on civil procedure, common law, evidence, criminal law, criminal procedure, offenses against public morals, motor vehicles, wills, landlord and tenant, divorce, and marriage.

law.onecle.com

View attachment 479249

Because you do not seem to know what the unorganized militia is.

From Heller:
"...the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. "

Essentially, the unorganized militia has always existed by definition.

The Dick Act established two classes of militia. The NG being one and the "unorganized militia" being the other.

It ONLY cover MALES 17-45. No one else. It also doesn't cover postal workers and a host of other exceptions

And Miller established that militia weapons CAN be regulated (machine guns etc.)

Personal protection was never part of the 2A until Scalia and his judicial activism in Heller

there is no age restriction for the unorganized militia other than being older than17

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That it is up to the government to decide what is "common use" and that the founders meant that government should be better armed than the people contradicts everything ever written on gun rights by every founder who was involved in writing the Constitution

The words "common use" are not part of the 2A nor the Constitution.

Actually they are.

In US v. Miller, and as reaffirmed in Heller, whether or not a weapon is entitled to Constitutional protections is predicated on a determination of its being ‘in common use.’

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment:

‘Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”’

You are correct. That is the current state of constitutional jurisprudence.

I disagree with it's limitation, but that is the correct statement of law.

What should have been held, all the way back to Miller, is that the 2A is a limit on federal authority. That would have solved a whole lot of problems.

At the time of Miller, the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal government.

That was also the case at the time of Heller – which is why the case from DC was ideal for review, the District was a Federal entity subject to the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment wasn’t incorporated to the states and local jurisdictions until 2010 (see McDonald v. Chicago).

In fact, in many respects, McDonald is a more significant case than Heller, as prior to McDonald the states were at liberty to enact all manner of bans and restrictions with impunity.

And it’s at the state level that Second Amendment jurisprudence will continue to evolve; if the Supreme Court is going to rule that AR 15s are entitled to Constitutional protections, it will be the result of the Court striking down a state’s AWB – that wouldn’t be possible prior to McDonald.

wrong the second amendment was never written to give the federal government a second amendment right
The bill of rights are for citizens and tells the government what it cannot do.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

In order to be affective, a civilian led militia MUST possess weapons equal to those possessed by government.

Including missiles and nukes? I was listening to conservative icon Mark Levin talk about this last week and he would firmly disagree with you.

Well then; apparently Mark Levin doesn’t understand the purpose of a civilian comprised militia. Do you?

I’d love to hear you call in to his show and debate it with him.

Just to be clear you support civilians legally owning missiles and nukes. Is that correct?

And there we go the dumbest argument in the 2nd Amendment debate. "Do you want people to own a nuke". Not withstanding how much one costs you also have the storage and maintenance issues. You do know those things are radioactive ?

Its a hypothetical to showcase the absurdity of the argument that no regulations should be enforced and citizens should be able to own the same firepower that our military holds. This is what BrokeLoser was saying. He is an idiot, right?

I was in the military and none of the weapons I fired can be owned by civilians except for pre-ban M2 .50 cal and M-16 . If you can even find someone willing to sell either of those they are crazy expensive, you have to pass an exhaustive background check and find a dealer with a FFL license to sell automatic weapons to transfer it to. For the dealer they have to go through an expensive process that most don't even bother with .
If you got the time and money it can take a year or more before you get your hands on the firearm.

Do you agree with those regulations or do you think they should be lifted and those weapons should be easily accessible for civilians to obtain?

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

 

[bigrebnc1775]

An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.

No. The state retains the right to form a state militia, and to regulate it. That is commonly known as the State Guard. It is under the authority of state government, and can not be legally formed by random citizens usurping that authority. You and your buddies can't form a legal state militia just because you bought some guns and camo, and want to.

What law prohibits the formation of militias?

Here is the one for Texas. Other states are similar.
Const. art. I, § 24. Prohibition on private military units: Texas law makes it illegal for groups of people to organize as private militias without permission from the state.

It's illegal to "operate outside the states authority". That prohibits certain activities. It doesn't outlaw the existance of militias.

There are four militia groups in Texas, near as I can tell.

I think it's only three, the Texas Army National Guard, Texas Air National Guard, and Texas State Guard.

Anything else is just a gun club, who have to follow the same laws all other Texans do.

The NG has to follow the same laws as every other Texan, too. What's your point?

They are sanctioned by the state, and therefore legal.

Militias don't require a state sanction to merely exist.

Wrong.

and you're wrong

 

[Slade3200]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Perhaps you can name a state where private militias are legal.

The state of imagination of fanatical firearm fondlers. Elsewhere, the Constitution applies.

The U.S. Constitution and state laws use the term “militia” to refer to all able-bodied residents between certain ages who may be called forth by the government when there is a specific need; but private individuals have no legal authority to activate themselves for militia duty outside the authority of the federal or state government. The ... Second Amendment does not protect private militia activity, pointing to decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1886 and 2008 making clear that the Second Amendment “does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations.” ...​

​

All 50 states prohibit private, unauthorized groups from engaging in activities reserved for the state militia, including law enforcement activities. ​

​

Fact Sheets on Unlawful Militias for All 50 States Now Available from Georgetown Law’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection

www.law.georgetown.edu

.​

The people are the militia they are the last defense against tyranny of the democrats

And you are an idiot.

and as always you're illinformed

So which states are private, non governmental approved militias legal in?

you don't allow tyrants sole authority over self-defense state or federal
That's why we have a second amendment

That's an interesting idea. Now, can you name a state that private militias are legal in?

North Carolina
G.S. 127A-7 The unorganized militia shall consist of all other able-bodied citizens of the State and of the United States and all other able-bodied persons who have or shall declare their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be at least 17 years of age, except those who have been convicted of a felony or discharged from any component of the military under other than honorable conditions.

I'm not aware of any N. Carolina militias that have been in continuous existence since 1792.

North Carolina General Statutes § 127A-10 Corps entitled to retain privileges - Legal Research

North Carolina General Statutes includes North Carolina state laws on civil procedure, common law, evidence, criminal law, criminal procedure, offenses against public morals, motor vehicles, wills, landlord and tenant, divorce, and marriage.

law.onecle.com

View attachment 479249

Because you do not seem to know what the unorganized militia is.

From Heller:
"...the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. "

Essentially, the unorganized militia has always existed by definition.

Actually, not all able bodied men. During the debate over the second amendment there was almost nothing said about a right to self-defense. But much was said about who would be "required" to be in a militia. It was not even close to all able-bodied men. I have already mentioned that Catholics, indentured servants, and Quakers were not included. But the list is much longer. Doctors, millers, and members of the clergy were also exempted. Obviously, it was much more important to the founders to support individuals NOT OWNING A GUN, than it was for them to support everyone owning a gun for self-defense. That seems to be the reality that all the gun proponents ignore.

Second amendment debate? which one are you talking about?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So, no man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. Now, it does not say any arms, it does not say all arms. If assault weapons are banned, well that does not "debar" anyone of arms. There are still shotguns, handguns, and rifles

If you debar the use of a particular arm, isn't that debarring the use of arms! I don't know how you can justify it otherwise.

Hell no, how is that logical. The key word, "particular". Barring a "particular" arm does not in any way bar the use of arms. Hell, until 2007 Absinthe was banned in the United States. Did that mean that drinking was banned?

Banning AR's violates the Heller ruling.

Banning AR 15s does not ‘violate’ Heller.

Heller concerned solely the banning of handguns; the banning of other types of firearms was not subject to review.

Heller reaffirmed the individual right, the right to self-defense, and the right to possess a handgun pursuant to lawful self-defense:

“…handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid.”

in common use

 

[Slade3200]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

 

[schmidlap]

It's amusing to see the insecure gun-dependent fantasize about a mythical past once upon a time in the West when cowpokes could mince around with their man-enhancers displayed on their hips with impunity, naughty-talkin', tobacco-chewin' peacocks with a decidedly macho demeanor.

In actuality, the laws of Tombstone circa 1880 required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. Many legendary "wild west" cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.

it was recognized that the townsfolk had a right to protect themselves from the jiggy, rootin' tootin' galoots.

“The only thing that stops a bad guy with an easily-obtained gun
is a rich guy with a yacht!”

NRA leader took "security retreat" on yacht to Bahamas ​

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

Amen brother! On 51st street, 62nd street , main Street and wall street . "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" . As written .

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

It's amusing to see the insecure gun-dependent fantasize about a mythical past once upon a time in the West when cowpokes could mince around with their man-enhancers displayed on their hips with impunity, naughty-talkin', tobacco-chewin' peacocks with a decidedly macho demeanor.

In actuality, the laws of Tombstone circa 1880 required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. Many legendary "wild west" cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.

it was recognized that the townsfolk had a right to protect themselves from the jiggy, rootin' tootin' galoots.

View attachment 479571
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with an easily-obtained gun
is a rich guy with a yacht!”

NRA leader took "security retreat" on yacht to Bahamas​

Even guns can't protect us from you evil democrats ! Is that what your saying ? Your side is certainly violent. I hope every patriotic citizen takes heed and goes to their local gun shop and buys some cleaning products to keep their arms well regulated.

 

[Slade3200]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.

I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.

I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

A city doesn't have a right to violate the Constitution. Mayors, cops, council members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are exempt from the law of the land.

The increased murder rate proves the need for people to protect themselves outside their homes.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.

Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.

they are infringements which violates the second amendment

How so?

because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?

No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

Yes it is an infringement. permit's and or licenses to carry or own a firearm is also an infringement At this point it's no longer a right but a privilege which takes away the right

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's amusing to see the insecure gun-dependent fantasize about a mythical past once upon a time in the West when cowpokes could mince around with their man-enhancers displayed on their hips with impunity, naughty-talkin', tobacco-chewin' peacocks with a decidedly macho demeanor.

In actuality, the laws of Tombstone circa 1880 required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. Many legendary "wild west" cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.

it was recognized that the townsfolk had a right to protect themselves from the jiggy, rootin' tootin' galoots.

View attachment 479571
“The only thing that stops a bad guy with an easily-obtained gun
is a rich guy with a yacht!”

NRA leader took "security retreat" on yacht to Bahamas​

You want to disarm women so you can continue your rapist acts against them