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

[Crepitus]

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.

Which state is it that has a militia?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The National guard performs militia duties nowadays the regulated militia that served during the civil war and revolutionary war were abolished in 1901.

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.


What part of that can a liberals dumb ass not understand?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Most National Guard units don't even have the aforementioned assault rifles, but the much older M-16s.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

The National guard performs militia duties nowadays the regulated militia that served during the civil war and revolutionary war were abolished in 1901.

So which side of the forecast coming civil war will your National Guard fight on?

 

[Kondor3]

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.

Rubbish. The US population at-large is the last defense of the Republic and rightfully considered a militia at-large.

Regulating firearms ( including types and quantities and licensing and registration and controls, etc. ) is merely 'regulating' that 'militia' 'well'...

 

[Dragonlady]

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.

More pretzel logic from the party of twisted thinking. Reading the Constitution, the second Amendment says: "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." It doesn't say the "unfettered right of the people" shall not be infringed, so the law provides for regulation of gun rights. Only the right to own a gun is guaranteed.

And no you are not guaranteed the right to military grade weapons. Not to mention that while the technology existed to make repeating weapons, they were both difficult and expensive to make, and were not widely available until 1830. It took a minute to reload after firing and prepare for another shot. One mass shooter in the mid-West shot 30 people in 30 seconds with an AR15 a couple of years ago. Those guns should not be on the streets, and I'm thinking the Founders would be shocked and horrified and what has happened to the USA as a result of the 2nd Amendment.

A militia is defined as "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency". You have to be a member of a "well regulated militia" to have unfettered access to weapons under the Second Amendment. That would be the National Guard, so if you're Guard Member, you get to have a gun, but otherwise, not so much.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Why are all the right's gun arguments like bad movie plots? Just say you like having guns and shooting guns and that they make you feel safe. Kind of lacks the punch of your wild predictions of government tyranny, invasions of zombie-like urbanites invading suburbia and civil wars. I'm not in favor of most kinds of bans because they would not work but I'll be damned if I'm on the same side of this issue with people who live in fantasy land. Is just being real not a good enough argument in the face of our astounding gun violence death toll?

Correct.

There’s nothing more ridiculous than conservatives trying to ‘justify’ owning a firearm.

Citizens are not required to ‘justify’ the exercising of a fundamental right – such as the Second Amendment right – as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.

Conservatives need to stop with the hyperbole, demagoguery, and lies.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

Rubbish. The US population at-large is the last defense of the Republic and rightfully considered a militia at-large.

Regulating firearms ( including types and quantities and licensing and registration and controls, etc. ) is merely 'regulating' that 'militia' 'well'...

Regulated in this case is "organized".

 

[LuckyDuck]

The only legitimate militia is the National Guard, which is under the command of government. Only a duly-elected government has the authority to establish the regulations necessary for a "well regulated" militia and maintain it well. It is impossible for any other group, gang, club, whatever, to establish legitimacy because it cannot show that it has the approval of the state's citizens to represent them. It cannot be self-appointed or self-authenticating.

The various states National Guard contingencies ultimately answer to the "federal government." That's why the states had to provide their National Guardsmen overseas. Thus, if the federal government should become authoritarian/tyrannical (Communist/Socialist), the civilian populace is duty bound to form regulated militias and take up arms against those forces controlled by a federal government that no longer abides by the US Constitution and its Bill of RIghts.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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.

More pretzel logic from the party of twisted thinking. Reading the Constitution, the second Amendment says: "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." It doesn't say the "unfettered right of the people" shall not be infringed, so the law provides for regulation of gun rights. Only the right to own a gun is guaranteed.

And no you are not guaranteed the right to military grade weapons. Not to mention that while the technology existed to make repeating weapons, they were both difficult and expensive to make, and were not widely available until 1830. It took a minute to reload after firing and prepare for another shot.
Those guns should not be on the streets, and I'm thinking the Founders would be shocked and horrified and what has happened to the USA as a result of the 2nd Amendment.

A militia is defined as "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency". You have to be a member of a "well regulated militia" to have unfettered access to weapons under the Second Amendment. That would be the National Guard, so if you're Guard Member, you get to have a gun, but otherwise, not so much.

Military "assault weapons" have not been used in ANY mass shooting, you mental midget! Let's see a link to this shooting because it happened only in your pin-headed liberal dreams!

 

[fncceo]

Well form some damn militias and pass regulations on them

Way ahead of you.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Most National Guard units don't even have the aforementioned assault rifles, but the much older M-16s.

I bet the Units that were deployed to Iraq had more than assault rifles.

 

[BlindBoo]

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.

Rubbish. The US population at-large is the last defense of the Republic and rightfully considered a militia at-large.

Regulating firearms ( including types and quantities and licensing and registration and controls, etc. ) is merely 'regulating' that 'militia' 'well'...

Regulated in this case is "organized".

Training in how to fight

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Insist our legislators do their Job! We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

[toobfreak]

STUPID ****. The 2A refers to a right of the PEOPLE, free and clear of the government, to carry and bear arms against the GOVERNMENT

On August 7, 1794, President Washington issued a proclamation, calling out the militia and ordering the disaffected westerners to return to their homes. Washington's order mobilized an army of approximately 13,000 — as large as the one that had defeated the British — under the command of General Harry Lee, the then-Governor of Virginia and father of Robert E. Lee. Washington himself, in a show of presidential authority, set out at the head of the troops to suppress the uprising. This was the first use of the Militia Law of 1792 setting a precedent for the use of the militia to "execute the laws of the union, (and) suppress insurrections," asserting the right of the national government to enforce order in one state with troops raised in other states. Even more importantly, it was the first test of power of the new federal government, establishing its primacy in disputes with individual states. In the end, a dozen or so men were arrested, sent to Philadelphia to trial and released after pardons by Washington.

Stupid ****.

Yes, we all know you are a stupid ****. That "STUPID ****" tattoo on your forehead, and all the stupid **** posts that you make have clearly demonstrated that. No need to just randomly identify yourself as you did in #20

I love toobie, he makes me laugh.

Stupid *****, trolls and shitheads, the left all.

So what was your favorite part of our history when President Washington Commanded a State Militia?

Did it make you fell like you're a "Dumb ****"?

Dumb shit, a commander commanding his army has NOTHING to do with the kind of protected privater militias guaranteed by the Bill of Rights written long after the fact and confirmed by our own Supreme Court as an inalienable right, dumb shit! You are such a stupid shit you actually believe a government, already giving itself the right to command federal armies for the defense of our borders would again reiterate that same right in a separate document specifically naming the PEOPLE! What a stupid shit you are. You don't deserve to vote.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

I've been waiting for a long time for someone to explain to me what an "assault weapon" actually is.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Which state is it that has a militia?

Almost all states.
If you read the state constitution, most say something like that all male adults are automatically part of the militia.
That means they can be called upon at any time, for things like a posse.
But remember back then there were no police, so people were also expected to protect their own possessions.

 

[Crepitus]

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.

Which state is it that has a militia?

Almost all states.
If you read the state constitution, most say something like that all male adults are automatically part of the militia.
That means they can be called upon at any time, for things like a posse.
But remember back then there were no police, so people were also expected to protect their own possessions.

Proof?
"Well regulated"?

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

That comma in the 2nd Amendment must short circuit the lefts brain or something because you people always leave out everything after it.

 

[danielpalos]

STUPID ****. The 2A refers to a right of the PEOPLE, free and clear of the government, to carry and bear arms against the GOVERNMENT

On August 7, 1794, President Washington issued a proclamation, calling out the militia and ordering the disaffected westerners to return to their homes. Washington's order mobilized an army of approximately 13,000 — as large as the one that had defeated the British — under the command of General Harry Lee, the then-Governor of Virginia and father of Robert E. Lee. Washington himself, in a show of presidential authority, set out at the head of the troops to suppress the uprising. This was the first use of the Militia Law of 1792 setting a precedent for the use of the militia to "execute the laws of the union, (and) suppress insurrections," asserting the right of the national government to enforce order in one state with troops raised in other states. Even more importantly, it was the first test of power of the new federal government, establishing its primacy in disputes with individual states. In the end, a dozen or so men were arrested, sent to Philadelphia to trial and released after pardons by Washington.

Stupid ****.

Yes, we all know you are a stupid ****. That "STUPID ****" tattoo on your forehead, and all the stupid **** posts that you make have clearly demonstrated that. No need to just randomly identify yourself as you did in #20

I love toobie, he makes me laugh.

Stupid *****, trolls and shitheads, the left all.

So what was your favorite part of our history when President Washington Commanded a State Militia?

Did it make you fell like you're a "Dumb ****"?

Dumb shit, a commander commanding his army has NOTHING to do with the kind of protected privater militias guaranteed by the Bill of Rights written long after the fact and confirmed by our own Supreme Court as an inalienable right, dumb shit! You are such a stupid shit you actually believe a government, already giving itself the right to command federal armies for the defense of our borders would again reiterate that same right in a separate document specifically naming the PEOPLE! What a stupid shit you are. You don't deserve to vote.

What are you talking about? There is no right to form private militias of Individuals of the People. The People are the Militia. You are either well regulated or unroganized.