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

[justinacolmena]

Gun rights are NOT a right wing thing at all.
The right wing always buys the government, so always relies on corrupting the police and military.
Gun rights is always a populist thing of the left.
ONLY right wingers want gun control, so they can control the population by force and intimidation.

You're full of shit straight out that Air Force court-martial office with your political "wings."
Trump is a populist. Not a leftist.
It is the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear Arms -- that is, to possess and carry firearms and other weapons -- which SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

 

[Rigby5]

Which is to say the gun rights of everyday ordinary citizen and very limited access to the modern weapons of war.

There is no definition of 'weapons of war' in the Constitution. You just made that up.

Nope that term has been around forever. Let me know where can buy a fully automatic assault rifle without any special licenses and fees! How about a .50 cal. saw? Think we all have access to those?

That is the point.
The government, who lies to us about Iraqi WMD, etc., is the LAST people who should have these weapons.
It would be much better if all citizens had those weapons instead of a mercenary military that openly lies and murders.
It is the mercenary government we should disarm, not average citizens.
It is the mercenary government that uses these arms to commit murder the most.
Average citizens rarely go off the deep end and kill 20 people or so.
The mercenary government lies and murders more than that every day.

 

[justinacolmena]

It would be much better if all citizens had those weapons instead of a mercenary military that openly lies and murders.
It is the mercenary government we should disarm, not average citizens.
It is the mercenary government that uses these arms to commit murder the most.

The Air Force isn't authorized to go on strike there.

 

[Rigby5]

Gun rights are NOT a right wing thing at all.
The right wing always buys the government, so always relies on corrupting the police and military.
Gun rights is always a populist thing of the left.
ONLY right wingers want gun control, so they can control the population by force and intimidation.

You're full of shit straight out that Air Force court-martial office with your political "wings."
Trump is a populist. Not a leftist.
It is the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear Arms -- that is, to possess and carry firearms and other weapons -- which SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Who cares what Trump is?
Trump has nothing to do with gun control or gun rights.
He is using populist rhetoric, but I would not say he was a leftist or relevant to the gun issue.

The point is that traditionally all dictatorships take over through armed police and military, and all dictatorships use gun control.
A democratic republic should never want gun control because that allows for a dictatorship to take over, using the corrupt police and military.

Gun control means you do not trust average people and want to control them.
That is not a democracy but an elite dictatorship.

 

[Rigby5]

It would be much better if all citizens had those weapons instead of a mercenary military that openly lies and murders.
It is the mercenary government we should disarm, not average citizens.
It is the mercenary government that uses these arms to commit murder the most.

The Air Force isn't authorized to go on strike there.

I don't follow your post.
The Air Force has never come up specifically that I remember, and what does "on strike" mean?
My point is that mercenary forces like the police and military, work for pay, and follow orders from those who are controlled by the wealthy.
That is inherently corrupt or corruptible.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Except a "well regulated militia" means that you have to allow the public to keep arms so that they have regular exposure to their use and handling.

How did you reach your conclusion? Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State not Individual Liberty or natural rights.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

once again the unorganized militia is not connected with the organized militia

Any governor can call and organize the unorganized militia at any time. Read your constitution.

not unless I give the ok for my group

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The unorganized militia is NOT owned or in anyway governed by the state.
It is mainly for personal home defense, in a time and place where there were no police and lots of threats.
When the state calls up from the unorganized militia, for a posse as an example, that is then the Organized Militia.
When ever any government calls up people for mandatory duty, that is organized militia.
The unorganized militia when when individuals protect their home by themselves.

And since the meaning of "regulating" in Founders terminology means to facilitate, then the governor of Michigan would be helping the unorganized militia by making them more regular. I am sure they would not mind being given a few machine guns.

Where do you get your right wing propaganda and rhetoric?

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.

So who removes a tyrant when they control the military?

Not Individuals of the People who are unconnected with the Militia. Congress has the power to impeach and remove even the chief magistrate of the Union.

Tyrants are only removed by force because they control the military

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your point?

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.

The militia has to handle gun-grabbing idiots like you as domestic enemies.

Only the "lazy" unorganized militia complains about gun controls laws.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

you're an ill-informed idiot out of his league maybe you should stick with making tacos in Mexico

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Except a "well regulated militia" means that you have to allow the public to keep arms so that they have regular exposure to their use and handling.

How did you reach your conclusion? Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State not Individual Liberty or natural rights.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

once again the unorganized militia is not connected with the organized militia

Your point?

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.

when the tyrant is governor of a state you remove them by force

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Not at all. We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well.

Since "regulate" means protect, facilitate, and keep regular, then I agree completely.

Unfortunately for you and those of your point of view; the law already covers and preempts your special pleading.

Besides, this is what it refers to: control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

no it does not mean control by the government
Tyrants love idiots like you

In right-wing fantasy, you are Always Right. Besides, it is right-wingers who make the best Russian tools.

In the real world, this is a controlling law of Government:

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Why did George Washington allow the whiskey rebellers to keep their firearms?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The unorganized militia is NOT owned or in anyway governed by the state.
It is mainly for personal home defense, in a time and place where there were no police and lots of threats.
When the state calls up from the unorganized militia, for a posse as an example, that is then the Organized Militia.
When ever any government calls up people for mandatory duty, that is organized militia.
The unorganized militia when when individuals protect their home by themselves.

And since the meaning of "regulating" in Founders terminology means to facilitate, then the governor of Michigan would be helping the unorganized militia by making them more regular. I am sure they would not mind being given a few machine guns.

Where do you get your right wing propaganda and rhetoric?

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.

So who removes a tyrant when they control the military?

Not Individuals of the People who are unconnected with the Militia. Congress has the power to impeach and remove even the chief magistrate of the Union.

Wrong.
Individual are superior to any body of government.
Not only are inherent individual rights the only legal basis for government, but all governments (in a democratic republic), are always created by the people. The people can not create that which is superior to them.
Doesn't matter if they are connected or unconnected with the organized militia, because as you keep pointing out, the People and the Militia are one in the same.

Congress does not have any power.
If the military goes corrupt, there is nothing congress will be able to do about it.
But the reality is that Congress is likely the most corrupt of all.
For example, it is congress that started every single illegal war the US has been in, which is about all of them since the War of 1812.

You have a First Amendment; gun lovers simply prefer to be Rebels without a Cause.

we have a first because of the second

 

[justinacolmena]

Gun control means you do not trust average people and want to control them.
That is not a democracy but an elite dictatorship.

Aww, shucks. You're telling me City Hall will allow us to keep the firearms the Feds are grabbing from us? How benevolent and kind of them!

San Francisco Police Officers Association – Dedicated to improving the working conditions of its members as well as being actively involved in the community we serve.

sfpoa.org

CPOA – California Peace Officers' Association

cpoa.org

 

[justinacolmena]

we have a first because of the second

That's right. You just have to shut up and hold your peace under omertà wherever guns are banned.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The unorganized militia is NOT owned or in anyway governed by the state.
It is mainly for personal home defense, in a time and place where there were no police and lots of threats.
When the state calls up from the unorganized militia, for a posse as an example, that is then the Organized Militia.
When ever any government calls up people for mandatory duty, that is organized militia.
The unorganized militia when when individuals protect their home by themselves.

And since the meaning of "regulating" in Founders terminology means to facilitate, then the governor of Michigan would be helping the unorganized militia by making them more regular. I am sure they would not mind being given a few machine guns.

Where do you get your right wing propaganda and rhetoric?

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.

So who removes a tyrant when they control the military?

Not Individuals of the People who are unconnected with the Militia. Congress has the power to impeach and remove even the chief magistrate of the Union.

Wrong.
Individual are superior to any body of government.
Not only are inherent individual rights the only legal basis for government, but all governments (in a democratic republic), are always created by the people. The people can not create that which is superior to them.
Doesn't matter if they are connected or unconnected with the organized militia, because as you keep pointing out, the People and the Militia are one in the same.

Congress does not have any power.
If the military goes corrupt, there is nothing congress will be able to do about it.
But the reality is that Congress is likely the most corrupt of all.
For example, it is congress that started every single illegal war the US has been in, which is about all of them since the War of 1812.

You have a First Amendment; gun lovers simply prefer to be Rebels without a Cause.

we have a first because of the second

Wrong.

It’s the First Amendment that keeps us free, not the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with ‘preventing tyranny’ – the Second Amendment safeguards the individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.

 

[justinacolmena]

It’s the First Amendment that keeps us free, not the Second Amendment.

Guns to back it up, or nothing we say counts for shit, you stupid asshole.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The only ones being disingenuous are right wingers. Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

No, lefties want central government control of everything and they are supporting Marxist principles. They are anti-American.

This is a lie.

Liberals have fought for decades in the courts at the ballot box to defend the rights and protected liberties of citizens from the hateful, authoritarian right.

It’s conservatives who advocate for more government, bigger government to violate the privacy rights of women, the equal protection rights of gay and transgender Americans, the due process rights of immigrants, the First Amendment rights of the press and social media, and the voting rights of minorities.

Conservatives seek to use the power and authority of government to compel conformity and punish dissent.

 

[justinacolmena]

Liberals have fought for decades in the courts at the ballot box to defend the rights and protected liberties of citizens from the hateful, authoritarian right.

That's the Democrat shadow goverment that rules through the labor union and City Hall. They're even worse than the feds when it comes to gun rights.

 

[danielpalos]

Unquestionably an absolute right pertaining to each and every individual.

Sure, when required by the security of our free States.

 

[danielpalos]

So what. You have no valid rebuttal, regardless of how many thoughts are in one sentence. All you have is nothing but diversion which is usually considered a fallacy.

I just proved to you that there can be two separate thoughts separated by a comma in one sentence which is the issue that was being discussed in that line in the 2nd amendment that you Marxists would like to re-define so you can confiscate guns from law abiding citizens. You keep avoiding the fact you got your ass handed to you. You fuckers are so desperate you want to pick on a ******* comma......

They are not that separate, if that is what you mean. Context matters. The first clause is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State. It is the End, not the Means.

One end does not imply there are not other goals as well.
Nor does it matter, because the means is supposed to be no federal gun laws. Period.

Not at all. There are no Individual or Singular terms in our Second Amendment; the security of a free State is collective and plural.

 

[danielpalos]

The unorganized militia is NOT owned or in anyway governed by the state.
It is mainly for personal home defense, in a time and place where there were no police and lots of threats.
When the state calls up from the unorganized militia, for a posse as an example, that is then the Organized Militia.
When ever any government calls up people for mandatory duty, that is organized militia.
The unorganized militia when when individuals protect their home by themselves.

And since the meaning of "regulating" in Founders terminology means to facilitate, then the governor of Michigan would be helping the unorganized militia by making them more regular. I am sure they would not mind being given a few machine guns.

Where do you get your right wing propaganda and rhetoric?

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.

So who removes a tyrant when they control the military?

Not Individuals of the People who are unconnected with the Militia. Congress has the power to impeach and remove even the chief magistrate of the Union.

Tyrants are only removed by force because they control the military

We have a form of democracy. Abolish your worthless and alleged and fake news, wars on crime, drugs, and terror so no tyrants will apply.