Constitution hating lefties in the military

[daveman]

Who want Americans forcibly disarmed

Bateman On Guns - It's Time We Talk About Guns - Esquire

You righties are so gullible.

It's wa-aay to easy to "gin" you up.

Someone takes a gun away from anyone for good reasons and you flip out.

F - off. This is OUR country now.

2014 -- taking back the house.

2016 Hilary takes the WH.

GOP RIP

Your country?

It belongs to ALL Americans...not just the ones you agree with.

So kindly **** off with your one-party-rule wannabe totalitarianism.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

A Well Regulated Militia, Being Necessary To The Security Of A Free State..." did not matter. In other words, they flunked basic high school history.

Read more: Bateman On Guns - It's Time We Talk About Guns - Esquire
Follow us: @Esquiremag on Twitter | Esquire on Facebook
Visit us at Esquire.com

Yup.

Pretending that the introdictory clause in that sentence has NO PURPOSE is absolutely necessary if one wants to insist that the 2nd Amendment means nothing EXCEPT that American can have guns.

Think I am wrong?>

Then explain to me why the Founding Fathers bothered to put that introductory clause on the sentence in the first place.

Per usual we find that the propagandists must first violate our language in order to advance their lies.

The vast majority of "militia" INCLUDING in the Founders time, were not members of an organized force but were simply citizens available to be called up as needed. The 2nd establishes two rights, one is to the State stating each State may have a militia and that the Federal Government may not outlaw them, the second right is to EACH individual citizen living in the Country and is a right to own, possess and bear arms for the purpose of the militia that may or may not be formed.

The refusal of the State to form a militia or to limit it to that which the Federal Government controls does not diminish the rights of the Individual. As evidenced by US Law that establishes that all males aged 17 to 45 are members of the Unformed militia of the Country.

 

[JoeB131]

So?


You just want to see the vagina punished, don't you?

Seriously, dude, reading your posts is like reading one of those 19th century pyschological books about sexual psychosis....

Considering you don't want women to be able to defend themselves against rapists, you have no business claiming other people hate the vagina.

Like I said, I know a lady who kept a gun in her house to protect herself from "rapists".

And she came home one night and found her teenage son had shot himself with it.

As a result, she and her husband divorced, her whole life fell apart, and it was just sad.

But the point is, the imaginary rapists were really intimidated... NOT!!!!

 

[editec]

Kudos to Retired for taking the time to rationally answer my question.

Yes, HE got it.

In fact, far as I know, he is the only person on this board who every answered that question rationally.

BTW, I disagree with him and his answer, but respect the fact that his answer serves so well as THE justification for our right to bear arms.

YOu see? It is possible to deal with this issue like grownups.

 

[JoeB131]

[

The vast majority of "militia" INCLUDING in the Founders time, were not members of an organized force but were simply citizens available to be called up as needed. The 2nd establishes two rights, one is to the State stating each State may have a militia and that the Federal Government may not outlaw them, the second right is to EACH individual citizen living in the Country and is a right to own, possess and bear arms for the purpose of the militia that may or may not be formed.

The refusal of the State to form a militia or to limit it to that which the Federal Government controls does not diminish the rights of the Individual. As evidenced by US Law that establishes that all males aged 17 to 45 are members of the Unformed militia of the Country.

Okay, this is a valid point. At the time it was passed, there were probably good reasons for a militia and an armed citizenry.

A guy in 1790 needing a gun when there were no police or organized armies and he probably lived on a farm with wild animals attacking his livestock and the threat of native American raids... Probably good reasons for that.

But here's the thing. As the article in the OP points out, by the Civil War, they found that Militias were impractical, and by WWII, they created a National Guard to replace them.

So at what point do we realize that most citizens today don't need guns, in an urban society.

"Because the Founding Fathers Said So" is a pretty lame excuse not to examine what the laws are and try to pass pragmatic ones.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[

The vast majority of "militia" INCLUDING in the Founders time, were not members of an organized force but were simply citizens available to be called up as needed. The 2nd establishes two rights, one is to the State stating each State may have a militia and that the Federal Government may not outlaw them, the second right is to EACH individual citizen living in the Country and is a right to own, possess and bear arms for the purpose of the militia that may or may not be formed.

The refusal of the State to form a militia or to limit it to that which the Federal Government controls does not diminish the rights of the Individual. As evidenced by US Law that establishes that all males aged 17 to 45 are members of the Unformed militia of the Country.

Okay, this is a valid point. At the time it was passed, there were probably good reasons for a militia and an armed citizenry.

A guy in 1790 needing a gun when there were no police or organized armies and he probably lived on a farm with wild animals attacking his livestock and the threat of native American raids... Probably good reasons for that.

But here's the thing. As the article in the OP points out, by the Civil War, they found that Militias were impractical, and by WWII, they created a National Guard to replace them.

So at what point do we realize that most citizens today don't need guns, in an urban society.

"Because the Founding Fathers Said So" is a pretty lame excuse not to examine what the laws are and try to pass pragmatic ones.

For the hundredth time, you want to change the 2nd? make an amendment.

 

[Ernie S.]

[

The vast majority of "militia" INCLUDING in the Founders time, were not members of an organized force but were simply citizens available to be called up as needed. The 2nd establishes two rights, one is to the State stating each State may have a militia and that the Federal Government may not outlaw them, the second right is to EACH individual citizen living in the Country and is a right to own, possess and bear arms for the purpose of the militia that may or may not be formed.

The refusal of the State to form a militia or to limit it to that which the Federal Government controls does not diminish the rights of the Individual. As evidenced by US Law that establishes that all males aged 17 to 45 are members of the Unformed militia of the Country.

Okay, this is a valid point. At the time it was passed, there were probably good reasons for a militia and an armed citizenry.

A guy in 1790 needing a gun when there were no police or organized armies and he probably lived on a farm with wild animals attacking his livestock and the threat of native American raids... Probably good reasons for that.

But here's the thing. As the article in the OP points out, by the Civil War, they found that Militias were impractical, and by WWII, they created a National Guard to replace them.

So at what point do we realize that most citizens today don't need guns, in an urban society.

"Because the Founding Fathers Said So" is a pretty lame excuse not to examine what the laws are and try to pass pragmatic ones.

What point???
When you amend the Constitution. Go ahead and try, Joe

"The Founding Fathers said so" may or may not be lame. We differ in opinion there, but what the Founding Fathers said, is the law of the land. No amount of whining on your part changes that.

 

[JoeB131]

[

For the hundredth time, you want to change the 2nd? make an amendment.

Or get a Supreme Court that will interpret our living constitution in a practical way for how we live now.

 

[JoeB131]

[
What point???
When you amend the Constitution. Go ahead and try, Joe

"The Founding Fathers said so" may or may not be lame. We differ in opinion there, but what the Founding Fathers said, is the law of the land. No amount of whining on your part changes that.

Five liberal justices, and it's whatever the **** we say it is...

And right now, we got four...

 

[RWHeathenGamer]

LOL, I am sure that is what he said when he came up against the outgunned Taliban insurgents with drones and m16 rifles , AND still lost, ******* ******.

On further review, it looks like this whining shitlib was a desk jockey, yea, this "battle hardened" vet won't be disarming or killing gun owning Americans anytime soon

 

[Luddly Neddite]

LOL, I am sure that is what he said when he came up against the outgunned Taliban insurgents with drones and m16 rifles , AND still lost, ******* ******.

On further review, it looks like this whining shitlib was a desk jockey, yea, this "battle hardened" vet won't be disarming or killing gun owning Americans anytime soon

OH
MY
GAWD

That avatar.

Sorry dudette but I just can't get past that pic.

When do we get to see the "after" photo?

Oh yeah, and wth are you trying to say?