Hey Liberals!

[natstew]

You demand gun control laws, (and others), that are Unconstitutional.
Why don't you work within the Constitutional bounds to get your way instead of just demanding it? Our Founding Fathers wrote Article Five just for you whiners, yet you ignore it!

Example:
Juan Williams,
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ood-time-us-go-gun-free/#.U0LxLSiZi_N.twitter (there, I fixed it)

If you are against the United States Constitution, you are un-American and my enemy!

 

[frigidweirdo]

You demand gun control laws, (and others), that are Unconstitutional.
Why don't you work within the Constitutional bounds to get your way instead of just demanding it? Our Founding Fathers wrote Article Five just for you whiners, yet you ignore it!

Example:
Juan Williams,
IRS Director Admits Taxes Are Voluntary 2013 - YouTube

If you are against the United States Constitution, you are un-American and my enemy!

And then someone points out gay marriage. Why don't the right work within the US Constitution?

Maybe it's that both sides are just doing what they want to do and ignoring the larger picture of rights and freedoms.

 

[Redfish]

You demand gun control laws, (and others), that are Unconstitutional.
Why don't you work within the Constitutional bounds to get your way instead of just demanding it? Our Founding Fathers wrote Article Five just for you whiners, yet you ignore it!

Example:
Juan Williams,
IRS Director Admits Taxes Are Voluntary 2013 - YouTube

If you are against the United States Constitution, you are un-American and my enemy!

And then someone points out gay marriage. Why don't the right work within the US Constitution?

Maybe it's that both sides are just doing what they want to do and ignoring the larger picture of rights and freedoms.

the difference is that marriage, of any kind, is not a constitutional right. Marriage is a religious and legal bond sanctioned by the individual states.

 

[natstew]

I posted the wrong link, here's the one I intended:
Juan Williams reacts to Fort Hood: Time for U.S. to go 'gun-free' - Washington Times

 

[rightwinger]

We need to start forming some well regulated militias

Our founding fathers would be proud

 

[natstew]

You demand gun control laws, (and others), that are Unconstitutional.
Why don't you work within the Constitutional bounds to get your way instead of just demanding it? Our Founding Fathers wrote Article Five just for you whiners, yet you ignore it!

Example:
Juan Williams,
IRS Director Admits Taxes Are Voluntary 2013 - YouTube

If you are against the United States Constitution, you are un-American and my enemy!

And then someone points out gay marriage. Why don't the right work within the US Constitution?

Maybe it's that both sides are just doing what they want to do and ignoring the larger picture of rights and freedoms.

Marriage is not in the Constitution, therefore it's up to the States. Don't like it, use Article five to Amend the Constitution to include it.

Gay Marriage is not the topic of this post, but that's my opinion anyway.

 

[natstew]

We need to start forming some well regulated militias

Our founding fathers would be proud

I see you're still beating that dead horse.

 

[RDD_1210]

Speaking of the Constitution, can you explain to me that pesky clause about "well regulated..." blah blah. I know it's something that probably isn't important but perhaps you could explain the reason it's in the Constitution.

 

[rightwinger]

We need to start forming some well regulated militias

Our founding fathers would be proud

I see you're still beating that dead horse.

I will not stand for you showing disrespect to our founding fathers

As everyone knows, a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. I don't know about you, but I want a free state

We need our well regulated militias. We can start with registering all gun owners so that we know who is available for our militia. Then, we need to train them and certify them as militia members...it is part of being well regulated
Then we need to register our guns and how much ammunition they have. How else to we know how strong our militias are?

As a society, we have been very lax in executing our second amendment

 

[RDD_1210]

We need to start forming some well regulated militias

Our founding fathers would be proud

I see you're still beating that dead horse.

You start another thread claiming gun laws as being unconstitutional and have the balls to call someone else out for beating a dead horse. That's pretty funny.

 

[natstew]

Speaking of the Constitution, can you explain to me that pesky clause about "well regulated..." blah blah. I know it's something that probably isn't important but perhaps you could explain the reason it's in the Constitution.

The militia consists of all able bodied men of the community.

The term, "well regulated" at the time meant well trained in military combat.

If the founders meant controlled, they would have worded it differently, they were not illiterate, as many on this site are.

"Shall not be infringed" would not have been written if they did not mean SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

 

[frigidweirdo]

the difference is that marriage, of any kind, is not a constitutional right. Marriage is a religious and legal bond sanctioned by the individual states.

Wrong. The difference is the right to marry is not written explicitly in the US Constitution. However the Supreme Court has said various times that there is a right to marry.

 

[RDD_1210]

Speaking of the Constitution, can you explain to me that pesky clause about "well regulated..." blah blah. I know it's something that probably isn't important but perhaps you could explain the reason it's in the Constitution.

The militia consists of all able bodied men of the community.

The term, "well regulated" at the time meant well trained in military combat.

If the founders meant controlled, they would have worded it differently, they were not illiterate, as many on this site are.

"Shall not be infringed" would not have been written if they did not mean SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

Oh ok, thanks for the explanation.

So in order to possess a firearm, one must be well trained in military combat and a part of a militia. Thanks for clearing that up.

I'd love to hear about the militia you're a part of. Sounds fascinating!

 

[frigidweirdo]

Speaking of the Constitution, can you explain to me that pesky clause about "well regulated..." blah blah. I know it's something that probably isn't important but perhaps you could explain the reason it's in the Constitution.

The militia consists of all able bodied men of the community.

The term, "well regulated" at the time meant well trained in military combat.

If the founders meant controlled, they would have worded it differently, they were not illiterate, as many on this site are.

"Shall not be infringed" would not have been written if they did not mean SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

Are you suggesting prisoners, the insane, children etc cannot have their right to own weapons infringed upon?

Also, the right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia, not the right to carry arms.

The militia consists of what the US govt says it consists of, the militia act usually tells you what that means. At present the Dick Act of 1902 says there is an unorganised militia which does include most males aged 18-45 who are automatically in the militia.
However this is to make sure that the govt isn't accused of stopping people being in the militia (the right to bear arms) when they prevent them being in the National Guard.

 

[rightwinger]

Speaking of the Constitution, can you explain to me that pesky clause about "well regulated..." blah blah. I know it's something that probably isn't important but perhaps you could explain the reason it's in the Constitution.

The militia consists of all able bodied men of the community.

The term, "well regulated" at the time meant well trained in military combat.

If the founders meant controlled, they would have worded it differently, they were not illiterate, as many on this site are.

"Shall not be infringed" would not have been written if they did not mean SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

Now we are talking

Time to start registering and training those militias. I, for one hate unregulated militias...they are nothing more than mobs


If our founding fathers meant to say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" that would have been all that was said in the 2nd amendment

But they were concerned about the security of their free state and wanted well regulated militias....not random gun owners

Why do you hate America?

 

[frigidweirdo]

We need to start forming some well regulated militias

Our founding fathers would be proud

I see you're still beating that dead horse.

I will not stand for you showing disrespect to our founding fathers

As everyone knows, a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. I don't know about you, but I want a free state

We need our well regulated militias. We can start with registering all gun owners so that we know who is available for our militia. Then, we need to train them and certify them as militia members...it is part of being well regulated
Then we need to register our guns and how much ammunition they have. How else to we know how strong our militias are?

As a society, we have been very lax in executing our second amendment

There is only one well regulated militia, it is the one mentioned in the US Constitution that the states appoint officers to, and the US can call up to National Service.

 

[natstew]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled over and over against you Liberals on the Second Amendment.
The Founders, in their personal and public papers have sided against you Liberals.
Yet you keep beating that dead horse!

 

[natstew]

Eric holder is way out of bounds on this, it's no way a part of his job as AG:

ALERT: Eric Holder Wants to "Explore" Gun Tracking "Bracelets"

He wants to legislate law by his own decree, yet refuses to enforce and prosecute violations of existing laws. Black or not, it's time for some impeachments.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled over and over against you Liberals on the Second Amendment.
The Founders, in their personal and public papers have sided against you Liberals.
Yet you keep beating that dead horse!

Well if you're responding to me, you don't know me, and you don't know my position on the 2A. So........ don't act like I'm just the same as every other person you would stick in the "liberal box". I do actually know what the 2A means, I know what it protects and what it doesn't protect and I do know what the Supreme Court has said on the matter.


The founding fathers spoke about "bear arms" in terms of "render military service" and "militia duty". They never once spoke about it meaning carry arms.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

Read that.

 

[rightwinger]

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled over and over against you Liberals on the Second Amendment.
The Founders, in their personal and public papers have sided against you Liberals.
Yet you keep beating that dead horse!

The US Supreme Court is a bunch of partisan judicial advocates what do they know about the second amendment?

Our well regulated militias are necessary to the security of a free state

We need to:

Register all gun owners
Register all guns and ammunition
Train all gun owners as militia members
Confiscate guns when necessary to support our militias

Our founding fathers demand it!

God Bless America