So progressives want “sanctuary cities”, uh?

[P@triot]

It clearly says, well regulated militia of the whole People are necessary.

Actually...it doesn’t say that at all.

“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.”

The phrase “of the whole” doesn’t appear anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.

 

[P@triot]

The cons would have ya deport Carlos . Leaving Mom and the kids hear with no breadwinner . Meaning everyone is on welfare and now you have a broken family (I thought cons hated that) further decreasing the kids chances of success.

1. Why can’t “mom” breadwin? I know the left hates women and views them as inferior, but come on - it’s 2018.

2. Send their ass back with “Carlos”. Nobody is advocating breaking up a family.

 

[danielpalos]

It clearly says, well regulated militia of the whole People are necessary.

Actually...it doesn’t say that at all.

“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.”

The phrase “of the whole” doesn’t appear anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.

The People, suffices. it means the same thing.

 

[BluesLegend]

Straighf out of the “careful what you wish for” pages...

Several conservative Illinois lawmakers have a taken a page from the progressive’s playbook to protect gun rights by creating “sanctuary” counties for gun owners.

The left was adamant about having a lawless society. Well, they are getting it.

More Illinois counties join Effingham County; pass ‘sanctuary’ resolutions to protect gun rights

Breaking: Liberals respond to gun sanctuary cities with...

 

[Desperado]

MOre idiots who don’t Understand the legal justification of sanctuary cities.

Simply put, There is no justification of sanctuary cities

 

[danielpalos]

Straighf out of the “careful what you wish for” pages...

Several conservative Illinois lawmakers have a taken a page from the progressive’s playbook to protect gun rights by creating “sanctuary” counties for gun owners.

The left was adamant about having a lawless society. Well, they are getting it.

More Illinois counties join Effingham County; pass ‘sanctuary’ resolutions to protect gun rights

Breaking: Liberals respond to gun sanctuary cities with...

Should the left start insisting on some leadership from 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.

We have a Second Amendment and should have, No Security problems in our free States.

 

[P@triot]

It clearly says, well regulated militia of the whole People are necessary.

Actually...it doesn’t say that at all.

“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.”

The phrase “of the whole” doesn’t appear anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.

The People, suffices. it means the same thing.

Nobody said anything about the term “the people”. Desperate, much?

 

[danielpalos]

It clearly says, well regulated militia of the whole People are necessary.

Actually...it doesn’t say that at all.

“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.”

The phrase “of the whole” doesn’t appear anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.

The People, suffices. it means the same thing.

Nobody said anything about the term “the people”.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the term. it is plural, not singular, every time the issue comes up.

 

[P@triot]

Should the left start insisting on some leadership from States?

That would happen automatically if the left would stop violating the U.S. Constitution.

 

[P@triot]

It clearly says, well regulated militia of the whole People are necessary.

Actually...it doesn’t say that at all.

“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.”

The phrase “of the whole” doesn’t appear anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.

The People, suffices. it means the same thing.

Nobody said anything about the term “the people”.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the term. it is plural, not singular, every time the issue comes up.

Again...snowflake...the 2nd Amendment does say “people”. I’m taking about this thread. We didn’t say “people”. We are laughing at you for claiming the 2nd Amendment said “of the whole”.

I can see why you’re incapable of earning above minimum wage.

 

[danielpalos]

Should the left start insisting on some leadership from States?

That would happen automatically if the left would stop violating the U.S. Constitution.

mustering the militia, is not, violating the Constitution. the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

 

[danielpalos]

It clearly says, well regulated militia of the whole People are necessary.

Actually...it doesn’t say that at all.

“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.”

The phrase “of the whole” doesn’t appear anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.

The People, suffices. it means the same thing.

Nobody said anything about the term “the people”.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the term. it is plural, not singular, every time the issue comes up.

Again...snowflake...the 2nd Amendment does say “people”. I’m taking about this thread. We didn’t say “people”. We are laughing at you for claiming the 2nd Amendment said “of the whole”.

I can see why you’re incapable of earning above minimum wage.

The People is what it says; only the right wing, appeals to ignorance of the law.

 

[P@triot]

Should the left start insisting on some leadership from States?

That would happen automatically if the left would stop violating the U.S. Constitution.

mustering the militia, is not, violating the Constitution. the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

Nobody said it was. You continue to struggle following a long.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Good example .

The cons would have ya deport Carlos . Leaving Mom and the kids hear with no breadwinner . Meaning everyone is on welfare and now you have a broken family (I thought cons hated that) further decreasing the kids chance

Haha...”breadwinner”...that’s funny shit.
You and I both know that $500 in cash is spent on pit bulls, weed, Modello, Tapatio and that beat to shit 1986 Toyota pickup.
Guadalupe makes it here without Carlos...thanks to REAL American taxpayers.
To be honest, a good “Con” says **** the whole cockroach family...DEPORT THEM ALL!

raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour; and simply charge a fine or a fee, and identify all foreign nationals in the US to the federal government.

raising the min wage doesn't help.
charge a fee? for breaking the law and ******* over people who apply the right way?
wow, what a horrible idea. no kick them out and make them go through the same process as everyone else.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Actually...it doesn’t say that at all.
The phrase “of the whole” doesn’t appear anywhere in the 2nd Amendment.

The People, suffices. it means the same thing.

Nobody said anything about the term “the people”.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the term. it is plural, not singular, every time the issue comes up.

Again...snowflake...the 2nd Amendment does say “people”. I’m taking about this thread. We didn’t say “people”. We are laughing at you for claiming the 2nd Amendment said “of the whole”.

I can see why you’re incapable of earning above minimum wage.

The People is what it says; only the right wing, appeals to ignorance of the law.

we've already discussed this militia in 1775 was the people, your quote even confirmed it.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Should the left start insisting on some leadership from States?

That would happen automatically if the left would stop violating the U.S. Constitution.

mustering the militia, is not, violating the Constitution. the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

it says PEOPLE have the right dipshit, it talks about militia as to why its needed, they are the same.

 

[danielpalos]

Good example .

The cons would have ya deport Carlos . Leaving Mom and the kids hear with no breadwinner . Meaning everyone is on welfare and now you have a broken family (I thought cons hated that) further decreasing the kids chance

Haha...”breadwinner”...that’s funny shit.
You and I both know that $500 in cash is spent on pit bulls, weed, Modello, Tapatio and that beat to shit 1986 Toyota pickup.
Guadalupe makes it here without Carlos...thanks to REAL American taxpayers.
To be honest, a good “Con” says **** the whole cockroach family...DEPORT THEM ALL!

raise the minimum wage to fifteen dollars an hour; and simply charge a fine or a fee, and identify all foreign nationals in the US to the federal government.

raising the min wage doesn't help.
charge a fee? for breaking the law and ******* over people who apply the right way?
wow, what a horrible idea. no kick them out and make them go through the same process as everyone else.

that doesn't work. and, simply "creating illegals", is no form of right wing solution.

 

[danielpalos]

Should the left start insisting on some leadership from States?

That would happen automatically if the left would stop violating the U.S. Constitution.

mustering the militia, is not, violating the Constitution. the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

it says PEOPLE have the right dipshit, it talks about militia as to why its needed, they are the same.

not all of the People are well regulated.

 

[ThisIsMe]

I had never thought of it like this, that they were referring to only the organized people's for the militia and not the general populace as a whole.

It is my understanding that, the intent of the framers was actually pertaining to the general populace, the idea of the militia being that, if needed, the people could form into a militia to ward off a tyrannical government, which includes a standing army that is following the orders of a tyrannical government. In other words, they were trying to protect the citizenry against a government that would use it's army against it's own citizens, and thus, every able bodied male between 18 and 45 was supposed to always keep certain provisions, such as rations, a nap sack, ammunition, and a weapon. Just in case they were needed on a moment's notice to stand against tyranny.

I had never really looked at it as separating people into organized and unorganized, though, I don't think that really applies to what the intent and meaning are.

As to the debate about the constitution allowing open carry or not, well, it really does, almost implicitly, state that open carry should be allowed. In the words "keep and BEAR arms...", it's actually implied in its own phraseology. To keep, meaning to own, and to bear, meaning to carry with you.

Anyway, it's interesting the different viewpoints. I'm going to have to take a more in depth look into the framers intent, and the federalist papers.

We really need to find out what exactly they meant by "the people", and by "the militia". Remembering that, words they used back then do not, sometimes, have the same meaning as they do today.

 

[koshergrl]

I had never thought of it like this, that they were referring to only the organized people's for the militia and not the general populace as a whole.

It is my understanding that, the intent of the framers was actually pertaining to the general populace, the idea of the militia being that, if needed, the people could form into a militia to ward off a tyrannical government, which includes a standing army that is following the orders of a tyrannical government. In other words, they were trying to protect the citizenry against a government that would use it's army against it's own citizens, and thus, every able bodied male between 18 and 45 was supposed to always keep certain provisions, such as rations, a nap sack, ammunition, and a weapon. Just in case they were needed on a moment's notice to stand against tyranny.

I had never really looked at it as separating people into organized and unorganized, though, I don't think that really applies to what the intent and meaning are.

As to the debate about the constitution allowing open carry or not, well, it really does, almost implicitly, state that open carry should be allowed. In the words "keep and BEAR arms...", it's actually implied in its own phraseology. To keep, meaning to own, and to bear, meaning to carry with you.

Anyway, it's interesting the different viewpoints. I'm going to have to take a more in depth look into the framers intent, and the federalist papers.

We really need to find out what exactly they meant by "the people", and by "the militia". Remembering that, words they used back then do not, sometimes, have the same meaning as they do today.

We do know. They defined them.

It's just that retards today don't understand the language...since they don't understand it, they claim it means something different now than it did then..and it's just a coincidence that the new meaning supports their ideology. This is what they do when they can't get around the truth: They change definitions.

The truth is..."people" meant "people"...not government. And militia meant a group of armed people who come together to ward off tyrannical government representatives.

Leftists don't like that, because they are the tyrannical government representatives, and they want to exert tyrannical authority over us, and take our livelihoods, prevent our pursuit of happiness, take our income (if we have any), take our children...and they certainly don't want us to have the ability to defend ourselves.

So they are going to twist, skew, and shred the Constitution. They start with definitions...like they did with the abortion/homo marriage issue..they start with a word...

"Life". "Life" they decided meant something other than what it has always meant...

"Marriage"...."Marriage" they decided meant something else..

and in both cases you submit to that definition, or you go to jail.

It's the same with our 2A right. The language is absolutely 100 percent non ambiguous. We know what they meant. They were quite clear.

Come along communist leftists and suddenly, naw, we don't really know what they meant..cuz suddenly "arms" doesn't mean "arms" and "people" now means "government"....