Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The states wanted to have the capability of having militias as a check on the Federal government.
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added
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 laws already on the books banning arms to be owned by citizens.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
Good point. Does that mean the 2nd amendment is not relevant?Where those militias at Elmer?The 2nd Amendment gives all citizens the right to"bear arms".
definition of arms
synonyms: weapons (of war), weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, cannon, artillery, armaments, munitions, instruments of war, war machines, military supplies, materiel
"arms and ammunition"
The states wanted to have the capability of having militias as a check on the Federal government.
Arms means all weapons of war the Federal government can have.
That is not happening in the 21st century. Since the 2nd amendment was written the majority of arms have been banned from possession by the citizens. We have restricted what citizens cannot have arms; felons.
Red tag laws, banning certain semi-automatic guns and background checks to own a gun is small time compared to the laws already on the books banning arms to be owned by citizens.
My point is if you are fighting for the 2nd amendment why limit yourself to guns? Maybe larger more powerful arms scare you. You are just a bag of hot air.LolNo the states do not, the states have the NG which is under the government, and they will never fight the government nor will the right wing militias, as they will lose.
I would just ban assault weapons including the semi automatic pistols, that would settle it. I also would ban all magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, and no more than one on a person or in a vehicle.
There wasn't even a state when the 2nd Amendment was wrote.
The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment they would never go against their own you stupid ass motherfucker....
That's a pretty diverse group of perps. So how come we don't get the 24/7/365 bombardment of "news" when someone other than a white guy shoots up a bunch of people?The NRA was all for gun control back in the 60's to keep guns out of the blacks hands. Ronald Reagan past some laws in California making that state with some of the strictest of the times.
So NRA was for it before being against it. How hypocritical.
https://www.history.com/news/black-...VhDdJ6k8Lw-5z3ap30o92eJODgAXukQu_j3HiAuYuEZbk
In contrast to the NRA’s rigid opposition to gun control in today’s America, the organization fought alongside the government for stricter gun regulations in the 1960s. This was part of an effort to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans as racial tensions in the nation grew. The NRA felt especially threatened by the Black Panthers, whose well-photographed carrying of weapons in public spaces was entirely legal in the state of California, where they were based.
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 KKK was for gun control long before anyone else. That was when they were good solid Democrats.The NRA was all for gun control back in the 60's to keep guns out of the blacks hands. Ronald Reagan past some laws in California making that state with some of the strictest of the times.
So NRA was for it before being against it. How hypocritical.
https://www.history.com/news/black-...VhDdJ6k8Lw-5z3ap30o92eJODgAXukQu_j3HiAuYuEZbk
In contrast to the NRA’s rigid opposition to gun control in today’s America, the organization fought alongside the government for stricter gun regulations in the 1960s. This was part of an effort to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans as racial tensions in the nation grew. The NRA felt especially threatened by the Black Panthers, whose well-photographed carrying of weapons in public spaces was entirely legal in the state of California, where they were based.
Because most black shootings of 4 or more are black on black killings. The news has always not given appropriate attention to black on black crime. If a black person shoots a bunch of white people they will get the coverage.That's a pretty diverse group of perps. So how come we don't get the 24/7/365 bombardment of "news" when someone other than a white guy shoots up a bunch of people?The NRA was all for gun control back in the 60's to keep guns out of the blacks hands. Ronald Reagan past some laws in California making that state with some of the strictest of the times.
So NRA was for it before being against it. How hypocritical.
https://www.history.com/news/black-...VhDdJ6k8Lw-5z3ap30o92eJODgAXukQu_j3HiAuYuEZbk
In contrast to the NRA’s rigid opposition to gun control in today’s America, the organization fought alongside the government for stricter gun regulations in the 1960s. This was part of an effort to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans as racial tensions in the nation grew. The NRA felt especially threatened by the Black Panthers, whose well-photographed carrying of weapons in public spaces was entirely legal in the state of California, where they were based.
The Second Amendment doesn't 'give' anyone anything.The 2nd Amendment gives all citizens the right to"bear arms".
definition of arms
synonyms: weapons (of war), weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, cannon, artillery, armaments, munitions, instruments of war, war machines, military supplies, materiel
"arms and ammunition"
The states wanted to have the capability of having militias as a check on the Federal government.
Arms means all weapons of war the Federal government can have.
That is not happening in the 21st century. Since the 2nd amendment was written the majority of arms have been banned from possession by the citizens. We have restricted what citizens cannot have arms; felons.
Red tag laws, banning certain semi-automatic guns and background checks to own a gun is small time compared to the laws already on the books banning arms to be owned by citizens.
So do you believe in ANY limitations to American citizens owning firearms? Mental patients, children, etc. if so, how do you constitutionally justify it?The 2nd Amendment gives all citizens the right to"bear arms".
definition of arms
synonyms: weapons (of war), weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, cannon, artillery, armaments, munitions, instruments of war, war machines, military supplies, materiel
"arms and ammunition"
The states wanted to have the capability of having militias as a check on the Federal government.
Arms means all weapons of war the Federal government can have.
That is not happening in the 21st century. Since the 2nd amendment was written the majority of arms have been banned from possession by the citizens. We have restricted what citizens cannot have arms; felons.
Red tag laws, banning certain semi-automatic guns and background checks to own a gun is small time compared to the laws already on the books banning arms to be owned by citizens.
Fuck Reagan and the NRA. They dont go far enough and Reagan trampled all over our rights and liberties. And abused the shit out of his power.I agree that Reagan and the NRA both seriously fuck up and I will never forgive either.The NRA was all for gun control back in the 60's to keep guns out of the blacks hands. Ronald Reagan past some laws in California making that state with some of the strictest of the times.
So NRA was for it before being against it. How hypocritical.
https://www.history.com/news/black-...VhDdJ6k8Lw-5z3ap30o92eJODgAXukQu_j3HiAuYuEZbk
In contrast to the NRA’s rigid opposition to gun control in today’s America, the organization fought alongside the government for stricter gun regulations in the 1960s. This was part of an effort to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans as racial tensions in the nation grew. The NRA felt especially threatened by the Black Panthers, whose well-photographed carrying of weapons in public spaces was entirely legal in the state of California, where they were based.
.
How have they justified, Constitutionally, banning machine guns and the many other weapons of war that citizens cannot posses. And banning felons from possessing guns of any kind.So do you believe in ANY limitations to American citizens owning firearms? Mental patients, children, etc. if so, how do you constitutionally justify it?The 2nd Amendment gives all citizens the right to"bear arms".
definition of arms
synonyms: weapons (of war), weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, cannon, artillery, armaments, munitions, instruments of war, war machines, military supplies, materiel
"arms and ammunition"
The states wanted to have the capability of having militias as a check on the Federal government.
Arms means all weapons of war the Federal government can have.
That is not happening in the 21st century. Since the 2nd amendment was written the majority of arms have been banned from possession by the citizens. We have restricted what citizens cannot have arms; felons.
Red tag laws, banning certain semi-automatic guns and background checks to own a gun is small time compared to the laws already on the books banning arms to be owned by citizens.
LolMy point is if you are fighting for the 2nd amendment why limit yourself to guns? Maybe larger more powerful arms scare you. You are just a bag of hot air.LolNo the states do not, the states have the NG which is under the government, and they will never fight the government nor will the right wing militias, as they will lose.
I would just ban assault weapons including the semi automatic pistols, that would settle it. I also would ban all magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, and no more than one on a person or in a vehicle.
There wasn't even a state when the 2nd Amendment was wrote.
The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment they would never go against their own you stupid ass motherfucker....
Yep,That's a pretty diverse group of perps. So how come we don't get the 24/7/365 bombardment of "news" when someone other than a white guy shoots up a bunch of people?The NRA was all for gun control back in the 60's to keep guns out of the blacks hands. Ronald Reagan past some laws in California making that state with some of the strictest of the times.
So NRA was for it before being against it. How hypocritical.
https://www.history.com/news/black-...VhDdJ6k8Lw-5z3ap30o92eJODgAXukQu_j3HiAuYuEZbk
In contrast to the NRA’s rigid opposition to gun control in today’s America, the organization fought alongside the government for stricter gun regulations in the 1960s. This was part of an effort to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans as racial tensions in the nation grew. The NRA felt especially threatened by the Black Panthers, whose well-photographed carrying of weapons in public spaces was entirely legal in the state of California, where they were based.
LolMy point is if you are fighting for the 2nd amendment why limit yourself to guns? Maybe larger more powerful arms scare you. You are just a bag of hot air.LolNo the states do not, the states have the NG which is under the government, and they will never fight the government nor will the right wing militias, as they will lose.
I would just ban assault weapons including the semi automatic pistols, that would settle it. I also would ban all magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, and no more than one on a person or in a vehicle.
There wasn't even a state when the 2nd Amendment was wrote.
The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment they would never go against their own you stupid ass motherfucker....
The Fact is the military would turn on a fucked up collective like our federal government/deep state
LolThe Second Amendment doesn't 'give' anyone anything.The 2nd Amendment gives all citizens the right to"bear arms".
definition of arms
synonyms: weapons (of war), weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, cannon, artillery, armaments, munitions, instruments of war, war machines, military supplies, materiel
"arms and ammunition"
The states wanted to have the capability of having militias as a check on the Federal government.
Arms means all weapons of war the Federal government can have.
That is not happening in the 21st century. Since the 2nd amendment was written the majority of arms have been banned from possession by the citizens. We have restricted what citizens cannot have arms; felons.
Red tag laws, banning certain semi-automatic guns and background checks to own a gun is small time compared to the laws already on the books banning arms to be owned by citizens.
The Second Amendment right is inalienable.
Although inalienable, the right is not 'absolute.'
Government has the authority to place limits and restrictions on guns consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
It is not a right to possess any weapon one wishes, to carry that weapon anywhere one wishes, in any manner one wishes.
Yep,That's a pretty diverse group of perps. So how come we don't get the 24/7/365 bombardment of "news" when someone other than a white guy shoots up a bunch of people?The NRA was all for gun control back in the 60's to keep guns out of the blacks hands. Ronald Reagan past some laws in California making that state with some of the strictest of the times.
So NRA was for it before being against it. How hypocritical.
https://www.history.com/news/black-...VhDdJ6k8Lw-5z3ap30o92eJODgAXukQu_j3HiAuYuEZbk
In contrast to the NRA’s rigid opposition to gun control in today’s America, the organization fought alongside the government for stricter gun regulations in the 1960s. This was part of an effort to keep guns out of the hands of African-Americans as racial tensions in the nation grew. The NRA felt especially threatened by the Black Panthers, whose well-photographed carrying of weapons in public spaces was entirely legal in the state of California, where they were based.
Mass shootings don’t require any one “color”... Fact
But there is one thing absolutely necessary for mass shooters.... progressivism
Laws are justified by the will of the majority of the people, enacted consistent with Constitutional case law.How have they justified, Constitutionally, banning machine guns and the many other weapons of war that citizens cannot posses. And banning felons from possessing guns of any kind.So do you believe in ANY limitations to American citizens owning firearms? Mental patients, children, etc. if so, how do you constitutionally justify it?The 2nd Amendment gives all citizens the right to"bear arms".
definition of arms
synonyms: weapons (of war), weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, cannon, artillery, armaments, munitions, instruments of war, war machines, military supplies, materiel
"arms and ammunition"
The states wanted to have the capability of having militias as a check on the Federal government.
Arms means all weapons of war the Federal government can have.
That is not happening in the 21st century. Since the 2nd amendment was written the majority of arms have been banned from possession by the citizens. We have restricted what citizens cannot have arms; felons.
Red tag laws, banning certain semi-automatic guns and background checks to own a gun is small time compared to the laws already on the books banning arms to be owned by citizens.
