The assault weapon ban? Not about mass shooters, it’s about Rittenhouse and McCloskys…..

[2aguy]

As usual, you're FOS.

Democrats refused to let the crackpots that could be witnesses on the committee.

Pelosi said she had no objection to the other three representatives picked by McCarthy — Representatives Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls.

It was Trump's ass kisser who pulled all of them.

House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy says he will pull all five of his picks to serve on the select committee investigating the January 6 assault on the Capitol, if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn't rescind her rejection of two of his recommendations, Congressmen Jim Jordan and Jim Banks.
"Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts."

Call witnesses?
It isn't court it's a hearing, moron.

And BTW, the committee called witnesses, Trumptard's from Trump's own regime, including his own daughter and SIL they could have asked any questions they wanted.
Why didn't they?

The "show" trial was republicans 12 year, multi-million waste of taxpayer $$$ trying to get Clinton, and didn't even get an arrest.

Wrong…….they didn’t want republicans who would actually ask real questions………never before has the party in power refused the other parties committee choices…never, until this show trial.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

As usual, you're FOS.

Democrats refused to let the crackpots that could be witnesses on the committee.

Pelosi said she had no objection to the other three representatives picked by McCarthy — Representatives Rodney Davis, Kelly Armstrong and Troy Nehls.

It was Trump's ass kisser who pulled all of them.

House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy says he will pull all five of his picks to serve on the select committee investigating the January 6 assault on the Capitol, if House Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn't rescind her rejection of two of his recommendations, Congressmen Jim Jordan and Jim Banks.
"Unless Speaker Pelosi reverses course and seats all five Republican nominees, Republicans will not be party to their sham process and will instead pursue our own investigation of the facts."

Call witnesses?
It isn't court it's a hearing, moron.

And BTW, the committee called witnesses, Trumptard's from Trump's own regime, including his own daughter and SIL they could have asked any questions they wanted.
Why didn't they?

The "show" trial was republicans 12 year, multi-million waste of taxpayer $$$ trying to get Clinton, and didn't even get an arrest.

Crack pots? Don't you mean hunters crack pipe?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Crack pots? Don't you mean hunters crack pipe?

NO, retard.
People with a far worse addiction than crack.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Of course, Trumptards ignore one half of an amendment......................the FIRST part.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

Like open heart surgery, first anesthetize the patient.

Trumptards: "NAW, don't need none of that".
"That causes your heart to go bad"

/------/ Here we go again. Monkeypox gun grabbers never learn.
The Second Amendment is not sloppy or ungrammatical, as some modern analysts claim. Rather, the Amendment is written in a variety of English that no longer exists. Since none of us are native speakers of late 18th century American English, we cannot expect to have good intuitions about its grammaticality or interpretation.

The ‘Strange’ Syntax of the Second Amendment | Duke Center for Firearms Law

firearmslaw.duke.edu

Rather than the concluding clause, let's focus here on the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights.
"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.".
In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty."

 

[bigrebnc1775]

NO, retard.
People with a far worse addiction than crack.

View attachment 677521

Says the DNC cultist.

 

[woodwork201]

The national guard you dumbfuck became to be in 1903 militia act. It was the the unorganized militia was created. The reason for the unorganized militia was to have abled body persons ready who have no connection with the regular military or national guard.

Fail. I know you usually like to pretend that you support the Constitution and I believe you really do like your guns but the Constitution is lost, the right to keep and bear arms is lost, if those who claim to defend it are not more solid in their understanding and in their defense than are you.

Here's the retest: Show where in the Constitution it states that the militia can be used in foreign wars. The Constitution is quite clear about which conditions the Federal Government is permitted to call out the militia.

Bonus points if you can show where in those specific conditions for which the militia can be nationalized says "to fight in foreign wars" or anything meaning the same.

Of course, once again, if you can't show where in the Constitution it says that the militia can be federalized for fighting in foreign wars, you fail again. And if you can't show which of the enumerated powers for the Federal Government to call out the militia includes anything meaning "to fight in foreign wars" then you not only fail, you're kicked out of class for being a fucking idiot.

If you think you know the Constitution and if you think you defend it, if you think you truly defend the right to keep and bear arms or any other protected right, then you should be able to back up any claim supporting any government power or authority with a reference to where in the Constitution that power comes.

So, once again, where in the Constitution does it say that the militia can be used in foreign wars? Or another question, where does it say the militia can be joined with a standing army?

 

[woodwork201]

NO, it wasn't, they had local militias.

Prior to the end of 1776, there was no militia or minuteman company established in Colonial Pennsylvania. The Provincial government was ruled by the Quakers.

The Pennsylvania Militia was recognized as officially being organized on March 17, 1777 through the first militia act.

On March 17, 1777, the General Assembly passed a state militia law. The militia law decreed the President of the Supreme Executive Council as the Commander-in-Chief of the new militia. The law further provided a local person, called a County Lieutenant, who held the rank of Colonel, put in charge to implement the militia according to the law. A militia was set up for each county, and for the city of Philadelphia.

See, your own quote proves me right and you an idiot.

I said, quoted actually, that many in the militia in Pennsylvania, at the time the Constitution was being debated, refused to turn in their state owned weapons. That's important because you said they didn't keep their state own weapons unless called out. Obviously they had their state owned weapons in their possession or how else could they refuse to turn them in?

Now you argue that the Pennsylvania militia wasn't created until 1777 so I am wrong? You need to go back to elementary school. Please answer so the whole class can hear you... When did the debate on the US Constitution begin? Which year? Here's a hint: It was a full decade AFTER 1777.

So, when the Pennsylvania militia had state owned weapons in their private possession for use in their militia duties, and many militia members refused to turn those state owned weapons in for cleaning, it would have been at least a decade after 1777. Right? Got it?

Let's put it in 3rd grade terms for you.

MilitiaMan Bob was in the Pennsylvania Militia. That Militia was created in 1777.

In 1787, there began and ended a discussion and debate, called the Constitutional Convention, over creating a new constitution for the United States.

If MilitiaMan Bob had a militia rifle owned by the Pennsylvania Militia and, during the debate of the new Constitution, MilitiaMan Bob refused to turn it in to the State for cleaning, how many years after the formation of the Pennsylvania Militia did Bob refuse to turn in his militia rifle to the State?

 

[woodwork201]

Perhaps you should reconsider how it is you frame an argument and what manner of information you include in that arguement.

I happen to read at a Graduate level. You? I have doubts.,

Did you read the post?

What does that mean, you read at the graduate level? I have a lot of MS degree employees working for me. On occasion, I have PhD grads working for me; they come and go and right now there are none. Why are they working for me and not me for them? Because they can't read or write well enough to effectively communicate ideas or to follow standards and guidelines. Don't get me wrong, some of them are very smart but having a Masters degree is no proof of intelligence.

 

[Darkwind]

Did you read the post?

What does that mean, you read at the graduate level? I have a lot of MS degree employees working for me. On occasion, I have PhD grads working for me; they come and go and right now there are none. Why are they working for me and not me for them? Because they can't read or write well enough to effectively communicate ideas or to follow standards and guidelines. Don't get me wrong, some of them are very smart but having a Masters degree is no proof of intelligence.

Having college graduates work for you is proof of your intelligence?

Wow.

I read at a level considered "graduate" by English scholars.

I read the post, and you are wrong, as you lack the understanding of a simple compound statement that uses an explanatory clause to justify the premise of the foremost thought.

Give it up. The Second Amendment does NOT give authority to the state to form militias and they -- militias -- are not a requirement for the ownership of weapons.

Full stop.

You can disagree all you like, but you are clearly wrong.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Fail. I know you usually like to pretend that you support the Constitution and I believe you really do like your guns but the Constitution is lost, the right to keep and bear arms is lost, ?

Dumbfuck your word salad wasn't read. The second amendment has been weaken however gun owners are taking it back. I'm a gun rights activists you are not. I give thousands of dollars every year to groups like the second amendment foundation, FPC, Gun Owners of America. I am a life time member of the Second Amendment Foundation and the GOA. I am also a paid subscriber to Armed American Radio. The three groups I mentioned are the ones that fight in court defending my rights. So who do you contribute too?

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

See, your own quote proves me right and you an idiot.

I said, quoted actually, that many in the militia in Pennsylvania, at the time the Constitution was being debated, refused to turn in their state owned weapons. That's important because you said they didn't keep their state own weapons unless called out. Obviously they had their state owned weapons in their possession or how else could they refuse to turn them in?

Now you argue that the Pennsylvania militia wasn't created until 1777 so I am wrong? You need to go back to elementary school. Please answer so the whole class can hear you... When did the debate on the US Constitution begin? Which year? Here's a hint: It was a full decade AFTER 1777.

The constitution was written at the 1787 Philadelphia Convention and was ratified through a series of state conventions held in 1787 and 1788.

So, when the Pennsylvania militia had state owned weapons in their private possession for use in their militia duties, and many militia members refused to turn those state owned weapons in for cleaning, it would have been at least a decade after 1777. Right? Got it?

Let's put it in 3rd grade terms for you.

MilitiaMan Bob was in the Pennsylvania Militia. That Militia was created in 1777.

In 1787, there began and ended a discussion and debate, called the Constitutional Convention, over creating a new constitution for the United States.

If MilitiaMan Bob had a militia rifle owned by the Pennsylvania Militia and, during the debate of the new Constitution, MilitiaMan Bob refused to turn it in to the State for cleaning, how many years after the formation of the Pennsylvania Militia did Bob refuse to turn in his militia rifle to the State?

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Only Trump's.
The other 45 president's never tried to overthrow the government.


The rest of Trump's former regime.........DID.

Trump didn't try to overthrow the government, neither.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Hence: The January 6th committee.

The capitol police did a good job, the January 6th committee, is exposing the rest.
The justice department will take care of them, some have already been sentenced to prison.

Are you calling the Jerkoff 6 committee tyranny?

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you think you know the Constitution and if you think you defend it, if you think you truly defend the right to keep and bear arms or any other protected right, then you should be able to back up any claim supporting any government power or authority with a reference to where in the Constitution that power comes.

Similarly...
You should be able to tell us the ownership and use of which "arms" are protected by the 2nd, which "arms" are not, and where the constituton draws the line.
And you can't.
You shall now prove me right, and you an idiot.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Only Trump's.
The other 45 president's never tried to overthrow the government.


The rest of Trump's former regime.........DID.

/----/ And neither did President Trump. Unless you can provide a direct quote from Trump telling his supporters to storm the Capital, you need to take your false prophecy elsewhere.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Trump didn't try to overthrow the government, neither.

Yes, he did, and his cult are still trying.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Are you calling the Jerkoff 6 committee tyranny?

No, but Trump's cult is.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

/----/ And neither did President Trump. Unless you can provide a direct quote from Trump telling his supporters to storm the Capital, you need to take your false prophecy elsewhere.

Trump didn't need to, Trump's cult was already going to attack the capitol and he never to them to go home, after his pity rally, he told them to go.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

NO ONE WANTS TO disarm ANYONE.

Correct.

But the dishonest right will continue to lie about guns being banned and confiscated.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Trump didn't need to, Trump's cult was already going to attack the capitol and he never to them to go home, after his pity rally, he told them to go.

/———/ And you know this how??? TDS Bwhahahaha Bwhahahaha