The Right To Bear Arms

[hadit]

The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.

View attachment 479324

Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead

An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.

www.huffpost.com

Aren't the anti-gunners always on about making guns safe? Sounds to me like they just need to make tasers feel very different from firearms.

The woman who shot the black kid was a veteran officer. Also, tasers are supposed to be carried on the opposite less-dominate side from the pistol. How could she not know the difference?

She's human, with a job that's nearly impossible to do perfectly. Even with the very best of all training, mistakes happen. It just underlines the necessity of giving the officer no reason to fear you.

 

[hadit]

‘How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"?’

They’re not.

In fact, there are no more ‘militias.’

The Second Amendment safeguards an individual right to possess a firearm, unconnected with militia service.

That ruling was in legal error. There are no individuals unconnected with the militia only militia service well regulated.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Yet another Daniel legal discovery. The legal profession is wrong, the keyboard jockey insists.

 

[9thIDdoc]

View attachment 479370

How are terrorist militias considered "well regulated"? Who "regulates" them? How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"? We know who regulates the military and National Guard.

American militia movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Historically the term "militia" is simply used to describe any group of armed civilians banded together for a common cause. The People cannot form militias if they are unarmed. The military (which includes the National Guard) are not civilians and are not militias. Militias may become military with government approval at which time they are no longer militias and become regular (regulated) troops. The FF were well aware of this having recently won independence with just such units and they (both)continued to be in common use through the American "Civil" War. Militias were intended to be the check against governments that become tyrannical (unconstitutional) which is why they cannot be government controlled troops although they can contain regular troops acting in their civilian capacity such as some of the Oath Keepers. A State that is controlled by an unconstitutional (illegal) government cannot be properly described as a "free state".

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.

The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)

The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)

What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?

Establish a militia?

of

Protect the right of the people?

 

[hadit]

The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.

View attachment 479324

Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead

An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.

www.huffpost.com

Aren't the anti-gunners always on about making guns safe? Sounds to me like they just need to make tasers feel very different from firearms.

The woman who shot the black kid was a veteran officer. Also, tasers are supposed to be carried on the opposite less-dominate side from the pistol. How could she not know the difference?

She's human, with a job that's nearly impossible to do perfectly. Even with the very best of all training, mistakes happen. It just underlines the necessity of giving the officer no reason to fear you.

So, Lakhota, you disagree. Here's what I said:

"She's human, with a job that's nearly impossible to do perfectly. Even with the very best of all training, mistakes happen. It just underlines the necessity of giving the officer no reason to fear you."

What exactly in that do you find disagreeable?

That the officer is human?
That being a police officer is a job that's nearly impossible to do perfectly?
That even with the best training, mistakes happen?
That given all that, it's best to give the officer no reason to fear you?

What exactly are you disagreeing with?

 

[asaratis]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.

The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS. There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.

The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.

The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.

When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

constitutioncenter.org

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army

September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.

The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.

In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.

Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.

As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.

Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.

“I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.

Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.

Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.

At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.

In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.

Screw the gun grabbers!

Guns are not the problem.

Weapons of any sort are not the problem.

Evil people are the problem. Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.

 

[surada]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.

The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS. There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.

The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.

The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.

When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

constitutioncenter.org

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army

September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.

The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.

In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.

Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.

As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.

Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.

“I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.

Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.

Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.

At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.

In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.

Screw the gun grabbers!

Guns are not the problem.

Weapons of any sort are not the problem.

Evil people are the problem. Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.

Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.

Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?

 

[CowboyTed]

It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete. We're the United Freakin States. We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.

If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French. And no one wants that.

You know the French view on US irresponsible gun ownership as a small dick thing...

If they had proper sized dicks and knew how to use them they wouldn't need those guns...

Real men have no problem registering there guns, what are they scared off..

 

[Cecilie1200]

When the doo-doo hit the fan, all her training went out the window. I'm sure she saw the gun on the seat and panicked. A terrible tragedy but it doesn't warrant rioting and looting.

NOTHING warrants rioting and looting. We have systems in place for dealing with such situations, and at no point in time is rioting and looting a part of that system.

 

[kaz]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.

The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS. There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.

The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.

The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.

When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

constitutioncenter.org

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army

September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.

The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.

In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.

Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.

As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.

Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.

“I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.

Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.

Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.

At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.

In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.

Screw the gun grabbers!

Guns are not the problem.

Weapons of any sort are not the problem.

Evil people are the problem. Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.

Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.

Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?

More empty rhetoric from the guy who's never read the first, second, fourth, fifth, ninth or tenth amendments, LOL.

There is virtually nothing in the Democrat massive spending bills that are authorized by the Constitution, which means by the ninth and tenth amendments they are prohibited to the Federal government. But you just keep parroting hate media and the fascist Democrat party as if you're making a point

 

[surada]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.

The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS. There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.

The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.

The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.

When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

constitutioncenter.org

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army

September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.

The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.

In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.

Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.

As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.

Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.

“I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.

Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.

Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.

At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.

In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.

Screw the gun grabbers!

Guns are not the problem.

Weapons of any sort are not the problem.

Evil people are the problem. Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.

Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.

Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?

More empty rhetoric from the guy who's never read the first, second, fourth, fifth, ninth or tenth amendments, LOL.

There is virtually nothing in the Democrat massive spending bills that are authorized by the Constitution, which means by the ninth and tenth amendments they are prohibited to the Federal government. But you just keep parroting hate media and the fascist Democrat party as if you're making a point

I'm not a guy. I prefer to work thru our system of checks and balances per our Constitution.

You should study the history of Spain in the 16th, 17th and 18th century. They never invested a dime in the people.

 

[kaz]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.

The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS. There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.

The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.

The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.

When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

constitutioncenter.org

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army

September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.

The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.

In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.

Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.

As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.

Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.

“I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.

Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.

Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.

At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.

In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.

Screw the gun grabbers!

Guns are not the problem.

Weapons of any sort are not the problem.

Evil people are the problem. Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.

Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.

Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?

More empty rhetoric from the guy who's never read the first, second, fourth, fifth, ninth or tenth amendments, LOL.

There is virtually nothing in the Democrat massive spending bills that are authorized by the Constitution, which means by the ninth and tenth amendments they are prohibited to the Federal government. But you just keep parroting hate media and the fascist Democrat party as if you're making a point

I'm not a guy. I prefer to work thru our system of checks and balances per our Constitution.

You should study the history of Spain in the 16th, 17th and 18th century. They never invested a dime in the people.

More just empty rhetoric.

LOL, you want bigger government checks, and that's "investment." Greedy socialist

 

[9thIDdoc]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.

The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS. There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.

The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.

The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.

When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

constitutioncenter.org

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army

September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.

The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.

In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.

Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.

As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.

Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.

“I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.

Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.

Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.

At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.

In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.

Screw the gun grabbers!

Guns are not the problem.

Weapons of any sort are not the problem.

Evil people are the problem. Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.

Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.

Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?

Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of an unconstitutional (illegal) government?

 

[surada]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.

The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS. There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.

The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.

The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.

When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

constitutioncenter.org

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army

September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.

The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.

In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.

Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.

As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.

Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.

“I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.

Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.

Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.

At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.

In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.

Screw the gun grabbers!

Guns are not the problem.

Weapons of any sort are not the problem.

Evil people are the problem. Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.

Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.

Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?

More empty rhetoric from the guy who's never read the first, second, fourth, fifth, ninth or tenth amendments, LOL.

There is virtually nothing in the Democrat massive spending bills that are authorized by the Constitution, which means by the ninth and tenth amendments they are prohibited to the Federal government. But you just keep parroting hate media and the fascist Democrat party as if you're making a point

I'm not a guy. I prefer to work thru our system of checks and balances per our Constitution.

You should study the history of Spain in the 16th, 17th and 18th century. They never invested a dime in the people.

More just empty rhetoric.

LOL, you want bigger government checks, and that's "investment." Greedy socialist

You are a fool.

 

[bripat9643]

The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.

View attachment 479324

Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead

An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.

www.huffpost.com

pistols have been around for 300 years, moron.

 

[bripat9643]

The so-called right to bear arms seems to be getting drastically out of hand - even among cops who can't tell the difference between tasers and pistols.

View attachment 479324

Police Claim Officer Who Shot And Killed Man In Traffic Stop Likely Meant To Shock Him Instead

An officer killed Daunte Wright, 20, outside Minneapolis on Sunday. Police say she likely thought she was using a stun gun rather than a firearm.

www.huffpost.com

Aren't the anti-gunners always on about making guns safe? Sounds to me like they just need to make tasers feel very different from firearms.

The woman who shot the black kid was a veteran officer. Also, tasers are supposed to be carried on the opposite less-dominate side from the pistol. How could she not know the difference?

How does any of this prove we need gun control? Do you intend to take either guns or tasers away from the cops?

 

[Concerned American]

View attachment 479370

How are terrorist militias considered "well regulated"? Who "regulates" them? How are they "necessary to the security of a free state"? We know who regulates the military and National Guard.

American militia movement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" do you not understand. The right is addressed in the latter part of the statement. The first part of the statement is irrelevant except for justification purposes. Your misguided opinion is noted, but the SCOTUS has already ruled. Sorry your feelings are hurt.

 

[9thIDdoc]

It's definitely not the most important amendment, like most conservatives argue, but it's not obsolete. We're the United Freakin States. We were founded on a revolutionary crazy notion that people are allowed to be as free as they want.

If you take away that crazy, then we're closer to being like the French. And no one wants that.

You know the French view on US irresponsible gun ownership as a small dick thing...

If they had proper sized dicks and knew how to use them they wouldn't need those guns...

Real men have no problem registering there guns, what are they scared off..

So you're saying that instead of shooting the enemy we should fuck him? Knock yourself out but I believe I'll pass.

 

[kaz]

More just empty rhetoric.

LOL, you want bigger government checks, and that's "investment." Greedy socialist

You are a fool.

You just make shit up, talk in sweeping statements and think it means anything

 

[surada]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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.​

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Why not just join the National Guard if you think we need an armed militia.. That would include training, discipline and leadership.

The National Guard is controlled by the US State Governors and the POTUS. There is no better example of this than the currently employed THOUSANDS of NG troops stationed in Washington, D.C. to PROTECT THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES AND THEIR SUPPORTING STAFF.

The loosely organized militia consisting of constitutionally armed citizens (as intended by the founders) is not under control of elected officials but is under control of the TRUE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE, FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE.

The intent was (and still is) to protect the existence of the democratic Republic called the United States from becoming a despotic pure democracy or a dictatorship under the direction of a rogue governing body.

When our Army was initially founded, command of it was given to the POTUS, but the funding of it was controlled by congress for periods limited to 2 years.

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army | Constitution Center

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

constitutioncenter.org

On this day: Congress officially creates the U.S. Army

September 29, 2020 by NCC Staff

To some it seemed like a technicality, but on this day in 1789, President George Washington succeeded in getting the First Congress to recognize the U.S. Army under the terms of our new Constitution.

The Revolutionary War version of the Army had been formed under Washington on June 14, 1775 as the Continental Congress decided it was needed in the conflict with Great Britain. The first version of the Army worked with state militias on the fight for independence.

The Articles of Confederation, which were finally ratified in 1781, established the ability to raise troops for the common defense of the United States. (It also allowed individual states to declare war under certain conditions.) But the Confederation government greatly scaled back the remains of the Continental Army into a new regiment with 700 men.

In general, there were great concerns about the need for a standing army outside of times of war. The Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia provided checks on any standing army by allowing the President to command it, but Congress to finance it using short-term legislation.

Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.

As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.

Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.

“I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.

Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.

Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.

At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers. Today, the U.S. Army was expected to have about 450,000 active duty personnel in 2018, its smallest number since 1940.

In order to guarantee the protection of the people from a well armed, rogue governing body, SCOTUS upholds the provisions of the 2nd Amendment with certain reasonable limitations that apply to the general public but not to licensed gun dealers and some others.

Screw the gun grabbers!

Guns are not the problem.

Weapons of any sort are not the problem.

Evil people are the problem. Evil cannot be legislated into non-existence.

Back then the US didn't have a standing army or national guard or police departments.

Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of a moron like Trump who has never even read the US constitution?

Are you prepared to fight other Americans in defense of an unconstitutional (illegal) government?

You jackass, in 2016 Trump claimed 3-5 million illegals voted.