Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
The only way to protect the citizens from their own fucking government is to arm every man, woman, child, and it, with state of the art infantry weapons and disarm the government.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It was the Framers’ original intent that the sanctioned and recognized state militia be the first line of defense against invasion or insurrection, not armed private citizens – the right to bear arms was solely for the benefit of official state militia.
NopeI am also a gun lover, but the 2nd Amendment will be changed. It's just a matter of time...
This is a lie, as the Framers gave Congress the power to create a standing army for these purposes.It was the Framers’ original intent that the sanctioned and recognized state militia be the first line of defense against invasion or insurrection...
This is a lie. as the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people.he right to bear arms was solely for the benefit of official state militia.
Has there ever been any government that has not gone completely corrupt within 400 years or so?
Has there ever been any government that has not gone completely corrupt within 400 minutes or so?
Which law is that?The actual only possible interpretation of the Bill of Rights is that the first federal gun control law in 1927, and all federal firearm laws that followed, are simply illegal.
The federal government was clearly denied any firearm jurisdiction at all.
This is a lie, as the Framers gave Congress the power to create a standing army for these purposes.
God you anti firearms types will say anything even when patently false.Wrong. State militias were absolutely the Founders vision of the first defense against insurrection and invasion. The Founders were very much against the idea of a standing army. They knew it could be important at times but they limited the Standing Army t o 2-years maximum unless explicitly reauthorized.
Don't let the anti-gunners suck you into their twist of history to tie the 2nd Amendment to the right to keep and bear arms.
You're an idiot. I'm the most pro-right to keep and bear arms person on this forum. I'm an absolutist about "shall not be infringed". That is why the argument about using the militia for defense against invasion and the phrase in the 2nd Amendment are so important. It's not the only protection in the 2nd, not just for militia use, but if you allow that the militia is not a purpose then you allow the antis the argument that gun ownership is no longer required.God you anti firearms types will say anything even when patently false.
This is a lie, as the Framers gave Congress the power to create a standing army for these purposes.
This is a lie. as the 2nd Amendment protects the right of the people.
Not the state.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia
But, the people
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.[35]
heller 2008 insures that can't happen. Not sure what you're referring to. I posted the original hand written version.You're an idiot. I'm the most pro-right to keep and bear arms person on this forum. I'm an absolutist about "shall not be infringed". That is why the argument about using the militia for defense against invasion and the phrase in the 2nd Amendment are so important. It's not the only protection in the 2nd, not just for militia use, but if you allow that the militia is not a purpose then you allow the antis the argument that gun ownership is no longer required.
What makes you think the militia is not necessary now, even with a standing army?You're an idiot. I'm the most pro-right to keep and bear arms person on this forum. I'm an absolutist about "shall not be infringed". That is why the argument about using the militia for defense against invasion and the phrase in the 2nd Amendment are so important. It's not the only protection in the 2nd, not just for militia use, but if you allow that the militia is not a purpose then you allow the antis the argument that gun ownership is no longer required.
EXACTLYWhat makes you think the militia is not necessary now, even with a standing army?
A militia is necessary, REGARDLESS of a standing army and ESPECIALLY if there is a standing army.
There MUST be a balance of power.
the right was and is intended to be FOR the PEOPLE, as in a right to all citizens, explain in great detail why every other amendment that use the term "the people" is understood to mean an INDIVIDUAL right but some how the 2nd is not?You're an idiot. I'm the most pro-right to keep and bear arms person on this forum. I'm an absolutist about "shall not be infringed". That is why the argument about using the militia for defense against invasion and the phrase in the 2nd Amendment are so important. It's not the only protection in the 2nd, not just for militia use, but if you allow that the militia is not a purpose then you allow the antis the argument that gun ownership is no longer required.
heller 2008 insures that can't happen. Not sure what you're referring to. I posted the original hand written version.
'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms'
Not the militia, the people. The people can protect the state as a militia if necessary. Heller ensured an individual can protect one's home with a gun.
I would take a step further now and say the states can organize a militia to protect the United States over demofks who are trying to take over.
Again, why there can never be an insurrection.
Quote where I said otherwise.LOL
the right was and is intended to be FOR the PEOPLE, as in a right to all citizens, explain in great detail why every other amendment that use the term "the people" is understood to mean an INDIVIDUAL right but some how the 2nd is not?
Quote where I said otherwise. It is the whole point of my response to M14 Shooter, and RetiredGySgt. Read my long post a couple up from here where I make an irrefutable argument proving that the militia is absolutely necessary and only constitutional amendment can even attempt to make it otherwise.What makes you think the militia is not necessary now, even with a standing army?
A militia is necessary, REGARDLESS of a standing army and ESPECIALLY if there is a standing army.
There MUST be a balance of power.
There MUST be a balance of power.
You are an idiot. the second amendment does not rest only on the militia. It stands alone as an individual right, In fact the anti gunners argue that if it rests on a militia that it is no longer needed due to a militia no longer existing,Where do you get that idea? It was the intention of the Founders that the people have so much more firepower than the government that there would never be a question of tyranny; it would simply not be possible.
Unfortunately, so-called, self-proclaimed, patriots and gun rights supporters, including most on this thread, have surrendered the right to keep and bear arms, supporting the government in its infringements by banning entire classes of arms and restricting entire classes of the population, keeping and bearing arms. The days of the people having overwhelming power over government are behind us.