The Right To Bear Arms

[Uncensored2008]

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

"An armed populace cannot be ruled." - Henry VIII as he announced that he was reversing the law of James VI allowing peasants to have swords and knives.

Every tyrant seeks to disarm their enslaved subjects.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"An armed populace cannot be ruled." - Henry VIII as he announced that he was reversing the law of James VI allowing peasants to have swords and knives.
Every tyrant seeks to disarm their enslaved subjects.

They want to take the guns because they want to do things they know they will get shot for.

 

[Lakhota]

So sad. So true.

 

[Uncensored2008]

View attachment 649593

So sad. So true.

Thanks for your mindless meme, Shittting Bull

 

[Leo123]

Maybe not obsolete but antiquated, out of date...

... it needs to be updated to reflect the times...

... and the threat of overkill firepower...

... for the average citizen.

Average citizens don't murder.

 

[Lakhota]

Amen!

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 649593

So sad. So true.

Nonsense.
First of all, there is only about one school incident a year, so extremely rare.
Second is that making guns more illegal won't work any more than making drugs illegal did.
Third is that these school shootings are actually suicides, so are mental health issues, so we should ensure mental health care is free.
Forth is that likely schools need to be nicer, so they do not anger people so much.

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 649600

Amen!

That is insane.
The founders did not want a standing military because they did not trust mercenaries.
So then they wanted all the citizens to be armed and familiar with arms, in order to be capable of being quickly called up for defense of individuals, village, state, or country.
It makes no sense to claim the 2nd amendment was to protect only the states, because the threats came from criminals attacking homes or villages, or foreign attacks on the whole country.
There was never any time states needed an armed militia.

Sure the first part of the 2nd amendment mentions militia, but that is not typically related to a state.
{... 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] ...}
If the intent was only to prevent state militias from being disarmed by a rogue federal government, then is would not have said, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Instead it would have said, "the right of state militias to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[Lakhota]

Amen!

 

[Rigby5]

View attachment 649802

Amen!

Sorry, but that makes no sense.
The point of the Kentucky long rifle was to shoot Redcoats, so you had to have rifles as good as the enemy.
The future enemy, the new Redcoats, are the current military and police.
They are not only already corrupt, but will become eventually so corrupt they will no longer be tolerable.
So then we will have to have rifles as good as the enemy then, which will be the military and police.

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 649600

Amen!

And just like when the Supreme Court ruled the wrong way in Dredd Scott, and Plessy v. Ferguson, the pampered, politically appointed lawyer in your meme was wrong too......considering Justices get private, armed security for themselves, and a lifetime government job that we pay for....

Scalia went through the entire history of the Right to Keep and Bear arms in the Heller decision...it would be nice if morons like you would take the time to have someone read it to you...since you obviously can't understand the simple words, The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 649802

Amen!

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 649802

Amen!

Why is it you morons keep posting stupid things like that?

If you would simply take the time to have someone read the Heller decision to you, you might understand how dumb you are....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.


Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------

 

[2aguy]

View attachment 649802

Amen!

So...shithead....Freedom of speech only applies to words created on the printing press....right?

You dumb ass...

 

[2aguy]

Nonsense.
First of all, there is only about one school incident a year, so extremely rare.
Second is that making guns more illegal won't work any more than making drugs illegal did.
Third is that these school shootings are actually suicides, so are mental health issues, so we should ensure mental health care is free.
Forth is that likely schools need to be nicer, so they do not anger people so much.

Not even that........one of the other anti-gun fanatics posted a meme showing school shootings dating back to 1988......there was a grand total of 13 over the 32 year period....

More kids are killed by criminals with guns in Chicago each year than all the school shootings in that 32 year period.....and the policies of the democrat party are allowing those gun criminals to keep shooting people....

 

[scruffy]

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.

Another dumbshit libtard. ^^^

 

[scruffy]

EXACTLY

national guard ensures states rights.

Not any more.

 

[scruffy]

View attachment 649802

Amen!

So go ahead and change them, fucktard.

You have that power.

Stop whining, dumbass

 

[surada]

You know nothing and it shows. because their mental state of mind would not allow them to desert. Their training from a young age, the reward to their families in German prevented them fr deserting

The Prussians were mercenaries. They weren't fighting for Germany. 6000 fought for the British... Over 1000 deserted.

The Revolutionary War Hero Who Was Openly Gay | HISTORY

Baron Friedrich von Steuben was known for his bravery and the discipline and grit he brought to the American troops.

www.history.com

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why is it you morons keep posting stupid things like that?

If you would simply take the time to have someone read the Heller decision to you, you might understand how dumb you are....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

We do not interpret constitutional rights that way.


Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------

Stupid people are swayed by simple slogans. It's the basis of popular advertising. The fascist democrats are the party of and for stupid people. They seek to sway those who do not think.

In all seriousness, Lakhota has an IQ of maybe 65. These kinds of moronic slogans are as complicated as her thoughts get.