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.
Oh man.....the irony here. Hilarious. Where do I even begin?The Supreme Court followed the grownups of America. You just aren't one of them, which is why you're still pissed off.Both sides of the aisle are creating legislation whose sole purpose is to enforce existing legislation. You get that? We already have a law...but we don't enforce it for some reason. And rather than just enforcing the law, we create new laws which say "hey...you must enforce that previous law". Uh....ok??? And who is going to enforce this new law which forces people to enforce the previous law?
Here is the right side of the aisle engaging in this insanity. The 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution already protects my religious freedoms. But liberals don't care. Well...if they don't care about the freaking Constitution - the highest law in the land - why the frick would they care about or respect the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA)? How about instead of wasting time and resources on creating new legislation, you spend time and resources focusing on how to achieve getting America to adhere to existing legislation?!?
Last year the Supreme Court unilaterally redefined marriage all 50 states. Since that time, faith-based charities, individuals and organizations that disagree with the Court’s redefinition have been attacked for standing up for their religious convictions.
How do we protect these organizations? The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) is legislation that does two major things:
- FADA protects religious organizations and charities from choosing between giving up their tax exempt status and compromising on their beliefs (specifically the belief that marriage is between one woman and one man).
- FADA protects religious institutions, like universities from losing their accreditation and from being pushed out of the public sphere.
I didn't say anything about Hamilton other than to say that I wanted your opinion, not his. Your fear is palpable junior. What exactly are you so afraid of? That everyone will know how ignorant you are?So you won't take the word of one of the Founders that the Constitution is a fundamental law? If not someone who had a direct hand in creating the Constitution and knew beyond doubt the intent of his and the other delegates, then who? What a piece of work you are!So yes or no - is the Constitution law? I'm not asking what Hamilton believed - I'm asking what you believe? We all know that you love your profanity, large font, underlining and colors, but a simple yes or no will suffice here.Damn you're an IDIOT! I cited a passage from the Federalist #78 where Hamilton made it very clear to any thinking and educated person capable of reading and understanding that very point to keep that from your list of dodges and deflections three (3) times; my posts # 48, 78 & 88, shit for brains. Here is the full passage;Is the U.S. Constitution the law? Yes or No? All it requires from you is one word which is either three letters or two letters. Surely even you can handle that, right? What are you so afraid of?
If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. ~~The Federalist #78, A. Hamilton ~~
Look at the sentence which is UNDERLINED & in BOLD BLUE. Here it is again below if you can't find it above or no one is around to help you;
A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.
Another of your faulty assertions PROVEN to be BULLSHIT!
The above is an example of substantiation, fool!
Evidently and obviously, given you believe Hamilton is not a reliable source of information in spite of his role in creating the Constitution and then explaining its meanings and intent in more than 50 of the 85 in the collection of the Federalist Papers to the people of the several States prior to ratification of the Constitution, you consider his expertise on the matter immaterial by implication. BTW, why would the Supremes cite the Federalist Papers in so many SCOTUS decisions as to the Framers' intent if the judgment of the Constitutional Convention delegates were impaired, wrongheaded and/or untrustworthy? Yup, you're a real constitutional expert alright!
Have a nice day you know nothing know-it-all!
You're lying claiming you didn't say anything about Hamilton. You've mentioned him at least three (3) times now. I'm as cool as a cucumber in the refer, but it seems you are once again projecting. What's wrong...got sweat running down your ass crack? Do you still masturbate? It a simple yes or no question!I didn't say anything about Hamilton other than to say that I wanted your opinion, not his. Your fear is palpable junior. What exactly are you so afraid of? That everyone will know how ignorant you are?So you won't take the word of one of the Founders that the Constitution is a fundamental law? If not someone who had a direct hand in creating the Constitution and knew beyond doubt the intent of his and the other delegates, then who? What a piece of work you are!So yes or no - is the Constitution law? I'm not asking what Hamilton believed - I'm asking what you believe? We all know that you love your profanity, large font, underlining and colors, but a simple yes or no will suffice here.Damn you're an IDIOT! I cited a passage from the Federalist #78 where Hamilton made it very clear to any thinking and educated person capable of reading and understanding that very point to keep that from your list of dodges and deflections three (3) times; my posts # 48, 78 & 88, shit for brains. Here is the full passage;Is the U.S. Constitution the law? Yes or No? All it requires from you is one word which is either three letters or two letters. Surely even you can handle that, right? What are you so afraid of?
If it be said that the legislative body are themselves the constitutional judges of their own powers, and that the construction they put upon them is conclusive upon the other departments, it may be answered, that this cannot be the natural presumption, where it is not to be collected from any particular provisions in the Constitution. It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their WILL to that of their constituents. It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. ~~The Federalist #78, A. Hamilton ~~
Look at the sentence which is UNDERLINED & in BOLD BLUE. Here it is again below if you can't find it above or no one is around to help you;
A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law.
Another of your faulty assertions PROVEN to be BULLSHIT!
The above is an example of substantiation, fool!
Evidently and obviously, given you believe Hamilton is not a reliable source of information in spite of his role in creating the Constitution and then explaining its meanings and intent in more than 50 of the 85 in the collection of the Federalist Papers to the people of the several States prior to ratification of the Constitution, you consider his expertise on the matter immaterial by implication. BTW, why would the Supremes cite the Federalist Papers in so many SCOTUS decisions as to the Framers' intent if the judgment of the Constitutional Convention delegates were impaired, wrongheaded and/or untrustworthy? Yup, you're a real constitutional expert alright!
Have a nice day you know nothing know-it-all!
Once again - is the U.S. Constitution law? Simple YES or NO
why would the Supremes cite the Federalist Papers in so many SCOTUS decisions as to the Framers' intent if the judgment of the Constitutional Convention delegates were impaired, wrongheaded and/or untrustworthy? Yup, you're a real constitutional expert alright!
You're lying claiming you didn't say anything about Hamilton. You've mentioned him at least three (3) times now.
) can you tell us why you are so afraid? I've never seen anyone this freaked out to give a simple yes or no answer. I mean, hell, you've got a 50/50 chance of getting it right. We know you have no clue about the Constitution but even you have decent odds at 50/50.
Yup, I keep mentioning Hamilton to remind you of what he wrote in Federalist #78, which you want to ignore. You're the one taunting and obsessing over that question I have answered repeatedly about 5 times now. You're just too fucking stupid to understand the written word and conclude the impact of that passage on your dimwitted assertions, OR more likely, you know that the totality of it blows your claim completely out of the water, so you choose to try and trivialize what I CITED AS PROOF. I've told you to get someone to help you, fool! Damn, you're really dumber than a box of rocks on an old growth stump, HUH!You're lying claiming you didn't say anything about Hamilton. You've mentioned him at least three (3) times now.
Um...you keep mentioning Hamilton junior
So since you won't answer the question (cause you're peeing down your leg like a frightened child
Why would the Supremes cite the Federalist Papers in so many SCOTUS decisions as to the Framers' intent if the judgment of the Constitutional Convention delegates were impaired, wrongheaded and/or untrustworthy? Yup, you're a real constitutional expert alright!
It doesn't say anywhere who decides that it is "well regulated". As the leader of the militia, I will decide if it is "well regulated".Oh no....now you're resorting to anger and insults like ThoughtCrimes? Isn't that beneath you?It's funny because you know that's not true. And you know that I know that you know it's not true. But you still want to act like you can convince people of something that even you don't believe.It really does say Militia. True story bro.
Want a gun, join a militia. Seems to be the intent of the framers. I’m sure after Hillary appoints 3-4 justices; they’ll explain it to you better.
See, one of the key you just mentioned was "seems". You seem to think that was the intent of the framers. I know for a fact that it was not the intent of the framers. It clearly states "The right of the people". It could not be any simpler or more black & white. The right is of the people. Not of the militia. If they wanted the militia, they would have said "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms". But they didn't.
However, that being said, your argument is extra special nonsensical considering that anybody can create a militia at any time. So to make your disingenuous argument forever null and void, I am here and now forming the "Rottweiler Militia". Anybody may join. No paperwork required. No fees ever. You do not even need to grant me any form of notification that you are joining.
Boom! Done. Now every person as a full Constitutional right to any arms they want (fully automatic or otherwise). You see my dear, at no point in the 2nd Amendment does it say "State Militia". It just says militia. So therefore, it does not have to be run and operated by the state. And there are tons of militias out there. But I just made an all "inclusive" one! (Hey - you should be happy, don't liberals looooove the word "inclusive"). So now everybody is covered and you have no argument left.
You know what the framers intent was? Sure you do. And you also rode your unicorn into the crack house for your hourly supply?
Yes - I do know what the framers intent was. You know why? Because there were no emails or texts back then. They had to write letters. And there are thousands and thousands of their original writings that were preserved. And I've spent my life reading and studying them. Something liberals refuse to do because they can't attempt to pervert the Constitution if they know the truth.
I will give you a fantastic example here my dear....
“Give about two [hours] every day to exercise, for health must not be sacrificed to learning. A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks.” [1] - Thomas Jefferson (September 19, 1785)
Now I ask you - how could Thomas Jefferson recommend in a letter to his nephew (Peter Carr) that the gun was (and I quote) "the best species of exercise" and that it should "be your constant companion of your walks" if only people in a militia were allowed to be armed? Do you think you could have a rare moment of honesty when you attempt to answer this question?
By the way - I given you the author of the letter, the exact date, the exact name of the person it was written to, and a citation so you should be able to completely verify this on your own. In addition, I've added a link to Snopes below lest you doubt every other source on the internet.
[1] Excerpt From: Andrew M. Allison. “The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom.” iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom by Andrew M. Allison on iBooks
Thomas Jefferson on Exercise
You have to make sure it’s a well-regulated militia too. As soon as the federal regulators are pleased with your militia, you can have your guns
Now....back to Thomas Jefferson recommending to walk every day for two hours with a gun. Are you willing to have a moment of honesty here? So far I have produced original writings from two founders - both of which made if clear that guns were a right of the people. Any and all people.
Please show me the section of the Constitution where it states the federal government is the ultimate arbiter of "regulate"? It doesn't say that and you know it. As founder of the militia - I am responsible for regulating the militia and I have all of that covered already.It doesn't say anywhere who decides that it is "well regulated". As the leader of the militia, I will decide if it is "well regulated".Oh no....now you're resorting to anger and insults like ThoughtCrimes? Isn't that beneath you?It's funny because you know that's not true. And you know that I know that you know it's not true. But you still want to act like you can convince people of something that even you don't believe.
See, one of the key you just mentioned was "seems". You seem to think that was the intent of the framers. I know for a fact that it was not the intent of the framers. It clearly states "The right of the people". It could not be any simpler or more black & white. The right is of the people. Not of the militia. If they wanted the militia, they would have said "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms". But they didn't.
However, that being said, your argument is extra special nonsensical considering that anybody can create a militia at any time. So to make your disingenuous argument forever null and void, I am here and now forming the "Rottweiler Militia". Anybody may join. No paperwork required. No fees ever. You do not even need to grant me any form of notification that you are joining.
Boom! Done. Now every person as a full Constitutional right to any arms they want (fully automatic or otherwise). You see my dear, at no point in the 2nd Amendment does it say "State Militia". It just says militia. So therefore, it does not have to be run and operated by the state. And there are tons of militias out there. But I just made an all "inclusive" one! (Hey - you should be happy, don't liberals looooove the word "inclusive"). So now everybody is covered and you have no argument left.
You know what the framers intent was? Sure you do. And you also rode your unicorn into the crack house for your hourly supply?
Yes - I do know what the framers intent was. You know why? Because there were no emails or texts back then. They had to write letters. And there are thousands and thousands of their original writings that were preserved. And I've spent my life reading and studying them. Something liberals refuse to do because they can't attempt to pervert the Constitution if they know the truth.
I will give you a fantastic example here my dear....
“Give about two [hours] every day to exercise, for health must not be sacrificed to learning. A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks.” [1] - Thomas Jefferson (September 19, 1785)
Now I ask you - how could Thomas Jefferson recommend in a letter to his nephew (Peter Carr) that the gun was (and I quote) "the best species of exercise" and that it should "be your constant companion of your walks" if only people in a militia were allowed to be armed? Do you think you could have a rare moment of honesty when you attempt to answer this question?
By the way - I given you the author of the letter, the exact date, the exact name of the person it was written to, and a citation so you should be able to completely verify this on your own. In addition, I've added a link to Snopes below lest you doubt every other source on the internet.
[1] Excerpt From: Andrew M. Allison. “The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom.” iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom by Andrew M. Allison on iBooks
Thomas Jefferson on Exercise
You have to make sure it’s a well-regulated militia too. As soon as the federal regulators are pleased with your militia, you can have your guns
Now....back to Thomas Jefferson recommending to walk every day for two hours with a gun. Are you willing to have a moment of honesty here? So far I have produced original writings from two founders - both of which made if clear that guns were a right of the people. Any and all people.
Again you can't regulate yourself. It would have to fit in with strategies and common language, uniforms, maneuvers, etc...
As soon as you prove to federal regulators you're a well regulated militia, we will discuss giving you a sling shot skippy
Please show me the section of the Constitution where it states the federal government is the ultimate arbiter of "regulate"? It doesn't say that and you know it. As founder of the militia - I am responsible for regulating the militia and I have all of that covered already.It doesn't say anywhere who decides that it is "well regulated". As the leader of the militia, I will decide if it is "well regulated".Oh no....now you're resorting to anger and insults like ThoughtCrimes? Isn't that beneath you?You know what the framers intent was? Sure you do. And you also rode your unicorn into the crack house for your hourly supply?
Yes - I do know what the framers intent was. You know why? Because there were no emails or texts back then. They had to write letters. And there are thousands and thousands of their original writings that were preserved. And I've spent my life reading and studying them. Something liberals refuse to do because they can't attempt to pervert the Constitution if they know the truth.
I will give you a fantastic example here my dear....
“Give about two [hours] every day to exercise, for health must not be sacrificed to learning. A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks.” [1] - Thomas Jefferson (September 19, 1785)
Now I ask you - how could Thomas Jefferson recommend in a letter to his nephew (Peter Carr) that the gun was (and I quote) "the best species of exercise" and that it should "be your constant companion of your walks" if only people in a militia were allowed to be armed? Do you think you could have a rare moment of honesty when you attempt to answer this question?
By the way - I given you the author of the letter, the exact date, the exact name of the person it was written to, and a citation so you should be able to completely verify this on your own. In addition, I've added a link to Snopes below lest you doubt every other source on the internet.
[1] Excerpt From: Andrew M. Allison. “The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom.” iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom by Andrew M. Allison on iBooks
Thomas Jefferson on Exercise
You have to make sure it’s a well-regulated militia too. As soon as the federal regulators are pleased with your militia, you can have your guns
Now....back to Thomas Jefferson recommending to walk every day for two hours with a gun. Are you willing to have a moment of honesty here? So far I have produced original writings from two founders - both of which made if clear that guns were a right of the people. Any and all people.
Again you can't regulate yourself. It would have to fit in with strategies and common language, uniforms, maneuvers, etc...
As soon as you prove to federal regulators you're a well regulated militia, we will discuss giving you a sling shot skippy
Now....back to Thomas Jefferson recommending to walk every day for two hours with a gun. Are you willing to have a moment of honesty here? So far I have produced original writings from two founders - both of which made if clear that guns were a right of the people. Any and all people.
Why aren't you willing to admit you were wrong here? You know you are. Thomas Jefferson wouldn't be recommending taking a gun on walks if guns were only allowed for members of a militia. You can pervert the U.S. Constitution no matter how hard you try. You're just making yourself silly and losing all credibility.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms. The right belongs to the people. I know it. You know it. Hillary knows it. Barack knows it. This is a silly game you're playing as we all, know that you know.
You're claiming you answered it - but you haven't. You keep quoting Hamilton. Should the entire board then assume that you agree with Hamilton? That the U.S. Constitution is law?Yup, I keep mentioning Hamilton to remind you of what he wrote in Federalist #78, which you want to ignore. You're the one taunting and obsessing over that question I have answered repeatedly about 5 times now. You're just too fucking stupid to understand the written word and conclude the impact of that passage on your dimwitted assertions, OR more likely, you know that the totality of it blows your claim completely out of the water, so you choose to try and trivialize what I CITED AS PROOF. I've told you to get someone to help you, fool! Damn, you're really dumber than a box of rocks on an old growth stump, HUH!You're lying claiming you didn't say anything about Hamilton. You've mentioned him at least three (3) times now.
Um...you keep mentioning Hamilton junior
So since you won't answer the question (cause you're peeing down your leg like a frightened child
BTW, you STILL haven't answered this question I'll repeat a third time, which you will just ignore with a flip response if any at all ONE MORE TIME...clue: it's not rhetorical;
Why would the Supremes cite the Federalist Papers in so many SCOTUS decisions as to the Framers' intent if the judgment of the Constitutional Convention delegates were impaired, wrongheaded and/or untrustworthy? Yup, you're a real constitutional expert alright!
Uh-oh...someone is getting angry now that facts have proven they are lying in a weak attempt to pervert the U.S. Constitution.Please show me the section of the Constitution where it states the federal government is the ultimate arbiter of "regulate"? It doesn't say that and you know it. As founder of the militia - I am responsible for regulating the militia and I have all of that covered already.It doesn't say anywhere who decides that it is "well regulated". As the leader of the militia, I will decide if it is "well regulated".Oh no....now you're resorting to anger and insults like ThoughtCrimes? Isn't that beneath you?
Yes - I do know what the framers intent was. You know why? Because there were no emails or texts back then. They had to write letters. And there are thousands and thousands of their original writings that were preserved. And I've spent my life reading and studying them. Something liberals refuse to do because they can't attempt to pervert the Constitution if they know the truth.
I will give you a fantastic example here my dear....
“Give about two [hours] every day to exercise, for health must not be sacrificed to learning. A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body, and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks.” [1] - Thomas Jefferson (September 19, 1785)
Now I ask you - how could Thomas Jefferson recommend in a letter to his nephew (Peter Carr) that the gun was (and I quote) "the best species of exercise" and that it should "be your constant companion of your walks" if only people in a militia were allowed to be armed? Do you think you could have a rare moment of honesty when you attempt to answer this question?
By the way - I given you the author of the letter, the exact date, the exact name of the person it was written to, and a citation so you should be able to completely verify this on your own. In addition, I've added a link to Snopes below lest you doubt every other source on the internet.
[1] Excerpt From: Andrew M. Allison. “The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom.” iBooks. This material may be protected by copyright.
Check out this book on the iBooks Store: The Real Thomas Jefferson: The True Story of America's Philosopher of Freedom by Andrew M. Allison on iBooks
Thomas Jefferson on Exercise
You have to make sure it’s a well-regulated militia too. As soon as the federal regulators are pleased with your militia, you can have your guns
Now....back to Thomas Jefferson recommending to walk every day for two hours with a gun. Are you willing to have a moment of honesty here? So far I have produced original writings from two founders - both of which made if clear that guns were a right of the people. Any and all people.
Again you can't regulate yourself. It would have to fit in with strategies and common language, uniforms, maneuvers, etc...
As soon as you prove to federal regulators you're a well regulated militia, we will discuss giving you a sling shot skippy
Now....back to Thomas Jefferson recommending to walk every day for two hours with a gun. Are you willing to have a moment of honesty here? So far I have produced original writings from two founders - both of which made if clear that guns were a right of the people. Any and all people.
Why aren't you willing to admit you were wrong here? You know you are. Thomas Jefferson wouldn't be recommending taking a gun on walks if guns were only allowed for members of a militia. You can pervert the U.S. Constitution no matter how hard you try. You're just making yourself silly and losing all credibility.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms. The right belongs to the people. I know it. You know it. Hillary knows it. Barack knows it. This is a silly game you're playing as we all, know that you know.
In the 21st Century, a single militia is useless; there has to be a unifying factor…hence the Federal Government. Thomas Jefferson would be the first to tell you that. Clinton’s hand-picked justices will tell you that also. Just sit back and relax and let the wisdom be spoon fed to you loser.
A well regulated militia….they’re in the Constitution Baby. Stop trying to say they are not.
In the 21st Century, a single militia is useless; there has to be a unifying factor…hence the Federal Government. Thomas Jefferson would be the first to tell you that. Clinton’s hand-picked justices will tell you that also. Just sit back and relax and let the wisdom be spoon fed to you loser.
A well regulated militia….they’re in the Constitution Baby. Stop trying to say they are not.
A well regulated militia….they’re in the Constitution Baby. Stop trying to say they are not.
Uh-oh...someone is getting angry now that facts have proven they are lying in a weak attempt to pervert the U.S. Constitution.
My militia spans the entire United States my dear. It dwarfs the size of our military. So my "single" militia now has over 70 million members.
The right belongs to the people....it is in the Constitution baby. Stop trying to say it is not. That's why Thomas Jefferson recommend the gun as the best form of exercise to his young nephew and why he suggested always accompany a person as they walk. Couldn't do that if only militias were allowed to carry them. When the architect behind our entire government, the greatest legal mind ever, and the third president of the United States says it's so....it's so. His pedigree far exceeds every libtard combined.
A well regulated militia….they’re in the Constitution Baby. Stop trying to say they are not.
It's easy to do brother when one is on the side of the facts and the truth. I have volumes and volumes of oringal writings by the founders. Quoting them and the U.S. Constitution is easy.Uh-oh...someone is getting angry now that facts have proven they are lying in a weak attempt to pervert the U.S. Constitution.
My militia spans the entire United States my dear. It dwarfs the size of our military. So my "single" militia now has over 70 million members.
The right belongs to the people....it is in the Constitution baby. Stop trying to say it is not. That's why Thomas Jefferson recommend the gun as the best form of exercise to his young nephew and why he suggested always accompany a person as they walk. Couldn't do that if only militias were allowed to carry them. When the architect behind our entire government, the greatest legal mind ever, and the third president of the United States says it's so....it's so. His pedigree far exceeds every libtard combined.
Rottweiler I must commend you for your tenacity in debating these vacuous jabbering bed wetters, especially candyass. These are dangerously stupid parrots here. If it weren't for idiots like these all over the world who look to government for a nanny state there never would have been brutal dictators that wiped out millions of disarmed people.
It's easy to do brother when one is on the side of the facts and the truth. I have volumes and volumes of oringal writings by the founders. Quoting them and the U.S. Constitution is easy.
A well regulated militia….they’re in the Constitution Baby. Stop trying to say they are not.
Boom! Knockout blow baby...
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
It's funny - not one founder uses the term "militia". They all say "the people". As in the entire populace. It's ok Candy. The good news is we all know you know - so it's not that you're ignorant. The bad news is that you're intentionally being disingenuous - which is the nice way of saying a dirt-bag liar. The worse news is that ignorant is more acceptable than someone who lacks integrity to the point that they can lie.
Uh-oh...someone is getting angry now that facts have proven they are lying in a weak attempt to pervert the U.S. Constitution.Please show me the section of the Constitution where it states the federal government is the ultimate arbiter of "regulate"? It doesn't say that and you know it. As founder of the militia - I am responsible for regulating the militia and I have all of that covered already.It doesn't say anywhere who decides that it is "well regulated". As the leader of the militia, I will decide if it is "well regulated".You have to make sure it’s a well-regulated militia too. As soon as the federal regulators are pleased with your militia, you can have your guns
Now....back to Thomas Jefferson recommending to walk every day for two hours with a gun. Are you willing to have a moment of honesty here? So far I have produced original writings from two founders - both of which made if clear that guns were a right of the people. Any and all people.
Again you can't regulate yourself. It would have to fit in with strategies and common language, uniforms, maneuvers, etc...
As soon as you prove to federal regulators you're a well regulated militia, we will discuss giving you a sling shot skippy
Now....back to Thomas Jefferson recommending to walk every day for two hours with a gun. Are you willing to have a moment of honesty here? So far I have produced original writings from two founders - both of which made if clear that guns were a right of the people. Any and all people.
Why aren't you willing to admit you were wrong here? You know you are. Thomas Jefferson wouldn't be recommending taking a gun on walks if guns were only allowed for members of a militia. You can pervert the U.S. Constitution no matter how hard you try. You're just making yourself silly and losing all credibility.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms. The right belongs to the people. I know it. You know it. Hillary knows it. Barack knows it. This is a silly game you're playing as we all, know that you know.
In the 21st Century, a single militia is useless; there has to be a unifying factor…hence the Federal Government. Thomas Jefferson would be the first to tell you that. Clinton’s hand-picked justices will tell you that also. Just sit back and relax and let the wisdom be spoon fed to you loser.
A well regulated militia….they’re in the Constitution Baby. Stop trying to say they are not.
My militia spans the entire United States my dear. It dwarfs the size of our military. So my "single" militia now has over 70 million members.
The right belongs to the people....it is in the Constitution baby. Stop trying to say it is not. That's why Thomas Jefferson recommend the gun as the best form of exercise to his young nephew and why he suggested always accompany a person as they walk. Couldn't do that if only militias were allowed to carry them. When the architect behind our entire government, the greatest legal mind ever, and the third president of the United States says it's so....it's so. His pedigree far exceeds every libtard combined.
So far I have produced original writings from two founders - both of which made if clear that guns were a right of the people. Any and all people.
It's cut and dry Candy. Just because you don't like, doesn't mean you get to change. It clearly says the right of the PEOPLE. Not the right of the militias. The framers were giving a WHY as to the necessity (i.e. why it was necessary). But that is not the WHAT. The what is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms. I'm sorry, there is simply no denying that. You're being very disingenuous and you know it.I largely agree with everything you said. The problem is - the "voice" the left wants to add to the U.S. Constitution is their voice. They simply refuse to accept that the Constitution says what it says. I'll give you a prime example:This is a sterling example on why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to where it is currently silent. I won’t speak for the framers because whenever someone says they are doing so, it almost always means that they are speaking for the framers that agree with whatever point they are trying to make. That being said, I would imagine that the framers never thought that they would have to explain to 21st century public servants that you follow the laws on the books and that the implementation of executive purview or signing statements is grotesquely unconstitutional and frankly, in my view, Anti-American in terms of the spirit. I mean, if they passed a law tomorrow in my town that people with my first name had to ride the back of the bus, I would either not ride the bus or sit in the back until I could get someone to change the law. That is the way it should be as a citizen. As a lawmaker or President, you should have no other choice except to follow the laws on the books.
Anyway, those who framed the Constitution, in my view, likely never envisioned this idiotic maneuver that lawmakers and Presidents have used. So we need to add a voice to the document to further perfect it. Theoretically, the Senate could never have a hearing again to seat a Supreme Court justice so it could just wait about 10 years and let death take it’s toll and decapitate one third of the government… There is nothing in the Constitution that would stop them…is there?
The left keeps making the disingenuous argument (and they do know that it is disingenuous) that the 2nd Amendment only applies to "militias". But here is what the U.S. Constitution says...word-for-word:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
Now come on - that is black and white. Cut and dry. Crystal clear. The right of the people. It does not say the right of the militias.
Now I completely agree with you on disobeying laws that are unconstitutional. But the problem there again is the left's refusal to accept what is, and what is not, Constitutional. Obamacare could not be more unconstitutional. No where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to legislate healthcare. Furthermore, no where does the Constitution grant the federal government the power to force citizens to purchase a good or service. And yet, the left will disingenuously insist that it is "constitutional".
And this is what you get when RWNJ’s try to interpret the Constitution; you pick and choose which words matter, decide that some things you hate are unconstitutional while others are just spiffy….
Anyway...
We have a constitution based on faith that those elected will do their duty. In modern times we have a Congress and a President that pick and choose their duties.
This is why we need to add a voice to the Constitution to further perfect the document. Something like one branch of Congress must give the other branch’s work an up or down floor vote within 90 days. No more having appointed “Majority leaders” acting as traffic cops and bills never getting a vote. Something like advise and consent be on a time table of no more than 6 months. Something like the Executive must enforce all laws on the books that are under the branch’s purview.
In truth, I would go further with line item vetoes and getting rid of the war powers act. But I think scheduled and sober analysis of the Constitution once every 50 years or so is a sign that you’re updating what is in effect, your business plan.
As far as the rest, again, I largely agree with you. But if you look in this millennium, who was the one who really started the obstructionism? Harry Reid. As Senate Majority Leader, he started blocking voting on bills even though he had the majority (obviously, as Senate leader) whenever there was indication that some Democrats might "cross over" on legislation. Which is really the worst form of tyranny. If other Democrats were willing to cross over, then most likely the legislation was something really good. But Harry Reid, being a radicalized ideologue and an authoritarian, refused to even allow voting on it.
The bottom line is, the further we have moved away from the U.S. Constitution, the more we have seen this country fail. We need to return to a strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution. And anyone who feels that the document no longer meets the needs of the 21st century, needs to have an honest conversation about that and then convince people to get the votes needed to legally amend the Constitution. If one can't get the votes they need, then they need to accept that it is the will of the American people.
