The words "to bear arms" is a military term

[JakeStarkey]

It was quite clear written within the words of he second amendment.
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.

Yes, it's written entirely in the context of maintaining Militias... Yet it doesn't explicitly say it applies only to Militias.

THAT's the debate. Re-emphasizing your argument in the debate, does not end the debate.

And just who is the militia?
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people

George Mason is the father of the bill of rights.

Your opinion does not control the issue, bigreb. It's your opinion, you have nothing to support it, and what a few far right wing wacks believe does not mean a thing about the Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Tell that to the Libyans. You try that and your neighbors will incarcerate you. You try to govern, they will put you against the wall. What are you guys doing? Hiding under sheets talking complete utter nonsense. Bub,, one of five of you members are probably Homeland and FBI and ATF agents.

What exactly are you talking about? All this talk about you knowing about what you are talking about. Once again just gave yourself away. If I try what Jermey? 4 or 5 memebers? We are a whole lot more than 5. You can tell the feds I'll take som with me whenthey come for me. Better yet I'll tell the U.S. Marshall that I go shooting with every month.

Read what I wrote: probably one of five of you are government infiltrators. Stop issue threats against LEO. You know better, Jason.

You are a drama queen. I made no threat's against anyone. But I will defend myself I will treat anyone who is univited in my home as a intruder. Jermey. As for your other comment I do a through back ground check, including SSN, including where they were born high school any interest they may have and their families.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes, it's written entirely in the context of maintaining Militias... Yet it doesn't explicitly say it applies only to Militias.

THAT's the debate. Re-emphasizing your argument in the debate, does not end the debate.

And just who is the militia?
George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people

George Mason is the father of the bill of rights.

Your opinion does not control the issue, bigreb. It's your opinion, you have nothing to support it, and what a few far right wing wacks believe does not mean a thing about the Constitution.

My name is not George Mason, I am not the father of the bill of rights, I did not say "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people" George Mason did. It is not my opinion but the father of the bill of rights George Mason. But I do agree with his opinion.

 

[editec]

Oh yeah...this place is constitutional scholar central, isn't it?

One wonders why the floundering fathers even bothered having a SCOTUS given how well versed so many of are about the exact meaning of the Constitution.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh yeah...this place is constitutional scholar central, isn't it?

One wonders why the floundering fathers even bothered having a SCOTUS given how well versed so many of are about the exact meaning of the Constitution.

If you don't agree that our government checks and balance system is a bit out of whack then you at just as fucked up as the liberals are. Tell me then what is the exact meaning of the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed mean? It's not rocket science to answer that.

 

[peach174]

Look to your state constitutions
AZ says that the National Guard is our organized militia but that they are subordinate to to citizen's.
Tie it to our constitution's 2nd amendment it is about we people. We the citizens are the militia.

3. Supreme law of the land
Section 3. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

20. Military power subordinate to civil power
Section 20. The military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the
state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing
individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
1. Composition of militia
Section 1. The militia of the state of Arizona shall consist of all capable citizens of the
state between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, and of those between said ages
who shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing
therein, subject to such exemptions as now exist, or as may hereafter be created, by the
laws of the United States or of this state.
2. Composition and designation of organized militia
Section 2. The organized militia shall be designated "The National Guard of Arizona,"
and shall consist of such organized military bodies as now exist under the laws of the
territory of Arizona or as may hereafter be authorized by law.

Our State constitution does not give the right of individuals to be an armed body of men. No right to have an unregulated militia. But gives individuals the right to have arms in order for self defense.

Can you have a tank - yes you can, you can't use the gun barrel, but you can use it to defend your property, neighborhood or perhaps your business. Say for instance you have a riot in the streets. You fire up that baby and run it around your house or place of business, I'm pretty sure they will move on to another place in order to loot. The right to defend yourself or property, that is the beauty of our 2nd amendment.

Look to your own state constitutions and I be that they all say something pretty much similar.
Point is - with state and fed constitution it spells out out very plainly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Oh yeah...this place is constitutional scholar central, isn't it?

One wonders why the floundering fathers even bothered having a SCOTUS given how well versed so many of are about the exact meaning of the Constitution.

If you don't agree that our government checks and balance system is a bit out of whack then you at just as fucked up as the liberals are. Tell me then what is the exact meaning of the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed mean? It's not rocket science to answer that.

It is not the right of the people to keep and bear arms, including military heavy weapons platforms, shall not be infringed. Mason's opinion is his opinion. Did he sign the Constitution?

SCOTUS and law does not agree with your opinion. That will never happen.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Look to your state constitutions
AZ says that the National Guard is our organized militia but that they are subordinate to to citizen's.
Tie it to our constitution's 2nd amendment it is about we people. We the citizens are the militia.

3. Supreme law of the land
Section 3. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

20. Military power subordinate to civil power
Section 20. The military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the
state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing
individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
1. Composition of militia
Section 1. The militia of the state of Arizona shall consist of all capable citizens of the
state between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, and of those between said ages
who shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing
therein, subject to such exemptions as now exist, or as may hereafter be created, by the
laws of the United States or of this state.
2. Composition and designation of organized militia
Section 2. The organized militia shall be designated "The National Guard of Arizona,"
and shall consist of such organized military bodies as now exist under the laws of the
territory of Arizona or as may hereafter be authorized by law.

Our State constitution does not give the right of individuals to be an armed body of men. No right to have an unregulated militia. But gives individuals the right to have arms in order for self defense.

Can you have a tank - yes you can, you can't use the gun barrel, but you can use it to defend your property, neighborhood or perhaps your business. Say for instance you have a riot in the streets. You fire up that baby and run it around your house or place of business, I'm pretty sure they will move on to another place in order to loot. The right to defend yourself or property, that is the beauty of our 2nd amendment.

Look to your own state constitutions and I be that they all say something pretty much similar.
Point is - with state and fed constitution it spells out out very plainly.

. . . that no where, very plainly, that we the people as citizens have any rights to possess military heavy weapons platforms.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Oh yeah...this place is constitutional scholar central, isn't it?

One wonders why the floundering fathers even bothered having a SCOTUS given how well versed so many of are about the exact meaning of the Constitution.

If you don't agree that our government checks and balance system is a bit out of whack then you at just as fucked up as the liberals are. Tell me then what is the exact meaning of the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed mean? It's not rocket science to answer that.

It is not the right of the people to keep and bear arms, including military heavy weapons platforms, shall not be infringed. Mason's opinion is his opinion. Did he sign the Constitution?

SCOTUS and law does not agree with your opinion. That will never happen.

Masons opinion is his opinion? One more time George Mason is the Father of the bill of rights. The second amendment is part oif the bill of rights. His opinion is the Gospel to me as Saul Alinsky's opinion is to you.

 

[peach174]

Look to your state constitutions
AZ says that the National Guard is our organized militia but that they are subordinate to to citizen's.
Tie it to our constitution's 2nd amendment it is about we people. We the citizens are the militia.

3. Supreme law of the land
Section 3. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

20. Military power subordinate to civil power
Section 20. The military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the
state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing
individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
1. Composition of militia
Section 1. The militia of the state of Arizona shall consist of all capable citizens of the
state between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, and of those between said ages
who shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing
therein, subject to such exemptions as now exist, or as may hereafter be created, by the
laws of the United States or of this state.
2. Composition and designation of organized militia
Section 2. The organized militia shall be designated "The National Guard of Arizona,"
and shall consist of such organized military bodies as now exist under the laws of the
territory of Arizona or as may hereafter be authorized by law.

Our State constitution does not give the right of individuals to be an armed body of men. No right to have an unregulated militia. But gives individuals the right to have arms in order for self defense.

Can you have a tank - yes you can, you can't use the gun barrel, but you can use it to defend your property, neighborhood or perhaps your business. Say for instance you have a riot in the streets. You fire up that baby and run it around your house or place of business, I'm pretty sure they will move on to another place in order to loot. The right to defend yourself or property, that is the beauty of our 2nd amendment.

Look to your own state constitutions and I be that they all say something pretty much similar.
Point is - with state and fed constitution it spells out out very plainly.

. . . that no where, very plainly, that we the people as citizens have any rights to possess military heavy weapons platforms.

Not in my state at least.
If I could afford a Tank I would get one. Lots of money for upkeep and gas though.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If you don't agree that our government checks and balance system is a bit out of whack then you at just as fucked up as the liberals are. Tell me then what is the exact meaning of the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed mean? It's not rocket science to answer that.

It is not the right of the people to keep and bear arms, including military heavy weapons platforms, shall not be infringed. Mason's opinion is his opinion. Did he sign the Constitution? SCOTUS and law does not agree with your opinion. That will never happen.

Masons opinion is his opinion? One more time George Mason is the Father of the bill of rights. The second amendment is part oif the bill of rights. His opinion is the Gospel to me as Saul Alinsky's opinion is to you.

Of course it's only Mason's opinion. He wasn't even allowed to sign the Constitution but sent on his way. You are the one who loves Alinsky, bigreb, because you follow his rules daily. The local and regional LEOs and DAs identity potential militia groups and leaders in the area. They know the difference between those boys and girls who are just having fun running around in the woods in camo and shooting weapons for the heck of it, and those who need to have an eye kept on them. I suspect the dangerous militia in the region are infiltrated. Oh, George Mason would not have even talked to you at his back door. He might have let you work in the stable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Look to your state constitutions
AZ says that the National Guard is our organized militia but that they are subordinate to to citizen's.
Tie it to our constitution's 2nd amendment it is about we people. We the citizens are the militia.

3. Supreme law of the land
Section 3. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land.

20. Military power subordinate to civil power
Section 20. The military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power.
26. Bearing arms
Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the
state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing
individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
1. Composition of militia
Section 1. The militia of the state of Arizona shall consist of all capable citizens of the
state between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, and of those between said ages
who shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, residing
therein, subject to such exemptions as now exist, or as may hereafter be created, by the
laws of the United States or of this state.
2. Composition and designation of organized militia
Section 2. The organized militia shall be designated "The National Guard of Arizona,"
and shall consist of such organized military bodies as now exist under the laws of the
territory of Arizona or as may hereafter be authorized by law.

Our State constitution does not give the right of individuals to be an armed body of men. No right to have an unregulated militia. But gives individuals the right to have arms in order for self defense.

Can you have a tank - yes you can, you can't use the gun barrel, but you can use it to defend your property, neighborhood or perhaps your business. Say for instance you have a riot in the streets. You fire up that baby and run it around your house or place of business, I'm pretty sure they will move on to another place in order to loot. The right to defend yourself or property, that is the beauty of our 2nd amendment.

Look to your own state constitutions and I be that they all say something pretty much similar.
Point is - with state and fed constitution it spells out out very plainly.

. . . that no where, very plainly, that we the people as citizens have any rights to possess military heavy weapons platforms.

Not in my state at least.
If I could afford a Tank I would get one. Lots of money for upkeep and gas though.

Having a decommissioned tank would be cool if expensive. Let's buy a commercial copter, retro fit, and patrol the Rio Grande.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It is not the right of the people to keep and bear arms, including military heavy weapons platforms, shall not be infringed. Mason's opinion is his opinion. Did he sign the Constitution? SCOTUS and law does not agree with your opinion. That will never happen.

Masons opinion is his opinion? One more time George Mason is the Father of the bill of rights. The second amendment is part oif the bill of rights. His opinion is the Gospel to me as Saul Alinsky's opinion is to you.

Of course it's only Mason's opinion. He wasn't even allowed to sign the Constitution but sent on his way. You are the one who loves Alinsky, bigreb, because you follow his rules daily. The local and regional LEOs and DAs identity potential militia groups and leaders in the area. They know the difference between those boys and girls who are just having fun running around in the woods in camo and shooting weapons for the heck of it, and those who need to have an eye kept on them. I suspect the dangerous militia in the region are infiltrated. Oh, George Mason would not have even talked to you at his back door. He might have let you work in the stable.

Masons opinion is his opinion? One more time George Mason is the Father of the bill of rights.

OH another lie I see. Mason was for the Constitution but did not sign it because it did not have any protection of individual rights. He wasn't sent on his way. What you wrote would be the norm for an Alinskyite.

The local and regional LEOs and DAs identity potential militia groups and leaders in the area.

They know me and know what I stand for.

Oh, George Mason would not have even talked to you at his back door. He might have let you work in the stable

Thats your opinion but from what mason wrote he and I would be very good friends.

 

[JakeStarkey]

George Mason was a gentleman and a republican. You are neither. Yes, he was sent on his way. And, yes SaulBigReb, I am sure the LEO knows who exactly you are. Behave yourself, son. I love far right reactionary wacks trying to act like mainstream Americans. What a hoot.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

George Mason was a gentleman and a republican. You are neither. Yes, he was sent on his way. And, yes SaulBigReb, I am sure the LEO knows who exactly you are. Behave yourself, son. I love far right reactionary wacks trying to act like mainstream Americans. What a hoot.

You aren't helping your side with this type of tactic. Nothing but lies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yes, you are lying through your teeth, SaulBigReb. Move along.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes, you are lying through your teeth, SaulBigReb. Move along.

quote the post liar. Oh and this is my thread I'm not leaving it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And one of your more stupid threads, and that is saying a lot.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

And one of your more stupid threads, and that is saying a lot.

Everything is stupid to you because you do not understand how the second amendment is supposed to work. Get a book a doi some research.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Night, bigreb.