What the NRA won't tell you

ChairmanGonzalo

Active Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2016
Messages
306
Reaction score
38
Points
33
What America’s gun fanatics won’t tell you

This article proves once and for all that the Supreme Court screwed up massively in its 2008 Heller vs. D.C decision. The supreme court back then featured justice Antonin Scalia, who is now dead and gone (and good riddance.)

Read what Alexander Hamilton wrote about the "well regulated militia." He said that the militia should be trained, uniformed, have a clear rank structure, monthly drills, and an oath of enlistment. The only difference from a regular army would be that the members of the militia would not be soldiers 24/7, but only when called up to duty or on drill.

The article correctly states that the "well regulated militia" that our founding fathers envisioned was nothing more than the National Guard.

Let's take a look at the second amendment again in this light. The second amendment says that because a well regulated militia is vital to national security, the PEOPLE as a WHOLE have a right to bear arms, just like the people AS A WHOLE have a right to make government decisions. Obviously,common citizens don't vote on international treaties or the national budget, but they exercise their right through voting representatives who then vote on these issues. In the same way, the people exercise their second amendment rights by enlisting in, supporting, or paying taxes to help fund the national guard.

Thankfully, Scalia, who wrote the decision of Heller vs Dc, has kicked the bucket. He will soon be replaced by a Supreme Court Justice of Hillary Clinton's choosing. Although Clinton unfortunately has bought into the nra propaganda that there is "an individual right to bear arms," hopefully the justices she appoints are not misguided, and end up revoking Heller vs. DC.

The second amendment talks about the national guard. If you are a current member of the national guard, you are a member of the well regulated militia. If not, you have no individual right to bear arms, and the supreme court screwed up when it said you did.
 

Bruce_T_Laney

Platinum Member
Joined
May 27, 2014
Messages
35,236
Reaction score
6,365
Points
1,140
Location
Hell
What America’s gun fanatics won’t tell you

This article proves once and for all that the Supreme Court screwed up massively in its 2008 Heller vs. D.C decision. The supreme court back then featured justice Antonin Scalia, who is now dead and gone (and good riddance.)

Read what Alexander Hamilton wrote about the "well regulated militia." He said that the militia should be trained, uniformed, have a clear rank structure, monthly drills, and an oath of enlistment. The only difference from a regular army would be that the members of the militia would not be soldiers 24/7, but only when called up to duty or on drill.

The article correctly states that the "well regulated militia" that our founding fathers envisioned was nothing more than the National Guard.

Let's take a look at the second amendment again in this light. The second amendment says that because a well regulated militia is vital to national security, the PEOPLE as a WHOLE have a right to bear arms, just like the people AS A WHOLE have a right to make government decisions. Obviously,common citizens don't vote on international treaties or the national budget, but they exercise their right through voting representatives who then vote on these issues. In the same way, the people exercise their second amendment rights by enlisting in, supporting, or paying taxes to help fund the national guard.

Thankfully, Scalia, who wrote the decision of Heller vs Dc, has kicked the bucket. He will soon be replaced by a Supreme Court Justice of Hillary Clinton's choosing. Although Clinton unfortunately has bought into the nra propaganda that there is "an individual right to bear arms," hopefully the justices she appoints are not misguided, and end up revoking Heller vs. DC.

The second amendment talks about the national guard. If you are a current member of the national guard, you are a member of the well regulated militia. If not, you have no individual right to bear arms, and the supreme court screwed up when it said you did.
USSC ruled and they were correct!
 

anotherlife

Gold Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2012
Messages
6,449
Reaction score
372
Points
130
Location
Cross-Atlantic
Excellently written propaganda piece. Congratulation. However ... The 2nd amendment doesn't say that you have to be a member of anything to bear arms. Also it says nothing about the national guard. Scalia was correct.
 

williepete

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 7, 2011
Messages
3,848
Reaction score
1,393
Points
380
Location
Troposphere
Once again, we have to spell it out.

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
86,064
Reaction score
25,135
Points
2,180
What America’s gun fanatics won’t tell you

This article proves once and for all that the Supreme Court screwed up massively in its 2008 Heller vs. D.C decision. The supreme court back then featured justice Antonin Scalia, who is now dead and gone (and good riddance.)

Read what Alexander Hamilton wrote about the "well regulated militia." He said that the militia should be trained, uniformed, have a clear rank structure, monthly drills, and an oath of enlistment. The only difference from a regular army would be that the members of the militia would not be soldiers 24/7, but only when called up to duty or on drill.

The article correctly states that the "well regulated militia" that our founding fathers envisioned was nothing more than the National Guard.

Let's take a look at the second amendment again in this light. The second amendment says that because a well regulated militia is vital to national security, the PEOPLE as a WHOLE have a right to bear arms, just like the people AS A WHOLE have a right to make government decisions. Obviously,common citizens don't vote on international treaties or the national budget, but they exercise their right through voting representatives who then vote on these issues. In the same way, the people exercise their second amendment rights by enlisting in, supporting, or paying taxes to help fund the national guard.

Thankfully, Scalia, who wrote the decision of Heller vs Dc, has kicked the bucket. He will soon be replaced by a Supreme Court Justice of Hillary Clinton's choosing. Although Clinton unfortunately has bought into the nra propaganda that there is "an individual right to bear arms," hopefully the justices she appoints are not misguided, and end up revoking Heller vs. DC.

The second amendment talks about the national guard. If you are a current member of the national guard, you are a member of the well regulated militia. If not, you have no individual right to bear arms, and the supreme court screwed up when it said you did.

You support the state having the monopoly on violence...and that has never worked out for the little people....just ask the Mexican citizens across our border who are being murdered every day in the thousands by the police, military and their drug cartel masters....

The 2nd Amendment does not protect the militia's right to arms....it protects the ''Peoples" right to arms.......that you guys willfully misread that shows you are not interested in the truth, you only want to disarm law abiding people because you don't like guns...
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
58,894
Reaction score
16,751
Points
2,180
Location
In a Republic, actually
What America’s gun fanatics won’t tell you

This article proves once and for all that the Supreme Court screwed up massively in its 2008 Heller vs. D.C decision. The supreme court back then featured justice Antonin Scalia, who is now dead and gone (and good riddance.)

Read what Alexander Hamilton wrote about the "well regulated militia." He said that the militia should be trained, uniformed, have a clear rank structure, monthly drills, and an oath of enlistment. The only difference from a regular army would be that the members of the militia would not be soldiers 24/7, but only when called up to duty or on drill.

The article correctly states that the "well regulated militia" that our founding fathers envisioned was nothing more than the National Guard.

Let's take a look at the second amendment again in this light. The second amendment says that because a well regulated militia is vital to national security, the PEOPLE as a WHOLE have a right to bear arms, just like the people AS A WHOLE have a right to make government decisions. Obviously,common citizens don't vote on international treaties or the national budget, but they exercise their right through voting representatives who then vote on these issues. In the same way, the people exercise their second amendment rights by enlisting in, supporting, or paying taxes to help fund the national guard.

Thankfully, Scalia, who wrote the decision of Heller vs Dc, has kicked the bucket. He will soon be replaced by a Supreme Court Justice of Hillary Clinton's choosing. Although Clinton unfortunately has bought into the nra propaganda that there is "an individual right to bear arms," hopefully the justices she appoints are not misguided, and end up revoking Heller vs. DC.

The second amendment talks about the national guard. If you are a current member of the national guard, you are a member of the well regulated militia. If not, you have no individual right to bear arms, and the supreme court screwed up when it said you did.
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

And it is a fact of Constitutional law, settled, accepted, and beyond dispute, that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, pursuant to the right of self-defense.

Moreover, Clinton appointees to the Supreme Court will not seek to ‘overturn’ Heller/McDonald, which they also consider to be settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
86,064
Reaction score
25,135
Points
2,180
What America’s gun fanatics won’t tell you

This article proves once and for all that the Supreme Court screwed up massively in its 2008 Heller vs. D.C decision. The supreme court back then featured justice Antonin Scalia, who is now dead and gone (and good riddance.)

Read what Alexander Hamilton wrote about the "well regulated militia." He said that the militia should be trained, uniformed, have a clear rank structure, monthly drills, and an oath of enlistment. The only difference from a regular army would be that the members of the militia would not be soldiers 24/7, but only when called up to duty or on drill.

The article correctly states that the "well regulated militia" that our founding fathers envisioned was nothing more than the National Guard.

Let's take a look at the second amendment again in this light. The second amendment says that because a well regulated militia is vital to national security, the PEOPLE as a WHOLE have a right to bear arms, just like the people AS A WHOLE have a right to make government decisions. Obviously,common citizens don't vote on international treaties or the national budget, but they exercise their right through voting representatives who then vote on these issues. In the same way, the people exercise their second amendment rights by enlisting in, supporting, or paying taxes to help fund the national guard.

Thankfully, Scalia, who wrote the decision of Heller vs Dc, has kicked the bucket. He will soon be replaced by a Supreme Court Justice of Hillary Clinton's choosing. Although Clinton unfortunately has bought into the nra propaganda that there is "an individual right to bear arms," hopefully the justices she appoints are not misguided, and end up revoking Heller vs. DC.

The second amendment talks about the national guard. If you are a current member of the national guard, you are a member of the well regulated militia. If not, you have no individual right to bear arms, and the supreme court screwed up when it said you did.
The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court, including the Second Amendment.

And it is a fact of Constitutional law, settled, accepted, and beyond dispute, that the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to possess a firearm, pursuant to the right of self-defense.

Moreover, Clinton appointees to the Supreme Court will not seek to ‘overturn’ Heller/McDonald, which they also consider to be settled, accepted, and beyond dispute.

You have no idea what you are saying...they are just waiting to get their first case with a left wing court...
 

jwoodie

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2012
Messages
14,925
Reaction score
3,583
Points
280
What America’s gun fanatics won’t tell you

This article proves once and for all that the Supreme Court screwed up massively in its 2008 Heller vs. D.C decision. The supreme court back then featured justice Antonin Scalia, who is now dead and gone (and good riddance.)

Read what Alexander Hamilton wrote about the "well regulated militia." He said that the militia should be trained, uniformed, have a clear rank structure, monthly drills, and an oath of enlistment. The only difference from a regular army would be that the members of the militia would not be soldiers 24/7, but only when called up to duty or on drill.

The article correctly states that the "well regulated militia" that our founding fathers envisioned was nothing more than the National Guard.

Let's take a look at the second amendment again in this light. The second amendment says that because a well regulated militia is vital to national security, the PEOPLE as a WHOLE have a right to bear arms, just like the people AS A WHOLE have a right to make government decisions. Obviously,common citizens don't vote on international treaties or the national budget, but they exercise their right through voting representatives who then vote on these issues. In the same way, the people exercise their second amendment rights by enlisting in, supporting, or paying taxes to help fund the national guard.

Thankfully, Scalia, who wrote the decision of Heller vs Dc, has kicked the bucket. He will soon be replaced by a Supreme Court Justice of Hillary Clinton's choosing. Although Clinton unfortunately has bought into the nra propaganda that there is "an individual right to bear arms," hopefully the justices she appoints are not misguided, and end up revoking Heller vs. DC.

The second amendment talks about the national guard. If you are a current member of the national guard, you are a member of the well regulated militia. If not, you have no individual right to bear arms, and the supreme court screwed up when it said you did.
You seem to have forgotten the 10th Amendment (and Constitution as a whole) which grants limited powers to the federal government. Thus the federal government has no authority to infringe on the right to bear arms.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
25,772
Reaction score
2,479
Points
275
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
Let's take a look at the second amendment again in this light. The second amendment says that because a well regulated militia is vital to national security, the PEOPLE as a WHOLE have a right to bear arms, just like the people AS A WHOLE have a right to make government decisions.
One problem: The 2nd does not say this.

In effect, you argue the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd believed "the people" had a right to a firearm for service in the militia, but not for for their own individual protection or that of their homes and family.

There is absolutely no primary source material to support such madness.
 
OP
ChairmanGonzalo

ChairmanGonzalo

Active Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2016
Messages
306
Reaction score
38
Points
33
Let's take a look at the second amendment again in this light. The second amendment says that because a well regulated militia is vital to national security, the PEOPLE as a WHOLE have a right to bear arms, just like the people AS A WHOLE have a right to make government decisions.
One problem: The 2nd does not say this.

In effect, you argue the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd believed "the people" had a right to a firearm for service in the militia, but not for for their own individual protection or that of their homes and family.

There is absolutely no primary source material to support such madness.
Did you even read the article I posted?
 

TNHarley

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2012
Messages
71,040
Reaction score
17,687
Points
2,180
I have already beat your maoist ass on this. Just STFU already you disgusting statist.
 

M14 Shooter

The Light of Truth
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
25,772
Reaction score
2,479
Points
275
Location
Where I can see you, but you can't see me
Let's take a look at the second amendment again in this light. The second amendment says that because a well regulated militia is vital to national security, the PEOPLE as a WHOLE have a right to bear arms, just like the people AS A WHOLE have a right to make government decisions.
One problem: The 2nd does not say this.

In effect, you argue the people who wrote and ratified the 2nd believed "the people" had a right to a firearm for service in the militia, but not for for their own individual protection or that of their homes and family.

There is absolutely no primary source material to support such madness.
Did you even read the article I posted?
Not only did I read it, I responded to it in full, negating its premise.
Did you have a thoughtful response in defense?


Not only did I read it, I responded to it in full, negating its premise.
Did you have a thoughtful response in defense?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top