the NRA has trained the billies to conflate 'guns' with 'assault weapons'

ThatOwlWoman said:
What did the Founding Fathers mean by that? We don’t have to guess because they told us. In Federalist No. 29 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explained at great length precisely what a “well-regulated militia” was, why the Founding Fathers thought we needed one, and why they wanted to protect it from being disarmed by the federal government.
...

It should be a properly constituted, ordered and drilled (“well-regulated”) military force, organized state by state, explained Hamilton. Each state militia should be a “select corps,” “well-trained” and able to perform all the “operations of an army.” The militia needed “uniformity in … organization and discipline,” wrote Hamilton, so that it could operate like a proper army “in camp and field,” and so that it could gain the “essential … degree of proficiency in military functions.” And although it was organized state by state, it needed to be under the explicit control of the national government. The “well-regulated militia” was under the command of the president. It was “the military arm” of the government.
Click to expand...


thanks, perfect

Hamilton described our National Guard above

today we have anti-federal government radicalized right wing domestic terrorists attempting to create their own non-regulated militias for political purposes

traitors all
 
SmarterthanYou said:
chicago is the epicenter of the democrat mafia. its' been lost for decades. until the democrats clean up that city, I cant really care what happens there. Its part of why I moved out of that state.
Click to expand...

you're one silly billie

Chicago wasn't even mentioned by mouth breathers anywhere before Obama got elected

go out and play little boy
 
reagansghost said:
you're one silly billie

Chicago wasn't even mentioned by mouth breathers anywhere before Obama got elected

go out and play little boy
Click to expand...

hey kid, I was born and raised 90 minutes west of chicago. it was talked about plenty in illinois circles. you nationwide democrats didn't give a fuck then or now
 
reagansghost said:
thanks, perfect

Hamilton described our National Guard above

today we have anti-federal government radicalized right wing domestic terrorists attempting to create their own non-regulated militias for political purposes

traitors all
Click to expand...

you realize that hamilton was ALONE in that thinking, therefore LOSING that argument??? of course not, you also completely accept that idiot justice burgers statement about the 2nd being perpetrated fraud.............morons
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
Both sides of the gun problem should find this interesting.
~~~
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t just say Congress shall not infringe the right to “keep and bear arms.” It specifically says that right exists in order to maintain “a well-regulated militia.” Even the late conservative Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia admitted those words weren’t in there by accident. Oh, and the Constitution doesn’t just say a “militia.” It says a “well-regulated” militia.

What did the Founding Fathers mean by that? We don’t have to guess because they told us. In Federalist No. 29 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explained at great length precisely what a “well-regulated militia” was, why the Founding Fathers thought we needed one, and why they wanted to protect it from being disarmed by the federal government.
...
It should be a properly constituted, ordered and drilled (“well-regulated”) military force, organized state by state, explained Hamilton. Each state militia should be a “select corps,” “well-trained” and able to perform all the “operations of an army.” The militia needed “uniformity in … organization and discipline,” wrote Hamilton, so that it could operate like a proper army “in camp and field,” and so that it could gain the “essential … degree of proficiency in military functions.” And although it was organized state by state, it needed to be under the explicit control of the national government. The “well-regulated militia” was under the command of the president. It was “the military arm” of the government.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-americas-gun-fanatics-wont-tell-you-2016-06-14

Link to the Federalist Papers #29 referenced in the above excerpts:

https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-29
Click to expand...

It says no such thing. If that were the case it wouldn't say "the right of the PEOPLE", it would say, "the right of the militia". If libs would simply take the time to read the writings of the Founders at the time, you would understand this. But you don't want to understand this. Also, from a strictly linguistic standpoint, it doesn't require people of be a member of a militia, to keep and bear arms. It's fine if you want to abolish the right, there are provisions to do this, but being totally dishonest about it is idiotic. Just be honest.

https://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

"(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."
 
SmarterthanYou said:
bullshit anti gun definition.............if its not able to fire auto, it's not an assault rifle. you were decimated on this last night. give it up, domer wannabe
Click to expand...

unless you're in a National Guard unit you should no right to carry an assault weapon Rambo Jr

try actually reading the 2d amendment
 
Althea said:
Semantics. You know what people mean. It's fewer syllables than calling them 'weapons with large capacity for damage before reloading'.
Click to expand...

It's NOT semantics. My little SA .22 caliber revolver holds 9 shots. If I shoot 9 people in the pinky toe and they don't die, that is at the very least, ASSAULT with a deadly weapon. That makes my little plinker an ASSAULT weapon(and if you don't think a SA .22 caliber revolver that holds 9 rounds has a 'large capacity for damage before reloading', you don't know squat about guns anyway). The simple truth is, you on the left have never been comfortable with the proletariat owning guns in ANY capacity, but this is true especially in America, where one of the reasons for the 2nd amendment was to enable the people to resist a tyrannical government. Your Hoplophobia gives you the desperation to beg POLITICIANS for relief, damned politicians who are almost always lawyers too. Remember the clinton era "assault weapons ban"? They changed the AR-15 grip(they "sporterized" it, and unintentionally made it more accurate), limited the magazine capacity(they even classified some pistols as assault weapons and limited their magazine capacity to 10 rounds)which taught me to reload faster. And removed the flash hider from the end of the barrel, thinking that it would give LE a better idea where shots were coming from, not understanding that the flash hider hides the muzzle flash from the SHOOTER! You know what they DIDN'T change? HOW SEMI-AUTOMATIC WEAPONS FUNCTION. And when they don't "change" that fundamental thing, the only thing that's left is a ban on all semi-automatic guns. That's almost ALL of them, BTW. Millions and millions of them! Good luck with that
 
reagansghost said:
unless you're in a National Guard unit you should no right to carry an assault weapon Rambo Jr

try actually reading the 2d amendment
Click to expand...

try reading the historical documents from the founders and the commentaries. nobody back then knew what a national guard was...........on top of that, the US Constitution, Art 1. Sec. 10, paragraph 3 prohibits any state from maintaining troops......

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,

so you're idiot 'interpretation' of the 2nd Amendment is wrong and the opposite of freedom, especially given that the founders KNEW a standing army was a bane to liberty
 
SmarterthanYou said:
chicago is the epicenter of the democrat mafia. its' been lost for decades. until the democrats clean up that city, I cant really care what happens there. Its part of why I moved out of that state.


you obviously haven't gotten a good look at what I post here.........
Click to expand...

You "obviously" did not say "SHIT". Why respond if deflection is your only retort? :dunno: Nothing you said denied the reality that gun regulation does not deter the violent use of firearms.....as criminals will exist if there was not one firearm on earth. Your bloviation concerning why YOU LEFT Chitcago…..refuted nothing that exists in the reality that surrounds you. Simply look at all the murder capitals in the United States.....all have been regulated to hell and back concerning the 2nd amendment right to self protection and weapons ownership....ALL are LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE examples of leadership. All the violence targets minorities but is never reported on a national level. Why? The "white" elites that rule the democrat party.....could give a rat's ass about human rights, its all about political power.
 
Last edited:
SmarterthanYou said:
try reading the historical documents from the founders and the commentaries. nobody back then knew what a national guard was...........on top of that, the US Constitution, Art 1. Sec. 10, paragraph 3 prohibits any state from maintaining troops......

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace,

so you're idiot 'interpretation' of the 2nd Amendment is wrong and the opposite of freedom, especially given that the founders KNEW a standing army was a bane to liberty
Click to expand...

everybody's heard your dickless gun-nut rant many many times before...……...go interpret the 2d amendment to a fuckin wall

Americans will get assault weapons banned and less powerful guns highly regulated eventually whether you like it or not
 
Ralph said:
You "obviously" did not say "SHIT". Why respond if deflection is your only retort? :dunno: Nothing you said denied the reality that gun regulation does not deter the violent use of firearms.....as criminals will exist if there was not one firearm on earth. Your bloviation concerning why YOU LEFT Chitcago…..refuted nothing that exists in the reality that surrounds you.
Click to expand...

:cruisewhat:
 
reagansghost said:
everybody's heard your dickless gun-nut rant many many times before...……...go interpret the 2d amendment to a fuckin wall
Click to expand...
you can ignore it all you want, it doesn't change what it is for. the rest of your rant indicates you're tired of leaving women unsatisfied due to your miniature stature..............that's unfortunate for you.

reagansghost said:
Americans will get assault weapons banned and less powerful guns highly regulated eventually whether you like it or not
Click to expand...

then those who come for them will die.
 
reagansghost said:
so even though most Republicans support assault weapons ban, despite Trump saying 'no appetite'...……..right on cue the buffoons start chanting "Dems want to ban guns!"
there's difference bozos, try to keep up
https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/07/poll-most-voters-support-assault-weapons-ban-1452586
Click to expand...

I am amused that you think you know what you are pontificating about snowflake. In fact, that is exactly the endgame the left is playing.

It all started with the desire to regulate "Saturday night specials." They said they weren't interested in doing that with long guns.

Then they regulated rifles. They said they weren't interested in Shotguns.

Then they came for the shotguns. They said waiting periods prevented crime.

Now they are starting to regulate ammo. They are claiming that doing so prevents crime.

Soon they will pass liability laws that will regulate our gun industry into oblivion. They will never need to actually have a vote or amend the Constitution.

This is how Fascism works its way into every facet of our lives.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
:cruisewhat:
Click to expand...

Again....a mouth full of shit for a retort? How old are you? 15? The feigned ignorance and head tilt reminds me of my beagle when he pretends not to understand what he is seeing. Typical leftist pretending to be something they are not....a libertarian. That's what I comprehend from the words of your posts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top