We should ask our representatives to Government to come up with common sense laws for the common defense.
Why? Aren't "we, the people," the common defense?
We should ask our representatives to Government to come up with common sense laws for the common defense.
Not when it is well regulated militia of the people that is what is expressed as necessary to the security of our free States.Why? Aren't "we, the people," the common defense?
Not when it is well regulated militia of the people that is what is expressed as necessary to the security of our free States.
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.Who do you suggest regulate "we, the people?" And by what regulations?
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.
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.
Are you on the right-wing? You do realize that our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution is not a Constitution unto itself, right?I am familiar with the 2nd. Amendment.
Once again, who do you suggest regulate "we, the people?" And by what regulations?
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.you throw up alot of words yet haven't been able to explain any of them. simply saying it's clear and the law doesn't cut it.
Are you on the right-wing? You do realize that our Second Article of Amendment to our federal Constitution is not a Constitution unto itself, right?
Isn't actually reading our federal Constitution required reading for the right-wing to try establish any confidence in their sincerity?It is part of the overwhelming constitution.
For the third time, who do you suggest regulate "we, the people?" And by what regulations?
Isn't actually reading our federal Constitution required reading for the right-wing to try establish any confidence in their sincerity?
Why do you believe that? I thought gun lovers, loved being able to enforce legality to the laws.Interesting divergence. An insolent interpretation of one's sincerity.
So, you have no answer(s). I should have known.
As I've said, you'll have difficulty mustering a posse to break down my door.
It seems he is playing with a deck of 52 TRUMP cards.
Why do you believe that? I thought gun lovers, loved being able to enforce legality to the laws.
We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.Simple. I've broken no laws, so none need enforced.
It is not my job to enforce laws. Vigilantism is illegal, is it not?
Oh, and I don't "love" guns. I respect their capabilities.
Will you volunteer to break down my door? The invitation stands open.
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.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
You miss the point. Well regulated militia have recourse to a heavy weapons section. What if I qualify for a mortar team?Simple. I've broken no laws, so none need enforced.
It is not my job to enforce laws. Vigilantism is illegal, is it not?
Oh, and I don't "love" guns. I respect their capabilities.
Will you volunteer to break down my door? The invitation stands open.