“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.”
So what you you prefer that a militia arm itself with? Your son’s BB gun?
4 Likes
Waiting on “nuke’s, bazooka, and blah blah” crowd to post.
8 Likes
Right? Commenting on a demand that exists only in their heads. I have not really seen any movement to give people WMDs. I’ll comment when there is.
He knows what it means. The left wants absolute control so nobody can have any defense against tyranny.
4 Likes
Did you support the unlawful attempt overturning the election by the former guy? If so, your argument against tyranny is hilarious.
Define “well-regulated” and “arms” in unambiguous terms that are universally approved both by those at the time of the writing of the constitution and today.
2 Likes
Its not about demand…Its about the Rights insistence that there is no limit on the 2nd…“Shall not be infringed” …etc etc. Those examples are given to show how ridiculous the “unlimited” and “shall not be infringed” crowd are.
What are arms?
1 Like
What’s the difference between an AR-15 and a Bazooka?
Nope, didn’t support him at all OR the current occupant.
“Well-regulated” did and does mean well trained.
Arms are what an individual would carry into combat, rifle and/or handgun.
1 Like
Well, one fires an explosive round designed for anti tank/bunker attack.
One fires a .223/5.56 caliber bullet
1 Like
Things that bears have.
Where is that defined? …Did the founders put an asterisk next to it with a footnote at the bottom of the page?
The irrefutable fact is, our Founders intended ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms [a contemporary fire arm used by foot soldiers] so they would be ready and able to defend themselves against a despotic government if necessary. The AR-15-semi is a civilian version of the United States military’s M16 and ought to be kept by ordinary citizens to defend against a tyrannical government.
JWK
In every oppressive country like communist China, socialist Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, etc., the people are disarmed and suffer the loss of inalienable rights under an iron fisted government which lives large on the people’s labor. Forewarned is forearmed.
Yeah. Can’t find it anywhere in the Constitution’s appendix. Seems like with all other legal matters we’ll let the courts decide. Conveniently, the Constitution expressly states the Supreme Court can do just that. Nice!
That seems to be a common occurrence “Well I guess your for having one of these in your backyard”.
Let the courts decide just as Fidel Castro decided?
Shortly after Castro’s famous speech, the process of gun confiscation started in Cuba—but gradually. Initially it was aimed at disarming rival revolutionary groups, who had fought Batista but weren’t Communist-backed. Soon the definition of these “rival revolutionaries” grew pretty sweeping. Soon it included just about every Cuban with a gun. Significantly, Castro’s famous anti-gun speech was proclaimed a full two years BEFORE he came out of the closet as a full-fledged Marxist-Leninist.
JWK
“Guns? What for?..to fight the government? The Cuban people don’t need guns nowadays!” (Fidel Castro during his very first speech upon entering Havana Jan. 8, 1959.)
You are woefully ill informed… It is not unlawful to question the results of an election. It is constitutionally protected free speech. My problem is the refusal to tell us how much voter fraud there was. They certainly have a good idea.
1 Like
Is there a movement to get these? If not, your point is irrelevant. You are fighting a battle that doesn’t exist.
