2nd A quotes from the founding fathers
- Thread starter Gunfighter14e2
- Start date
- "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
It's interesting I guess if you are into history but hardly relevant today what those guys thought or more specifically what you think those guys thought. What is important today is what the SCOUS says about 2A, from DC vs. Heller Scalia wrote the opinion for the court he said: “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."
The court also commented that it was impossible to know what the framers meant when they wrote the 2A.
The court also commented that it was impossible to know what the framers meant when they wrote the 2A.
That's brilliant. I'm relaying what the SCOTUS thinks about the 2A. Got any other gems of wisdom?
Well, the problem with your "Fuck you" approach is it does nothing to solve our 2A problem, in fact, the emotional and uninformed like you have hurt the 2A cause. You should educate yourself or shut the fuck up.
The 2A fight isn't a fight but more of a negotiation as the 2A protections are very narrow. This fight is won or lost in the state legislatures. Dim folks like the mass-hole are as much of a threat to 2A as the politicians.
no youre right.....we should all be more willing to "compromise" our rights away.
i dont have to negotiate shit.......i have a god given right to protect myself......and i dont need justification from any man.
ive spent years educating myself on this........the people that want to take our rights away are not rational......and no amount of reason will convince them otherwise.
"compromising" and "dealing" have gotten us into this fucking mess.........its time to tell them "fuck you, im doing it anyways"
you can call me "dim" and a "fool".......but at the end of the day.....im going to have my guns when yours have been "negotiated" away.
i find it so amusing.....that people feel that the govt has a right to interpret the 2A......when the 2A is a limit on the govt.
thats like saying, "oh no, youve misinterpreted this restraining order....when you read it like this, i actually can come near you."
Last edited:
i dont wonder at all.....its because pussies like you keep "dealing" with them.
I think we've established our approaches are very different. Think about this, the folks who want to ban MSR's, they don't have any such problem and the 2A doesn't protect any specific type of firearm from being banned, this happening soon in many states. You don't have a right to own a specific type of firearm, none.
What exactly is a "god given right"?
i have a right to own what ever fucking firearm i want..........and yes, the 2A does cover that nicely under the whole "shall not be infringed" part of it.
thats like saying "you dont have a right to read any book or study any religion you want" ......when the govt tells you what you can and cannot own, thats and 'infringement'
Last edited:
It does not take a black out fit to understand what the framers were thinking when the COTUS was framed an inked or the amendments that quickly followed, based on what they an this country just went threw. The SCOTUS is an has been politicized from the late 1940's on. That is contrary to the COTUS in the first place, plus many of the "decisions" of same are so wrong it makes most with a 3rd grade understanding of the COTUS, cringe or cry. I believe the gates of hell will open soon, an when the fires are out, this country will again be reborn to it's roots. Payback is coming for all the wrongs the SCOTUS, Congress an many others have perpetrated against the honest hard working people of this country. They know w/o taking the guns they don't stand a chance an they also know if they ever tried confiscation it would be game on right then. So they are trying to back door it like Johnny Cash did building that caddy, one piece at a time. Their first mistake was allowing the internet to happen as that one item has opened many an eye. The same reasons that caused Athens Tenn 1946 to happened, are in place all over this nation. All it will take is perception of the rule of law to be thrown aside, or the Vail of same opened wide for all to see there are in fact different laws for different people. When enough in one small area have had enough it will spread quickly all over this nation an no one will be able to stop it, no one. For when the rule of law is out the window, the rule of law is out the window. Remember after the first one, the rest are free.
Last edited:
By "God given" it means that the government didn't issue and thus hasn't a right to regulate or infringe.
See, the founders were smart enough to know that given time and opportunity the government if issued rights would take them away.
We find ourselves in the current predicament as a result of apathy towards our rights and the powers the government has and the powers they've
exceeded.
R
tna, problem with scotus, and relaying what they say, is, every 30-40 years on a lot of things, they keeps changing dey mindz.....
The COTUS language has not changed, unlike the "opinionz" of scotus...
And COTUS scholars and English language scholars who remove political bias from practical translations, keep coming up with for a couple hundred years, basically, don't fuck with the people's right to own guns.... just sayin.
Today scotus says x, 20 years later scotus says y. The English stays the same as does the meaning.
And for certain scotus members to say there is no way to know what the framers meant is unmitigated horseshit, because the framers wrote numerous other papers to be sure following generations knew exactly what they meant, because Ben Franklin wanted it to mean x and Thomas Jefferson wanted it to mean y and they compromised to make COTUS mean an evenly blended xy that would stand the test of time.
And until regional bias and prejudice interfered and a political party appointed scummy scotus to interpret "a meaning" that furthered their political goals, COTUS was clearly defined by COTUS, BOR, and the supporting papers of the framers.
Those of us who grew up in the 50's and early 60's who were taught about propaganda and brainwashing, to prepare us for the war against the red horde, can see clearly the results of propaganda and the brainwashing of at least two generations who refuse to accept the clear meaning of COTUS. And there is one place the result of that brainwashing is VERY clear is here on Snipershide in the Bear Pit, where otherwise normally intelligent people who can agree on most other things, cannot agree on the plain meaning of 2A, with this topic being clear evidence of it based on the readings in posts declaring beliefs and opinions...
The COTUS language has not changed, unlike the "opinionz" of scotus...
And COTUS scholars and English language scholars who remove political bias from practical translations, keep coming up with for a couple hundred years, basically, don't fuck with the people's right to own guns.... just sayin.
Today scotus says x, 20 years later scotus says y. The English stays the same as does the meaning.
And for certain scotus members to say there is no way to know what the framers meant is unmitigated horseshit, because the framers wrote numerous other papers to be sure following generations knew exactly what they meant, because Ben Franklin wanted it to mean x and Thomas Jefferson wanted it to mean y and they compromised to make COTUS mean an evenly blended xy that would stand the test of time.
And until regional bias and prejudice interfered and a political party appointed scummy scotus to interpret "a meaning" that furthered their political goals, COTUS was clearly defined by COTUS, BOR, and the supporting papers of the framers.
Those of us who grew up in the 50's and early 60's who were taught about propaganda and brainwashing, to prepare us for the war against the red horde, can see clearly the results of propaganda and the brainwashing of at least two generations who refuse to accept the clear meaning of COTUS. And there is one place the result of that brainwashing is VERY clear is here on Snipershide in the Bear Pit, where otherwise normally intelligent people who can agree on most other things, cannot agree on the plain meaning of 2A, with this topic being clear evidence of it based on the readings in posts declaring beliefs and opinions...
Last edited:
No wonder. Promising freebies to deadbeat losers is an easy sell.
The gun control argument is no different. The safety and security of you and your family is ultimately your responsibility, not the police, not anyone else. Folks who don't want to accept that responsibility ask for concessions from those of us who do.
In Ceatano v Massachusetts, SCOTUS said the 2nd covered all bearable arms, including those not available at the time of the founding.
All of yours and mine rights are doomed within a generation anyway, it’s a moot point. Immigration and high minority birth rates mean our (honorable taxpayers of any flavor) demographic and political displacement... taking free speech, self defense, property rights, and more down the same tube we sent our right to free association back in the Sixties (with the 1964 Civil Rights Act and Ted Kennedy’s 1965 Immigration Act.)
Look for permanent Democrat single party rule like California followed by a transformation into Brazil.
Take up Clays and join a fancy club if you want to be shooting in 10-15 years, British rules.
Look for permanent Democrat single party rule like California followed by a transformation into Brazil.
Take up Clays and join a fancy club if you want to be shooting in 10-15 years, British rules.
Q
QuickNDirty
Guest
I don't think so. The time is almost ripe for a resurgence of the initial spirit of this country. What all that entails depends on the resolve of the Marxists, which, as I see it, is a noisy behemoth composed of flash paper and some rigid scaffolding.
I have the right to keep and bear arms. No one will ever convince me otherwise.
"If the fundamental right of self defense does not protect Caetano , then the safety of all Americans is left to the State which who may be more concerned about disarming them than keeping them safe ."
Justice Alito. Caetano vs Massachusetts.
Justice Alito. Caetano vs Massachusetts.
It appears that you may not have read the entire decision, or the subsequent decission in Heller II. The court clearly laid out what the history of the 2A was, and how we arrived at it in common law.
As early as the late 1200s the English had the Magna Carta, which included a right and responsibily to be armed.
Go start reading... you might also want to read the DC Circuit Court if Appeals decision evicerating the defacto permit to cary ban that DC opted not to appeal - because theyd lose.
If you dont own this book....
https://www.amazon.com/Amendment-Ci...87889&sr=8-1&keywords=second+amendment+primer
Than your firearms gear is incomplete.
Someone posted a video recently of a CNN affiliated personality explaining 2A and to his credit he actually comes to the proper definition of why it was enshrined in COTUS.
He mentions during Reagans presidency Orrin Hatch "discovered" some "hidden" writings that redefined 2A as an individual right.
If the Federalist Papers and the personal writings of the Founding Fathers were "lost" or "hidden" that would be news to the Smithsonian and educated people.
The above book is forwarded by Hatch and is a compilation of those "Hidden" texts.
Its plain language and clear in meaning, no Pope needed to interpret.
Buy the leather bound version, its a beautiful text.
It will be a favorite reading material.
It is required reading material.
If it were read by anyone at todays misguided marches they would not be marching.
Of course the organizers (Soros) of those marches have read it, and they realize it contains the seeds of Freedom and they march to crush it.
https://www.amazon.com/Amendment-Ci...87889&sr=8-1&keywords=second+amendment+primer
Than your firearms gear is incomplete.
Someone posted a video recently of a CNN affiliated personality explaining 2A and to his credit he actually comes to the proper definition of why it was enshrined in COTUS.
He mentions during Reagans presidency Orrin Hatch "discovered" some "hidden" writings that redefined 2A as an individual right.
If the Federalist Papers and the personal writings of the Founding Fathers were "lost" or "hidden" that would be news to the Smithsonian and educated people.
The above book is forwarded by Hatch and is a compilation of those "Hidden" texts.
Its plain language and clear in meaning, no Pope needed to interpret.
Buy the leather bound version, its a beautiful text.
It will be a favorite reading material.
It is required reading material.
If it were read by anyone at todays misguided marches they would not be marching.
Of course the organizers (Soros) of those marches have read it, and they realize it contains the seeds of Freedom and they march to crush it.
Load of shit.
Jefferson clearly defined how the COTUS and the mindset of it authors should be interpreted from the point of view of people that had just secured their rights fighting tyrannical government.
The current precedent (Miller) concerning what can or cant be carried is the term "in common use" and that term was based on what a typical infantry unit would have access to for firearms. Miller only lost his shotgun case because death took him first but had his defense presented to the court a trenchgun he probably would have been acquitted.
Dont bastardize Scalia's argument. Sure inherently dangerous, based on defective design, firearms can be regulated but as the intent of 2A is to defend from tyrannical govt it only makes sense that the People have access to the personal load of your standard infantry rifleman, and I think that would include full auto, NFA is an infringement.
Where you are sadly correct is in stating the Constitution doesnt matter. What matters is how our politically bent judiciary decides to overstep their authority and legislate from the bench rather than within the confines of the Constitution.
If you are okay with that than go eat a dick.
The problem is when people want to define the rights of law abiding people based upon the actions of the criminal.
Freedom is a responsibility. If you abuse your freedom you lose your freedom.
Govt does not protect you. Its your responsibility to protect yourself.
You are law abiding I assume.
Do you feel government needs to restrict you because you will become criminal at any moment? Do you think government should restrict you because you could become a victim and loss of your property could harm others?
If you answered yes to those above questions than there is nothing in life you should be doing without government permission and oversight.
Why is it that the elite always reserves the rights they want to take from us for themselves. Violating global warming norms, access to personal security, even insider stock trading/banking rules?
And you still feel secure in the bosom of government.
Last edited:
i always find it truly insulting that people feel the need to "interpret" the Constitution for us....because they are insinuating that we are fucking morons...and we dont know how to read plain english.
thats like sending someone an email asking "can you bring me the documents tomorrow?"....
.....and they show up and say "well yes of course i received your email, but after interpreting it differently, i came to the conclusion that you did NOT want me to bring you the documents"
its pure lunacy.
thats like sending someone an email asking "can you bring me the documents tomorrow?"....
.....and they show up and say "well yes of course i received your email, but after interpreting it differently, i came to the conclusion that you did NOT want me to bring you the documents"
its pure lunacy.
It may not matter to some but it damn sure matters to me. The oath I swore too more that once was to protect the COTUS an to protect it's people. I care less how libtrads want to twist words. The oath I took AFAIK never had a ending date. As long as I am breathing I will abide by same, if/when the time comes to not play nice, I will walk my sig lines, an that is bankable.
Caetano vs Massachusetts (from Wikepedia - ie third grade research)
This is a great ruling and its obvious why it was buried.
I hope Maura Healy sees this train hurtling down the tracks at her regards her MSR ban.
As far as I know Alito and Thomas are still alive.
Anyone have the hourly update on Ginsburg?
Is Sotomayer still playing on her smart phone, too preoccupied to listen to legal argument?
Background[edit]
Jaime Caetano was reported to have been hospitalized and "in fear for [her] life" after an altercation with her "abusive" boyfriend.[2] After obtaining several restraining orders that "proved futile", Caetano accepted a stun gun from a friend for self-defense.[3] One night, when her ex-boyfriend confronted her outside her work and threatened her, she displayed the stun gun and successfully avoided an altercation.[3] However, when police discovered that she was in possession of the stun gun, she was arrested, tried, and convicted under a Massachusetts law that outlawed the possession of stun guns.[4] The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed her conviction under the theory that her stun gun was "not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” because it was “not in common use at the time of [the Second Amendment’s] enactment.”[5] Caetano then appealed the Massachusetts court's ruling to the Supreme Court of the United States.[6]
Opinion of the Court[edit]
In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8]and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10] Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconsistent with Heller.[11] Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Hellerrejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
Justice Alito's concurring opinion[edit]
Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which he was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.[3]Justice Alito characterized the per curiam decision as "grudging" and wrote that "[t]he reasoning of the Massachusetts court poses a grave threat to the fundamental right of self-defense".[13] He provided an analysis of why he believed that the Massachusetts court's ruling contradicted Heller and other cases interpreting the Second Amendment.[14] After concluding that the Massachusetts stun gun ban violates the Second Amendment, Justice Alito wrote: "if the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming people than about keeping them safe".[15]
Subsequent developments[edit]
On July 6, 2016, after the prosecution and defense reached an agreement, Caetano was found not-guilty by a Massachusetts judge.[16]
Commentary and analysis[edit]
Lyle Denniston observed that the Court's opinion was the first direct interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment since the Court's 2008 ruling in Heller.[17] However, given the limited nature of the per curiam opinion, Denniston noted that "[t]he facts in this case do not necessarily stand as a definite constitutional declaration".[17]
This is a great ruling and its obvious why it was buried.
I hope Maura Healy sees this train hurtling down the tracks at her regards her MSR ban.
As far as I know Alito and Thomas are still alive.
Anyone have the hourly update on Ginsburg?
Is Sotomayer still playing on her smart phone, too preoccupied to listen to legal argument?
Background[edit]
Jaime Caetano was reported to have been hospitalized and "in fear for [her] life" after an altercation with her "abusive" boyfriend.[2] After obtaining several restraining orders that "proved futile", Caetano accepted a stun gun from a friend for self-defense.[3] One night, when her ex-boyfriend confronted her outside her work and threatened her, she displayed the stun gun and successfully avoided an altercation.[3] However, when police discovered that she was in possession of the stun gun, she was arrested, tried, and convicted under a Massachusetts law that outlawed the possession of stun guns.[4] The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed her conviction under the theory that her stun gun was "not the type of weapon that is eligible for Second Amendment protection” because it was “not in common use at the time of [the Second Amendment’s] enactment.”[5] Caetano then appealed the Massachusetts court's ruling to the Supreme Court of the United States.[6]
Opinion of the Court[edit]
In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.[7] Citing District of Columbia v. Heller[8]and McDonald v. City of Chicago,[9] the Court began its opinion by stating that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that "the Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States".[6] The Court then identified three reasons why the Massachusetts court's opinion contradicted prior rulings by the United States Supreme Court.[1]First, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they "were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment", but the Supreme Court noted that this contradicted Heller's conclusion that Second Amendment protects "arms ... that were not in existence at the time of the founding”.[10] Second, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns were "dangerous per se at common law and unusual" because they were "a thoroughly modern invention", but the Supreme Court held that this was also inconsistent with Heller.[11] Third, the Massachusetts court said that stun guns could be banned because they were not "readily adaptable to use in the military", but the Supreme Court held that Hellerrejected the argument that "only those weapons useful in warfare" were protected by the Second Amendment.[12]
Justice Alito's concurring opinion[edit]
Justice Samuel Alito wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which he was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas.[3]Justice Alito characterized the per curiam decision as "grudging" and wrote that "[t]he reasoning of the Massachusetts court poses a grave threat to the fundamental right of self-defense".[13] He provided an analysis of why he believed that the Massachusetts court's ruling contradicted Heller and other cases interpreting the Second Amendment.[14] After concluding that the Massachusetts stun gun ban violates the Second Amendment, Justice Alito wrote: "if the fundamental right of self-defense does not protect Caetano, then the safety of all Americans is left to the mercy of state authorities who may be more concerned about disarming people than about keeping them safe".[15]
Subsequent developments[edit]
On July 6, 2016, after the prosecution and defense reached an agreement, Caetano was found not-guilty by a Massachusetts judge.[16]
Commentary and analysis[edit]
Lyle Denniston observed that the Court's opinion was the first direct interpretation of the meaning of the Second Amendment since the Court's 2008 ruling in Heller.[17] However, given the limited nature of the per curiam opinion, Denniston noted that "[t]he facts in this case do not necessarily stand as a definite constitutional declaration".[17]
Last edited:
so does this mean stun guns are actually legal in MA now?.......or does the state still not want me to implore less lethal means to defend myself........i mean, im fine with my .44 magnum either way.
@tna9001, I cannot believe for a moment that you "guess" history to be a quaint emotional refuge for those unable to deal with an unpalatable current reality. Deeming history irrelevant you find yourself at odds with every SCOTUS decision ever made as every SCOTUS decision ever made relies upon history because SCOTUS holds history in high esteem. If you disagree with this, please say so. That would be fun.
Why is a reading of the COTUS framer's words merely a speculative divination of what they thought but your reading of the those (carefully selected words) currently on the bench is interpreted as their plainly written opinion? More specifically how is it that you are able to make the distinction?
Dude do you realize that it is illegal for a MA police officer armed with a taser to take his weapon home and store it in his house?
The taser must remain on publicly owned property.
So if a PO is issued a taser and has a take home cruiser its trained that the taser be left on state property (inside the cruiser) at the end of shift or at the police station.
Securing the taser in a residence, inside a safe with other firearms is potentially a violation but leaving outside in a glass windowed cruiser is okay.
This defines the problem............Scotus has a ruling and circuit courts tell them to eat dick.
Dude this state is so fucked.....they have no problem with you walking around with 17 round 9mms....... but god forbid you take that evil ‘lightning pistol’ home...
After the ruling on Obama care I am convinced that the SCOTUS is morally compromised just like it was the last time they started a civil war. I do not need a judge to tell me what’s in the Constitution or the Bill of Bights, they are plainly written. Fuck SCOTUS,
Last edited:
9mm? Who could properly don mirrored aviators and overstep their authority to those they serve carrying a 9mm?
No, to really play the role of stuffed shirt martinet only .45 will do.
Last edited:
Wait until they meet the guy that says "Yo Homie, is that my briefcase" an can back it up, either close or from afar.
I would like to ask one question of the respondents here, If you have ever cleared a building, are you the type that starts from the top down or the type who starts at the bottom an works up. I have, an am of the later myself. Your answers give more incite that most know.
Not everyone generally carries their scaling hook with them in order to do it right and sometimes you dont get to do it the way you want.
If life allowed it breaching holes between rooms would be SOP but last I looked any where inside CONUS that is frowned upon.
Just got to kind of expect that stairwells are a shit sandwich and if you have lead a good life you will succeed.
You state you are of "the later" yourself meaning your a "bottom up" proponent.
What tactical advantage is there in fighting from the low ground?
Last edited:
Much situationally dependent.
Female, top, tease brain, neck/ears, upper middle stimulation, lower zipper, etc. Starting at the lower zipper first, generally gets my hand injured and a kick in the balls..... just sayin.....
Right place, right time, depending on fire from building, and how bad we need to be on the next block, moab, fuck the building.
If the Chechens have booby trapped the lower doors, blow a hole in the roof....clear downward.
Otherwise, identify and locate the problem, and go in where the problem least expects you to enter....
And some colt 45 afterwards, relieve yourself on the remains and tell the crew, nonah u fuckahs record this and put it on utube... u heah ?
Female, top, tease brain, neck/ears, upper middle stimulation, lower zipper, etc. Starting at the lower zipper first, generally gets my hand injured and a kick in the balls..... just sayin.....
Right place, right time, depending on fire from building, and how bad we need to be on the next block, moab, fuck the building.
If the Chechens have booby trapped the lower doors, blow a hole in the roof....clear downward.
Otherwise, identify and locate the problem, and go in where the problem least expects you to enter....
And some colt 45 afterwards, relieve yourself on the remains and tell the crew, nonah u fuckahs record this and put it on utube... u heah ?
A little further thought on this, if you really don't want to be kicked in the balls, the roofie option is there..... :- )
(This is all for humor............ , not advocating at all....)
Lot less action, less energy expended, get in and out faster, don't have to worry about friendlies injured, easier to cuff and stuff the target, and all that.
But definitely, don't nonah u fuckahs video this entry.......
Just kidding all yall...... just kidding.....
(This is all for humor............ , not advocating at all....)
Lot less action, less energy expended, get in and out faster, don't have to worry about friendlies injured, easier to cuff and stuff the target, and all that.
But definitely, don't nonah u fuckahs video this entry.......
Just kidding all yall...... just kidding.....
If I have to deal with those fucks ever again(or those like them) it will be the same way as last, the Russian way.
BTW, Ronald got there OK, local Tac Team was on the range, took them all day to get on paper at 50, an they never had a 100yd zero at the end of the day. To say Ronald was pissed is not even close, LOL Should the public be worried, over this?
The two trains of thought on clearing buildings is, from the top down gives them a out an much less fighting for you. From the bottom up none of them get out alive to fight another day. The higher you go the more intense the fight. (just like chipping away the 2A) You only have to endure them once an once only. The third option is my favorite, burn the bitch an clean them up as they come out. Most will fight to the last, very few will eat one, before burning alive. Some will, but most will not.
No.
Your responsibility is to live to fight more.
Dont give up advantage for some cockamamie idea of mano a mano fighting. Never fight fair. Always go for advantage.
Ideal is to come in top but seldom are the resources available for that.
Why would entry even be made without some sort of perimeter to push to.
If no perimeter, when coming in top as they run out of the building below you shoot them in the back running from your advantaged position.
This shit is stupid to talk about, nothing was gained.
Here in lies the issue with why the 2A is perceived different. It all depends on how YOU perceive the wording. We as shooters see it one way, none shooters another way, an libtards completely different to fit their agenda.
The clearing question can only be answered correctly first based upon. Is it a LE gig? A Military gig? Or a civi gig? Most will always answer base upon interest/back-round/beliefs. Clearing that works for US courts does not work in places like Groznyy. Until we understand the fence riders logic, we will never change their minds in the voting booth.
The clearing question can only be answered correctly first based upon. Is it a LE gig? A Military gig? Or a civi gig? Most will always answer base upon interest/back-round/beliefs. Clearing that works for US courts does not work in places like Groznyy. Until we understand the fence riders logic, we will never change their minds in the voting booth.
Actually, I wonder why you are here?
It's been made quite clear that in the language of the day the framers meant a "militia" to mean an armed populace, and that "well regulated" meant well equipped.
Fuck the SCOTUS.
They and their decisions are nothing more than political breezes shifting left and right through history, depending on their makeup and majorities at the time of any given ruling.
Until the SCOTUS or someone else rewrites the original document I'll stick with that version. And when they rewrite or destroy it, well then it's time to reboot.
Okay, Ill accept that. Everything depends on context.
This country has no concept of history.
What concerns me is a sanitized view of our Revolution.
The righteous heroic Patriots vs the evil smartly dressed Red Coats that we met in accepted military order and defeated on the field of battle, with civilians cleanly standing by to tend the suffering wounded.
I was watching this myth on the History channel the other night. I enjoyed it and a good show for kids but not reality.
The American Revolution was more like Grozny than people are willing to accept.
Lesson taken G14.
Yep, that’s how Canada got populated, by the loyalists we let live. It was brutal and will be more brutal in this next one. Be prepared.
Some of the shit would make the SS recoil in horror, and it wasnt Brits doing it.
Who was the more desperate in that war?
My daughter gets flack at school for saying Washington was the greatest President.
Her peers argue Lincoln, stating Washington didnt do anything, he "just wanted to be famous".
I put it into this context that Lincoln risked nothing personal in his war. Win or lose his life would not much have changed.
Washington and the FF risked great privilege for what would have been the medicine of the time in British rule drawn and quartering or eternal display in a cage on the Boston Common. There is a reason we have "no cruel and unusual punishment" in our Constitution.
People with their backs at the wall face and do gruesome things.
people dont realize, GW was actually a VERY wealthy man at the time of the revolution....British rule....american independence.....really wouldn't have impacted him much one way or the other.....he could have easily lived out his days fat and happy being a British subject.
he CHOSE to fight for american independence.....had he lost the war, he most certainly would have been killed, and the entirety of his estate would have been confiscated by the crown. he literally risked EVERYTHING.
if he just wanted "to be famous"....there were easier ways for a rich person at that time to do that.....hell, he could have bought a town and named it after himself if he wanted to.
he had a net worth of $780,000.......now at that time that was eual to .2% of the GDP for america..........in todays money, that worth a touch over $37 billion.
Last edited:
Most were called terrorist's back then an many were publicly executed as warnings to others. CW II will kick off just before or right after that happens again. Tomorrows freedom fighter, will be labeled a subversive, or terrorist before being called what they really are fighting for. First rule of deception label your enemy.
Similar threads
