- Thread starter Lowlight
- Start date
It’s not about guns, it’s all about control at this point. They have 5-6k troops in DC, that’s as many as in Iraq and Afghanistan. That should tell you something at this point. They know they are shitting on the constitution and are very afraid. 6 JAN 2021 was a wake up call for them, that they are not unreachable.
We have seen our cities burn, looted, raped for the past year now, all in the name of “police brutality”. However the protest in DC was labeled an armed insurrection.
Guns are the only thing standing in their way from total destruction of the constitution.
Doc
We have seen our cities burn, looted, raped for the past year now, all in the name of “police brutality”. However the protest in DC was labeled an armed insurrection.
Guns are the only thing standing in their way from total destruction of the constitution.
Doc
every one knows it not about guns but control there Capt Obvious LOL
We are just playing with talking points but they come here and look see what we are saying that is all
We are just playing with talking points but they come here and look see what we are saying that is all
Liberals view armed Americans as the number one threat to their way of life.
A recent study indicated that 12% of the left were rabid “murder the capitalists” Communists and 8% of the right were “shoot the gays and Jews” douchebags.
So the roughly 80% of america that are decent folks seem to have no say anymore in anything.
THIS is why we own guns. And the Communists that view us as a threat are right - I am a threat to anyone who is shooting people because they are capitalists. Just like I’m a threat to anyone shooting gays and Jews.
It’s sad that so few understand that distinction.
A recent study indicated that 12% of the left were rabid “murder the capitalists” Communists and 8% of the right were “shoot the gays and Jews” douchebags.
So the roughly 80% of america that are decent folks seem to have no say anymore in anything.
THIS is why we own guns. And the Communists that view us as a threat are right - I am a threat to anyone who is shooting people because they are capitalists. Just like I’m a threat to anyone shooting gays and Jews.
It’s sad that so few understand that distinction.
This is the 80/20 principal at work. 80 percent of people are affected by the actions of 20 percent, 20 percent of people make 80 percent of the rules, 20 percent of the carpet gets 80 percent of the wear.
People that want to stay home, raise their kids, take care of their house, and pet their dog on the sofa for sure don’t make any of the rules.
Originally it was any man capable of bearing arms.
Samuel Whittemore
Before the Bayonetting: The Untold Story of Capt. Samuel Whittemore - Journal of the American Revolution
Capt. Samuel Whittemore, a seventy-eight year old American farmer, became a legend on April 19, 1775 when he was shot in the face by...
allthingsliberty.com 
Good thread.
"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."
Why did the Founders even put that there?
Mainly because they didn't want to live under tyrannical rule anymore.
In recent times we spend a lot of time focusing on the "Militia" part and the "shall not be infringed" part, but the Founders were focused on the FREE part.
The Founders understood that in order to be free, the citizens needed to have power and ultimately be in control over their representatives. If the representatives built too much power for themselves and built up a military/police class powerful enough to enforce THEIR will over the people's will, there would be no freedom.
That meant that the people had to be ready to get together and defend the nation/Constitution whenever necessary.
The Militia as referenced in the 2A isn't referring to the fringe local militia groups we have today. They were referring to ALL free people.
People have hit on it previously, but it was essentially all able-bodied men being ready and able to assemble as necessary to defend the nation from tyranny. It has less to do with drilling and meeting once a month than it did with being prepared mentally, physically, and with the TOOLS necessary to act.
Hell, the founders were actually angry when the early Militia members showed up with guns that weren't good enough!! They wanted/expected them to come out with the most modern rifles available!
Taking guns away from the population, magazine limits, banning AR's, etc., etc, would have been an absurd concept.
The "Militia" is ALL of us.
"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."
Why did the Founders even put that there?
Mainly because they didn't want to live under tyrannical rule anymore.
In recent times we spend a lot of time focusing on the "Militia" part and the "shall not be infringed" part, but the Founders were focused on the FREE part.
The Founders understood that in order to be free, the citizens needed to have power and ultimately be in control over their representatives. If the representatives built too much power for themselves and built up a military/police class powerful enough to enforce THEIR will over the people's will, there would be no freedom.
That meant that the people had to be ready to get together and defend the nation/Constitution whenever necessary.
The Militia as referenced in the 2A isn't referring to the fringe local militia groups we have today. They were referring to ALL free people.
People have hit on it previously, but it was essentially all able-bodied men being ready and able to assemble as necessary to defend the nation from tyranny. It has less to do with drilling and meeting once a month than it did with being prepared mentally, physically, and with the TOOLS necessary to act.
Hell, the founders were actually angry when the early Militia members showed up with guns that weren't good enough!! They wanted/expected them to come out with the most modern rifles available!
Taking guns away from the population, magazine limits, banning AR's, etc., etc, would have been an absurd concept.
The "Militia" is ALL of us.
This is why, in my opinion, everyone should be able and expected to own, without regulation or paperwork, to include 4473 forms, something like the following:
Barrett 107
AXMC
Select fire M4 variant
SCAR
Select fire sub gun
Belt fed machine gun.
NODs
Plates
Frags
HE
This would be a setup that achieves parity with any modern military and would be quite useful in the militia to defend freedom.
Barrett 107
AXMC
Select fire M4 variant
SCAR
Select fire sub gun
Belt fed machine gun.
NODs
Plates
Frags
HE
This would be a setup that achieves parity with any modern military and would be quite useful in the militia to defend freedom.
Don't forget manpads and rpgs.
So...and certainly not taking a shot at you....but really, who gives a fuck.
The "right" conveys to "the people" and NOT to the "militia".
Just my view of it.
The MSM is currently, and really just recently, pushing to redefine "militia" as a derogatory term. Here's just one quick example:
abcnews.go.com
Note "militia" in the headline, then the first line of the story starts with "violent anti-government extremists".
Militia extremists developing strategies to work around social media crackdown, DHS memo warns
Anti-government extremists are working to circumvent recent social media clampdowns in order to continue recruiting new members, the Department of Homeland Security says.
abcnews.go.com Note "militia" in the headline, then the first line of the story starts with "violent anti-government extremists".
Those who ratified the Bill of Rights had just defeated what then was the world's lone superpower in a bitter war that was sparked by a gun control raid that went all squirrely. The primary objective of that raid was to seize the cannon held in Concord. The militia had artillery equal in quality and number to that of the British Army. That militia was composed of all able-bodied men capable of bearing arms. Regular musters were held and the men were required to report with their own muskets. Provisions were made for those who could not afford one, but the cost was deducted from their pay.
The historical record is clear from the writings of the founders that the intent was that the people at large would never be overmatched or outgunned by any standing army, which would be anyone carrying a government gun. That is what the Second Ammendment means!
A State Senator here in South Carolina just introduced a bill to redefine the militia as all able-bodied persons capable of bearing arms. No upper age limit and not limited to males. I just wish he had thought to resurrect the Rent-to-Own provision. That's OK. While everywhere else there are signs in front of used car dealers saying "Buy here, pay here," we also have those in front of gun stores.
The historical record is clear from the writings of the founders that the intent was that the people at large would never be overmatched or outgunned by any standing army, which would be anyone carrying a government gun. That is what the Second Ammendment means!
A State Senator here in South Carolina just introduced a bill to redefine the militia as all able-bodied persons capable of bearing arms. No upper age limit and not limited to males. I just wish he had thought to resurrect the Rent-to-Own provision. That's OK. While everywhere else there are signs in front of used car dealers saying "Buy here, pay here," we also have those in front of gun stores.
Yet the left (and right) and VERY against, and “red flag” anyone who joins, or starts, a militia.
I think militia should be viewed like volunteer fire departments, and should be something looked up to by the public, and something young men look to join when they come of age.
Per owning guns, well there is a damn comma in the sentence for a reason, and the federalist papers make the individual right to keep and bear ALL arms pretty damn clear.
Don’t like guns, don’t buy one
Don’t like militia, don’t join one.
When people are very anti gun, I just say the alpha and omega is it’s my right, so there is no “debate”, I also ask what they plan on doing to others where they think a normal person would be willing to shoot them? Rape? Murder? Theft?
Because if you don’t try to hurt me or mine, there is a 0.0% chance you’re going to meet the business end of any of my firearms.
I think militia should be viewed like volunteer fire departments, and should be something looked up to by the public, and something young men look to join when they come of age.
Per owning guns, well there is a damn comma in the sentence for a reason, and the federalist papers make the individual right to keep and bear ALL arms pretty damn clear.
Don’t like guns, don’t buy one
Don’t like militia, don’t join one.
When people are very anti gun, I just say the alpha and omega is it’s my right, so there is no “debate”, I also ask what they plan on doing to others where they think a normal person would be willing to shoot them? Rape? Murder? Theft?
Because if you don’t try to hurt me or mine, there is a 0.0% chance you’re going to meet the business end of any of my firearms.
Last edited:
why do they also regulate hearing protection?
/assholes.
/assholes.
give it time first the direct threat guns then everything else down to chopsticks those evil liking implements soon enough people won't even be able to wear belts cause you could hand your self to get out of your debt to the government lol it sounds far fetched now but so did the government trying to take your guns 20 years ago or stripping your rights to gather or assemble or freedom of religion unless your Muslim then you can still do what ever it is you want to do and its hard to forget free speech unless they approve it it's bad now .
Look who defaults to guarding the ruling class after a peaceful walk in by the people. The national guard.
If we have a second rev/independence war, the national guard would be akin to the redcoats, as would most police, as the unconstitutional covid “lock downs” and enforcement of “gun laws” has clearly proven.
true enough.
for folks living in free america, i suppose .gov would not know if you have a firearm unless you get a suppressor.
I agree, but we all know how they manipulate words and meanings
To coin an old saying..."Gun Control......means using both hands!" Mac
How can you play devils advocate if you never NOT play devils advocate?
It's a full time job, my friend.
you realize there are places where you cannot legally carry a screwdriver, right?
I don't travel to bad parts of the country. Honestly, if I have to be somewhere with bad laws, I'd prefer Paris or London to New York or San Francisco.
actually, the UK is one of the places you can be arrested for carrying a carrying a screwdriver or any bladed tool.
and the point is not where you want to go, but that your use of a shovel as an example is ignorant.
if migrants start bashing folks with shovels, that will be next.
My point about shovels wasn't ignorant. My point was that tools as tools were not seen as the same as tools as arms by the founders. That is beyond question, I think. Whether they were right about the future mendacity of the government is a different story.
And I am aware of the bad UK laws. I lived there half time for two years. When compared to a place like NY, I will take London any day. Our big cities just offer very little in return for the shittiness.
so you were being a dick over semantics and the use of the word tool?
sorry turbo, i don't think your interpretations of words runs the show, but at least your ignorance is of consistent quality.
a device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function
my interpretation is that it is a tool, initially for killing and now for sport.
my perception of frank's post is that he meant that a rifle back then was a much a necessary tool for survival as a shovel, or any tools for farming, raising livestock or just building shelter.
Your or my definition of tools doesn't matter. The point is that the founders made a distinction between mere tools, which they did not think to protect, and arms, which they felt it necessary to protect. The reasoning behind this could be several things, but the distinction is clear, not only in the second amendment, but also in the Federalist papers, the minutes of debate and the various state constitutions of the time. So while it is, maybe, true to say that a rifle is a tool, it wasn't protected because of its status as a tool, it was protected because of what makes it different from a shovel or trowel.
This isn't hard stuff, and my position is hardly anti gun, in fact, it is the position that leads to the conclusion that all around here hold about the second amendment. viz the second exists not because of hunting or livestock or even home defense, but because arms stand as opposition to tyranny.
I think Frank makes a mistake in placing too much emphasis on the prefatory clause of the second, saying that it makes a strong statement that the civil militia must be well regulated (I do absolutely accept his definition of the word.). I think that clause is close to meaningless in the original meaning of the amendment, much as in "because I ate hot sauce, I need to take a shit" really isn't about hot sauce, but about what I am going to do behind the bathroom door. I think this is, again, borne out by the original iterations of the second amendment itself, and by the various forms of the same guarantee that were passed in the states, states whose founders were also delegates to the constitutional convention.
ETA: Scalia makes an important point. The militia was defined as the able bodied males of fighting age, which makes them a proper subset of "the people" but reserves the right to bear arms not to the militia members or militia eligible, but to the people themselves, a much larger group. So it is a good idea not to put too much stock in the prefatory clause, but rather concentrate on the operative.
TLDR version: A gun is a tool, but it is not the universal tool characteristic of a gun that drove the founding fathers to protect it along with other important rights. It is what distinguishes it from a common tool that made them believe it required special protection.
Last edited:
That is exactly what I said, you doofus. Is it that hard to read?
i said it nicely. if you said it, you said it like a dick.
anyway, i try not to read your posts too closely and risk polluting my head like idiots that watch brian stetzer or rachal maddow.
i just assume whatever you babbled was ignorant or worse and reply thusly.
anyway, i have no representation, and while maybe i am technically "free", i am little more than a sharecropper for the government that demands 4/10ths of everything i grow or earn.
fair enough, though I have never watched those two morons.i said it nicely. if you said it, you said it like a dick.
anyway, i try not to read your posts too closely and risk polluting my head like idiots that watch brian stetzer or rachal maddow.
i just assume what every you babbled was ignorant or worse and reply thusly.
I am not putting any weight on it,
I am simply stating the meaning, and the reference text around it shows that Well Regulated was more about being Well Lead, vs being Regulated by the definitions of today
I am not deep diving into that part of the clause at all, other than to say, every male was part of the militia and well regulated has nothing to do with regulations but leadership
I am simply stating the meaning, and the reference text around it shows that Well Regulated was more about being Well Lead, vs being Regulated by the definitions of today
I am not deep diving into that part of the clause at all, other than to say, every male was part of the militia and well regulated has nothing to do with regulations but leadership
Heavy old walking cane because your medical condition makes the nerves in your foot not work quite right so you need to use it to keep your balance.
You can knock somebody into next Tuesday with with a heavy cane if you know what you are doing, and probably do more damage than a screwdriver could, if you know where to hit or jab.
Do you want to start diagramming the sentence or cut to the chase and talk about the comma for a while
Well, I am a sentence diagrammer myself, so there you go. You would have to be a plum moron to think regulated means in that sentence what it means when anti gun folks talk about it. Either that or a liar.
I mention this above. This is the correct interpretation of the distinction. Other interesting discussion has centered around whether to keep and bear is one right, or whether it is two. A recent study found that in contemporary English, the term "keep and bear" was not a typical term like "cease and desist," and thus likely referred to two separate rights, the keep right being more connected to civil life and the bear right being more linguistically connected to militia activity.
Follow any comment thread off SH regarding the 2A and 99% whether honest or dishonest, believe it does
I wonder if those people think that checking your regulator before you dive means talking to the state bureau of scuba.
I have the same policy toward Twitter that I do toward NY. I have spent enough time in those places to know that I don't need to go back.
Similar threads
