“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.”
When the 2nd Amendment was written there wasn’t a standing professional military.
Now there is.
The nonsense passing for militias in 2019 are highly unregulated, unnecessary & completely useless against a modern professional military.
They don’t have the ability to secure a free state.
on The 2nd Amendment is Obsolete@Tits McGee I would not do that!!! I am not that i…
on The 2nd Amendment is Obsolete@ladybarbara FINALLY you got it stinkyfart - "So,… on The 2nd Amendment is Obsolete@luftballooneyegouge Well, I live in Arizona in th…
on The 2nd Amendment is Obsolete@luftballooneyegouge Linux can't copy & paste… on The 2nd Amendment is Obsolete@luftballooneyegouge a big paste from Fordham Law…©2019 Soul Sequel | All Rights Reserved
What is the “standing professional military” that you speak of?
You must be logged in to vote.
@Weenis I think he means that if the military were to fight you for your gun collection, they could use jets and straif a line of fire power that would wipe out your property, house, vehicles, and all. Or the military could drop a nuclear bomb and wipe out your city and a few surrounding cities, just to take out your collection. You would be powerless to fight against that kind of fire power.
If the military came to get my Ruger, I would be firing it and kill someone trying to take it. Then I would be killed while defending my right to have a gun to defend myself.
You must be logged in to vote.
@ladybarbara
Yeah, I’m not sure what he means.
But if that is what’s he’s talking about, and the military is as good as he’s saying it is, I’m glad it worked so well in the middle east and in Vietnam.
You must be logged in to vote.
@Weenis
Walmart’s pulling guh-uns,
Waaalmaart’s pulllling guh-uns!!!!
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/09/03/the-full-memo-from-walmarts-ceo-about-pulling-back-on-gun-sales.html
You must be logged in to vote.
@Weenis Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!
You must be logged in to vote.
@Weenis
The Continental Army was mothballed in 1783.
The Bill of Rights were ratified on 1791.
The Legion of the US wasn’t active until 1792 & they were formed to go after Native-Americans because militias had been decimated at the Battle of the Wabash.
Militias couldn’t secure the state against bows & arrows.
You must be logged in to vote.
@luftballooneyegouge And guns. Chief Keinpoos (Captain Jack) of the Modoc tribe shot General Canby point blank —— and then the Modoc War of 1876 began!!! He had a rifle.
You must be logged in to vote.
Agreed. this makes so much sense, but I have begun to question the value of these talking points online. I admire your efforts, though. I just find the place we are in as a country very odd. It seems like anytime someone brings up changing the gun laws, those on the right immediately go into a rant about how we want to take away their guns. It is like they jump to the. extreme that a change in gun laws means taking away their guns. It is a rock hard ideology that is very hard to penetrate. What we can do is vote. Vote out Trump. Get as many people to the polls as we can.
I got into a scrap a few weeks ago when I was trying to explain white privilege online. White men are testy! They got so angry over a post about white privilege and literally attacked me with words, name calling etc for four days until I finally shut the post down. This caused me to wonder, is it best to quietly go about our lives and fight these injustices in less public ways? Is speaking out against gun control and for awareness of white privilege the equivalent of telling someone their god doesn’t exist? Not saying we shouldn’t work for social justice, just wondering if some minds are a lost cause.
You must be logged in to vote.
@Scarlett2
Ammo Ban
2nd Amendment would be useless.
If you don’t feel comfortable in these situations, there’s other things you can do to pitch in.
They’re socially rabid.
You must be logged in to vote.
@luftballooneyegouge just saw where wal mart will be making some changes. I find that interesting!
You must be logged in to vote.
@Scarlett2
I was just about to post the link!
You must be logged in to vote.
@luftballooneyegouge I find it so interesting because you know wal mart made a business decision! Earlier indicator of the next election results?…
You must be logged in to vote.
@luftballooneyegouge If k Mart is mostly shut down, target is pro- let people go to
The potty wherever the ‘ell they want, and wal Mart is banning certain ammunition and guns, what will people on the right do now? I betcha a bunch of them will say they’re not going to wal Mart anymore.
You must be logged in to vote.
@Scarlett2
Maybe they’ll all go in on some land in Guyana & stock up on kool-aid?
You must be logged in to vote.
@luftballooneyegouge We don’t do Kool Aid. We do Crystal Light in the pre-measured packets and zero calories. There is no reason to not shop at WalMart.
You must be logged in to vote.
@ladybarbara
I thought all you infowarriors were against aspartame?
You must be logged in to vote.
@luftballooneyegouge I am for anything that tastes good.
You must be logged in to vote.
@Scarlett2 We go to Cabela’s to buy ammo. We are not going to stop shopping at WalMart.
You must be logged in to vote.
@ladybarbara
No reason?????
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/walmarts-walton-family-backing-clinton
You must be logged in to vote.
@luftballooneyegouge I will still shop at WalMart. I like the store and the air conditioning.
You must be logged in to vote.
@ladybarbara
That goddamned space-pirate better not have the thermostat set to 100degrees, Arizona’s definition of room temperature.
You must be logged in to vote.
@luftballooneyegouge It is set to 88 degrees and gets to 84 degrees in the living room. It is 124 degrees outside.
You must be logged in to vote.
@ladybarbara
In 2016 Walmart gave more to Bernie Sanders than Trump, & he didn’t even make it out of the primaries.
You must be logged in to vote.
@luftballooneyegouge It is still not a reason to stop shopping at WalMart.
You must be logged in to vote.
MOLON LABE
You must be logged in to vote.
@immortal_pirate
The rain’ll dance on your ashes Before you learn to proofread.
You must be logged in to vote.
So, WalMart stops selling ammo, because bullets kill people, then they stop selling guns because guns kill people, then they stop selling auto parts because cars have killed people, then they stop selling food because obesity kills people. Then they may as well be a clothing store.
You must be logged in to vote.
@ladybarbara
Stop covering for the garment industry!!!!
You must be logged in to vote.
The Second Amendment protects citizens from the Government.
You must be logged in to vote.
@ladybarbara
Nope.
The entire amendment reads, “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.”
Around the same time the Battle of the Wabash proves militias can’t secure anything, G. Washington uses militias to go quell the Whiskey Rebellion which started because the government started taxation w/out representation for which they’d supposedly just fought the revolution for. George Washington used militias to enforce tax collection. Collecting taxes at gunpoint…
The 2nd Amendment doesn’t protect citizens from it’s own government.
You must be logged in to vote.
@luftballooneyegouge @ladybarbara
They were seizing Whiskey Rebellion protestor’s firearms.
A guy gets bayoneted by a militiaman, who goes unpunished in the end.
The majority of the rebels take off into the frontier.
Tax collection is still a failure.
Thomas Jefferson promises to repeal the Whiskey Tax if elected.
He gets elected and repeals it.
The thing is about militias more than firearms.
here’s an article from an American Revolution historian for you to ignore
https://thedoctorweighsin.com/what-the-founders-really-thought-about-guns/
You must be logged in to vote.
@luftballooneyegouge
a big paste from Fordham Law Review
“A variety of laws regulating firearms were already in place during
the Founding Era. Militia regulations were the most common form of
laws pertaining to firearms.7 Such laws could be quite intrusive,
allowing government not only to keep track of who had firearms, but
requiring them to report for a muster or face stiff penalties.”‘
Regulations governing the storage of gun powder were also
common.”9 States prohibited the use of firearms on certain occasions
and in certain locations. 2° A variety of race-based exclusions
disarmed slaves, and in some cases, free blacks.2’ Loyalty oaths also
disarmed portions of the population during the Founding Era.
This pattern of regulation shifted dramatically in the decades after
the adoption of the Second Amendment. In the years after the War
of 1812, a number of states enacted laws against the practice of
carrying concealed weapons. 123 The first laws were passed in southern
states,’124 but midwestern states such as Indiana also passed similar
laws.25 The first round of laws made it a crime to carry such
weapons. 16 Later, several states enacted even more stringent laws,
banning the sale of concealed weapons.
A. Eighteenth-Century GunLaws
Eighteenth-century statutes regulating the use of firearms can be
classified as follows: statutes providing for the confiscation of
firearms from persons unwilling to take an oath of allegiance to the
state, statutes regulating the use of firearms within the context of
militia obligations, and statutes regulating the storage of gunpowder.
A smaller number of laws also regulated hunting and the discharge of
firearms in certain places. These statutes make clear that regulation
of firearms is hardly a modern invention.
1. Loyalty Oaths and the Confiscation of Firearms
During the American Revolution, several states passed laws
providing for the confiscation of weapons owned by persons refusing
to swear an oath of allegiance to the state or the United States.28 To
deal with the potential threat coming from armed citizens who
remained loyal to Great Britain, states took the obvious precaution of
disarming these persons. Thus, the security of the community
outweighed any right a person might have to possess afirearm.
In Pennsylvania, if a person “refuse[d] or neglect[ed] to take the
oath or affirmation” of allegiance to the state, he was required to
deliver up his arms to agents of the state, and he was not permitted to
carry any arms about his person or keep any arms or ammunition in
his “house or elsewhere., 129 Such a broad provision effectively
eliminated the opportunity for someone to violently protest the
actions of the Pennsylvania government or defend himself with a
firearm. It should be underscored that those refusing to take the oath
or affirmation were unable to borrow or even use another person’s
firearms.
In 1776, Massachusetts passed, at the behest of the Continental
Congress, an act that disarmed “such Persons as are notoriously
disaffected to the Cause of America, or who refuse to associate to
defend by Arms the United American Colonies.”‘
The Massachusetts law required “every Male Person above sixteen Years
of Age” to subscribe to a “test” of allegiance to the “United American
Colonies.”” One who failed to subscribe to this test was
“disarmed… [of] all such Arms, Ammunition and Warlike
Implements, as by the strictest Search can be found in his Possession
or belonging to him. 132
The Massachusetts law is interesting because it exempts Quakers
from signing the test of allegiance administered to all other men.1 33 To
accommodateheir religion, Quakers were provided with a different
form of declaration.134 Thus, under the circumstances, the right for a
Quaker to practice his religion outweighed the state’s interest in its
preferred test of allegiance. The right to bear arms, however, did not
outweigh the state’s interest in maintaining security through
disarmament of those considered dangerous to the state. Instead, the
state’s interest in public safety dominated.
Disarmament was not limited to the arguably extraordinary period
of the American Revolution. In 1787, the Massachusetts legislature
passed a law setting out the terms for pardons by the governor for
persons who had been involved in Shays’s rebellion againsthe state
in the previous year. 135 Those who had taken up arms against the state
were, with some exceptions, able to seek a pardon from the
governor.36 To obtain the pardon, however, aperson needed to take
an oath of allegiance to the state and deliver his arms to the state for a
period of three years.137 In addition, during the same time period, the
person would be unable to serve as a juror, hold government office, or
vote “for any officer, civil or military.’ 138
The nature of the other disqualifications that went along with
disarmament only underscores the civic character of the right to bear
arms. Those seeking pardon were not robbed of a right to free speech
or free exercise of their religion, rights indisputably associated with
individuals. Instead, the penalties deal more with the rights and
obligations associated with a citizen’s duty to society: participation in
government as a political official, participation in the legal process as
a juror, participation in the electoral process as a voter, and
participation ithe militia.139 The law demonstrates that in a well
regulated society, the state could disarm those it deemed likely to
disrupt society. These types of statutes raise serious questions about
the claim of some modern Second Amendment scholars that the right
to bear arms was somehow intended to facilitate an individual right of
revolution. 40 Quite the opposite was the case. To enjoy the right to
bear arms, one had to renounce such revolutionary aspirations. While
one might argue such a case if the Second Amendment had been
authored by Daniel Shays and his supporters, such radical voices were
noticeably absent in the First Congress that drafted the Bill of
Rights.”
You must be logged in to vote.
@luftballooneyegouge
Linux can’t copy & paste PDFs for shit.
Here’s the link for the Fordham PDF
(the goods start at page 20)
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4021&context=flr
You must be logged in to vote.
@luftballooneyegouge Well, I live in Arizona in the rootin-tooin-shoot-em-up wild West. I can carry my gun into WalMart if it is concealed in my purse, but not out in plain sight in it’s holster. For all the background checks, tests, safety tests, and waiting period I had to go through, I feel qualified to own my gun and to use it in a safe manor. I will do so right up to the moment the Government tries to take it. Then all bets are off and I will defend my right to have it and there will be blood. I know what comes after the citizens guns are taken away. I won’t wait around for history to repeat and Socialism to ruin the America I know and love.
You must be logged in to vote.
@ladybarbara
FINALLY you got it stinkyfart – “So, WalMart stops selling ammo, because bullets kill people, then they stop selling guns because guns kill people,”
@luftballooneyegouge – you KNOW this old broad us full of shit — > ..”the rootin-tooin-shoot-em-up wild West. I can carry my gun into WalMart if it is concealed in my purse, but not out in plain sight in it’s holster.”
she makes it seem like Arizona is the wild west – I know where they live – there is absolutely NO NEED to carry. In the older towns, old guys will dress up as cowboys and carry, mostly for show. The LAST thing we need is StinkyWind getting her old lady panties (ugh – think i just threw up a little in my mouth) in a wad and shooting some poor Hispanic she thought was illegal.
You must be logged in to vote.
@Tits McGee I would not do that!!! I am not that ignorant , nor insane. I know what the laws are and I would not shoot a person because I thought they were here illegally. I use my gun for target practice at the range. I follow all rules for safety. As far as illegals go, that is the job of Border Patrol, Police, and ICE.
You must be logged in to vote.