“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.




36 Comments

Leave a reply to luftballooneyegouge
Click here to cancel the reply

You must be to post a response.

  1. Weenis 2 months ago

    What is the “standing professional military” that you speak of?

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • ladybarbara 2 months ago

      @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.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

    • Author
      luftballooneyegouge 2 months ago

      @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.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • ladybarbara 2 months ago

        @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.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

  2. Scarlett2 2 months ago

    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.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

  3. immortal_pirate 2 months ago

    MOLON LABE

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

  4. ladybarbara 2 months ago

    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.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

  5. ladybarbara 2 months ago

    The Second Amendment protects citizens from the Government.

    Reply

    You must be to vote.

    • Author
      luftballooneyegouge 2 months ago

      @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.

      Reply

      You must be to vote.

      • Author
        luftballooneyegouge 2 months ago

        @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/

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        luftballooneyegouge 2 months ago

        @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.”

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Author
        luftballooneyegouge 2 months ago

        @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

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • ladybarbara 2 months ago

        @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.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • Tits McGee 2 months ago

        @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.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

      • ladybarbara 2 months ago

        @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.

        Reply

        You must be to vote.

©2019 Soul Sequel | All Rights Reserved

 
or

Log in with your credentials

or    

Forgot your details?

or

Create Account