Shoot The Breeze

Status
Not open for further replies.
the purpose of the 2ns amendment as originally written was because the US kept a small standing army and relied on local militia which required its members to supply their own firearms and equipment. The 2nd gave everyone the right to own firearms to form the basis of the well regulated militias.

And as originally defined the militia was all able bodied men of age, today an unorganized militia as defined by the government is all able bodied men between 17 and 45 who are not a part of the military.

So if speaking from an originalist point of view like you are, any infringement on the ability to own firearms for those between 17 and 45 who are males is unconstitutional (aside from those barred).

The purpose of a militia is for defense, loosely organized, poorly trained, self armed...
 

you've just been Rick Grohl'ed

And as originally defined the militia was all able bodied men of age, today an unorganized militia as defined by the government is all able bodied men between 17 and 45 who are not a part of the military.

So if speaking from an originalist point of view like you are, any infringement on the ability to own firearms for those between 17 and 45 who are males is unconstitutional (aside from those barred).

The purpose of a militia is for defense, loosely organized, poorly trained, self armed...

also intended to be a check on tyranny, which is rarely mentioned because it elicits eye rolls and makes people uncomfortable. the last 90 days in PDX is a real time exemplification of the reason the 2nd amendment was written. empowers citizens to defend themselves from both tyrannical govt, or in the current case of PDX, anarchy & no govt at all.
 
Last edited:
Well that's literally the point of it, there is no other reason for the 2nd Amendement other than self protection.

What do you expect weapons to be used for?

To protect yourself from a TYRANNICAL government. So far we've seen arms heroically displayed at anti mask rallies, not heroically displayed when federal officers are sweeping people of the street.

I'm not gonna dig all your quotes but since you reply to every post I will continue
The commercial sale of firearms requires background checks, you're asking the federal government to regulate private transfers between citizens.
Absolutely, the government already regulates tobacco, alcohol, healthcare, SOME firearms, mortgages, aviation rules, they have WHOLE agencies dedicated to regulations

Ad contest media was for a media bias chart unrelated to guns.
 
So far we've seen arms heroically displayed at anti mask rallies

i've seen masks "heroically" displayed as a weapon far more, w far more dangerous implications to individual liberty.



Screen-Shot-2020-06-27-at-2.06.52-PM.png
 
Had a zoom meeting with RVP and our facility and he was asked about training. He said we're at the end of the process of the national workgroup and should be able to start up soon. When questioned further he said soon, so take it with a grain of salt.

He also talked about hazard pay and the only way we could potentially get it is if the heroes act passes, everyone who worked would be eligible for backpay on the hazard pay.
 
To protect yourself from a TYRANNICAL government. So far we've seen arms heroically displayed at anti mask rallies, not heroically displayed when federal officers are sweeping people of the street.

I'm not gonna dig all your quotes but since you reply to every post I will continue

Absolutely, the government already regulates tobacco, alcohol, healthcare, SOME firearms, mortgages, aviation rules, they have WHOLE agencies dedicated to regulations

Ad contest media was for a media bias chart unrelated to guns.

Wrong, as found in the DC vs Heller case by Justice Anthony Kennedy. Also, the only right way to protest in this country is armed, otherwise the government doesn't take it seriously and proceeds with suppression.

And again, the private transfer of property is solely separate from the commercial transfer.
 
And as originally defined the militia was all able bodied men of age, today an unorganized militia as defined by the government is all able bodied men between 17 and 45 who are not a part of the military.

So if speaking from an originalist point of view like you are, any infringement on the ability to own firearms for those between 17 and 45 who are males is unconstitutional (aside from those barred).

The purpose of a militia is for defense, loosely organized, poorly trained, self armed...

the actual wording says a “well organized militia...” not unorganized militia. Today’s official definition of an organized militia refers to the National Guard. Additionally, as early as the 1800’s the Supreme Court was ruling that all it meant was that congress didn’t have the ability to pass laws restricting firearms, but that states could. It wasn’t until Heller in the 2000’s that any court ever said it meant people could have unrestricted access to firearms.
 
People act like they can fight the US/other oppressors if they chose to rebel with their grandfathered-in M16 when the Army would just call in gunships and bomb you from miles away
 
Last edited:
People act like they can fight the US/other opressors if they chose to rebel with their grandfathered-in M16 when the Army would just call in gunships and bomb you from miles away

That's because that wouldn't happen...it would be the Marine Corps since the Posse Comitatus Act
 
Yeah imagine if people had access to knowledge from people who have done countless studies on things.

thats a lot of studies. #SCIENCE . this video is all you need to see to know you have been lied to, apparently "countless" times.


People act like they can fight the US/other opressors if they chose to rebel with their grandfathered-in M16 when the Army would just call in gunships and bomb you from miles away

This is very disrespectful to the US military. This isnt China.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom