They Want to Take Your Guns

You are out of your mind. Period. The objective of the founding fathers has been met:

“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

How has that objective NOT been met? And lesh, the founding fathers had this to say to YOU:

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”,

...Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Tench Coxe Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

“Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.” Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)

 

It does not matter how many times you repeat this nonsense -- you know it is nonsense.

You are fully aware of the fact that nothing in the constitution requires anyone to be part of any militia for their right to keep and bear arms to be protected by the 2nd.

 

In both cases, this has been proven untrue.
You know this because you were part of the conversation.

 

A militia need not be subject to call up for it to be a militia; that these sate militia re not so subject in no way means they are not state militias.
Aside from that, the militia exists at the federal level as well.

None of this matters.
The law makes no specification as to how the barrel is less than 18", only that if it is, it falls under the NFA.

Try harder.
A requirement under the commerce clause that allows sales of firearms only to private individuals when in possession of a federal license allowing them to buy a firearm would violate the 2nd.

 

As you know, The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
Thus, your statement is irrelevant.

 

You refuse to understand what you post; everything you state here has to do with the weapon, not the person.
Miller clearly holds the 2nd amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms of the individual, regardless of his connection to the militia.

 

Even if true... this is irrelevant to any and every argument regarding the 2nd.

 

Nothing in the constitution requires a person to be part of any militia for the 2nd to protect his right to keep and bear arms.

 

I think lesh understands this. In Cruikshank, the point was made abundantly clear. I cited that in posts # 169 and #170... and repeated those posts - both times lesh refused to read and comment on the facts. You are dealing with an anti-gunner with no regard for the facts or the truth.

 

Indeed.
The only question that remains -- is she lying to herself, or just us?

 

Yep, certainly stopped us from invading in Iraq and Afganistan.

 

Didn't Trump just decide that being crazy should not prohibit owning a gun. Next of course in his syncophantic courting of the NRA he will proclaim that being a convicted felon shouldn't prohibit owning a gun.

 

Unsupportable nonsense.

 

Are you trying to be a CourtJester by misrepresenting facts?

Trump advocated no such policy. No response necessary. I will say that being a convicted felon should not be a bar to owning a firearm. How many paragraphs did we just allot for that discussion? Back up a couple of posts and read post # 325 on this page.

 

Your posts are too easy to nuke. Look dude, Americans own upward of 300 MILLION firearms. Iraq, which has many more firearms than Afghanistan has a total of under 10 MILLION firearms.

Now, CourtJester is the de facto leader of the left. He thinks that if a small country with 10 million weapons is easy to invade, the U.S. with 300 MILLION firearms will be equally easy to invade. How many of you will follow this guy into battle??????

 

Personally, I want to watch him pee his pants as someone resists his effort to confiscate whatever guns he managed to ban.

 

Well yea...except the wording IN the Second itself where it states "A well regulated militia being necessary

Tog6 has been told numerous times that I am male. I suppose it's some weird form of insult and it will be treated (and reported) as such if it continues.
..."

 

My point exactly. Pointing to a Militia Act enacted 100 years after the Second was written IS irrelevant

 

regardless of his connection to the militia.

Exactly backwards. Read Miller again. Everything in it refers to USE BY THE MILITIA

 

It's on this very thread. Go back and read it

 

Repeating yourself endlessly does not make the words "A Well Regulated Militia Being Necessary..." go away

 

All well and good but the Constitution says none of that

 

ANti-gunner???

I own four of em. But I understand my right to them comes from a LOCAL authority

 

Which, as you know, does not in any way require that "the people" specified in the amendment be associated with the militia for their right to keep and bear arms be protected under the 2nd.
You KNOW this -- why do you continue to pretend otherwise?

Yeahok. In any case:
You didn't answer the question -- are you lying to yourself, or just us?

 

So, let us examine HOW the Constitution ought to be interpreted. How's that?

“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” Thomas Jefferson

“If, in the opinion of the people, the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed. The precedent must always greatly overbalance in permanent evil any partial or transient benefit, which the use can at any time yield. “ George Washington (Farewell Address)

Soooo... I did exactly what Jefferson admonished us to do and left you with a warning from George Washington regarding what you're trying to do. You're up....