Heads up Teabillies - the gubmint's a comin for your small dick compensators

What a fuckin' joke:

Conservative: I served in the Marines, therefore I have entitlement to say whatever bullshit I want.

Me: Oh word? What did you do in the Marines?

Conservative: I sat in an air-conditioned room and directed traffic. Never fired my weapon once because I was never in combat. In fact, I sat at a desk all day long and stared at a monitor.

Me: Thank you for your "service".
 
LV426 said:
No, it's not. The Second Amendment literally says "A well-regulated militia".

Those are the first four words.
Click to expand...

They are the first four words. That portion of the 2nd amendment is describing the right of a free State to defend itself using a militia. The militia is the people of that State. The State organizes the militia into a fighting force. They each bring their own weapons and stand together to defend their State and it's people.

The 2nd amendment also discusses the right of the people (including the individual) to defend themselves by keeping and bearing arms...the same arms they bring to the militia when it is organized.

Militias are not any other group than the people living in that State. This is specifically laid out in the Kentucky State constitution under Section 219. Other States use similar wording. The State can call up the militia when invaded or under imminent danger. That is organizing the militia, or 'well regulating' the militia. 'Regulatiing' means to make regular. In the case of State militia, it means to organize them under a common banner and command (a 'regular' or standard banner and command), with the purpose of defending the people of that State from invasion or imminent danger, as specified in Article I, Sec 10, clause 3 of the Constitution of the United States.

Most States currently have militias. They consist of administrative personnel, not active fighting force. Washington's militia currently has 75 active members in this capacity. The rest of the militia is the people of Washington State. Should Washington get invaded by Canada, from the sea, or troops from Idaho or Oregon, or federal troops attempting to destroy or conquer the State of Washington or otherwise attempt to exceed their constitutional authority, or if Washington be placed in imminent danger of external threat or internal threat, the militia can be organized under the State of Washington to defend that State from that threat.

The Militia is not the National Guard. That is a federal militia, not discussed in the 2nd amendment.
 
Sirthinksalot said:
You're the one who brought up abortion. I (correctly) pointed out that Ralphy supports infanticide.
Click to expand...

I brought up abortion?

Honestly, I don't remember doing that.

"Infanticide"...but...you don't really know the circumstances surrounding this. It's probably much more complex than you're giving it credit. That's typical of your kind; you barely scratch the surface and then get all hysterical about it.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
wow, show me the documentation that explains how the 2nd Amendment authorizes ANY government entity to regulate the militia or arms of we the people
Click to expand...

it doesn't. The 2nd amendment authorizes absolutely nothing. It does not grant any right. It only discusses a right that is already inherently there and specifically directs the government to not mess with it. Even without the 2nd amendment, the federal government was never given authorization to mess with the right of self defense, or to limit any arm, or to keep the States from creating an organized militia out of the unorganized militia (the people of that State) so long as such militia is used to defend that State from invasion or imminent danger.

If the federal government is not specifically given a power, it doesn't have it. That power reverts to the States, or to the people, for they are the owners of the Constitution of the United States, not the federal government that is created by that Constitution. This concept is clarified in the 10th amendment as well.
 
Last edited:
LV426 said:
Well, there needs to be a body of some kind that regulates it, since the Second Amendment literally says they are "Well-regulated".

The 2A literally starts with "A well-regulated militia".

So...someone has to determine if they're regulated. Who is that if it's not the State?

If they intended self-regulation, they would have said so.

You don't have any proof that the founders intended self-regulation of your terrorist group. "Well-regulated" means, what? What do you think "well regulated" means? You seem to think it means no regulation or self-regulation, but that's not spelled out anywhere in the document.
Click to expand...

It is the absolute height of stupidity to believe that the framers of the constitution would create an Amendment guaranteeing that only the government could control military force after having just won independence from a government that controlled all of their military force.
 
reagansghost said:
Virginia gov. chants 'enough is enough!' as lawmakers gather

Source: Associated Press


RICHMOND, Va. (AP) — Virginia's governor led gun-control supporters in chants of "enough is enough!" outside the Capitol Tuesday after summoning legislators to debate and vote on new gun laws.

Gov. Ralph Northam ordered lawmakers back for a special session to consider a wide range of gun-control measures, said people need "votes and laws, not thoughts and prayers" after a Virginia Beach employee shot and killed a dozen people in a city building on May 31.
Click to expand...

Do we win an all expense paid vacation to Pedophile Island....like Blow Job? :thinking: Right....err....left the Governor of Va. is going to rescind the 2nd amendment all by himself. Makes one wonder if the VA. Laws already on the books was enforced in relation to this nut who killed a dozen people....no? But...more laws not to enforce will GET'R DONE. ;)
 
LV426 said:
What a fuckin' joke:

Conservative: I served in the Marines, therefore I have entitlement to say whatever bullshit I want.

Me: Oh word? What did you do in the Marines?

Conservative: I sat in an air-conditioned room and directed traffic. Never fired my weapon once because I was never in combat. In fact, I sat at a desk all day long and stared at a monitor.

Me: Thank you for your "service".
Click to expand...

how do you survive in public with such a bullshit delusional dreamworld you're living in????
 
SmarterthanYou said:
It is the absolute height of stupidity to believe that the framers of the constitution would create an Amendment guaranteeing that only the government could control military force after having just won independence from a government that controlled all of their military force.
Click to expand...

The FF opposed the concept of a standing army, so any state militia would have to be regulated by the State in order to be called upon to defend the state.

Again, "Well-regulated" doesn't mean "not regulated at all".
 
LV426 said:
But you're not convinced of the rape argument are you,
Click to expand...
I'm quite sympathetic towards arguments relating to it being an exception, given the horrible nature of rape, but my view is that rape ultimately shouldn't be an exception since I think that every child (barring the aforementioned exception, as that exception preserves viable life) should have the same opportunity at life that you and I have been granted. Our limited perspectives do not allow us to see how bad things at the present moment could result in very good things later on during our lifetimes, or even after our lifetimes (we can't see how every action ties together in the grand scheme of things). That's why I feel uncomfortable with rape being an exception, even though I am quite sympathetic towards arguments for it being one.

LV426 said:
and the reason is because you know no woman would voluntarily let your genes proliferate so you must rape her and force her to carry your deficient and genetically inferior offspring to term.
Click to expand...
You can't provide my reasoning for me. See above for my reasoning.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
and I have the guns that get to prevent you from doing such an idiot thing
Click to expand...

Well, I'm doing it right here on this board, and there's not a fucking thing you can do about it.

I'm defining you as a domestic terrorist, zealot, and someone who rejects the democratic process when things don't go your way.
 
LV426 said:
Right..."well-regulated militias shall not be infringed".

What regulation has been applied to your terrorist group?
Click to expand...

Lie. You are attempting to change the 2nd amendment by omission.

2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States said:
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.
Click to expand...

Neither the right of a State to organize a militia (the 'well regulated' part), or the right of the people to bear arms, shall be infringed. The federal government has NO authority in either area. Further, the 2nd amendment is binding to the States themselves. They do not have authority to limit arms either.
 
LV426 said:
The FF opposed the concept of a standing army, so any state militia would have to be regulated by the State in order to be called upon to defend the state.

Again, "Well-regulated" doesn't mean "not regulated at all".
Click to expand...

yes, they opposed a standing army because they KNEW it to be the bane of freedom.................but what do state controlled militias represent??????? a standing army?????

so other than your extremely twisted and highly idiotic interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.............what documentation OR QUOTE from any of the FFs tell us that a militia MUST be state regulated???
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top