flyingfooldoug Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 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. What I find interesting in this is that the NRA does not acknowledge the first sentence at it's headquarters. The 2nd amendment is 2 lines, not one. Whatever either side wants to argue, then for the love of country, include the whole amendment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 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. What I find interesting in this is that the NRA does not acknowledge the first sentence at it's headquarters. The 2nd amendment is 2 lines, not one. Whatever either side wants to argue, then for the love of country, include the whole amendment! And there are those who overlook the line "shall not be infringed." Regardless the original intent has long since been abandoned. The 2nd Amendment is not, and never was about hunting. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 What about the first line? A militia is an armed group of citizens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbluhm86 Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 ...What I find interesting in this is that the NRA does not acknowledge the first sentence at it's headquarters. The 2nd amendment is 2 lines, not one. Technically, the Second Amendment is one sentence, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 So what do people want, a well regulated group with equal equipment as the military all the way down to fighter jets or a lightly armed citizenry? Liberals don't think people are responsible enough to feed, house, and cloth themselves. They certainly would shit bricks if a group of citizens had access to nukes and drones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 So what do people want, an well regulated group with equal equipment as the military all the way down to fighter jets or a lightly armed citizenry? You know it doesn't matter what people want or don't want. It was intended so Farmer Brown had equal Firepower to the British or the French or the US government or whoever decided they wanted to take over. So if that's changed that's life. Today if you find yourself on the wrong side of the United States government power your choice is between taking a knee or dying in resistance. Hyperbolic but true. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingfooldoug Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 A militia is the same as army. Last I heard, we have one...a pretty damned good one too. But you still can't buy an Abrams or an Apache. Why not? those are arms. The NRA is nothing more than the advertising arm for arms manufacturing. Get your pink pistol now...cute. A 30.06 bolt is a great hunting rifle. So is a 22 plus you can't beat a 12 gauge pump. But of course those were designed for hunters of game animals. An AR with 30-40 rd clip was designed for killing human beings as efficiently as possible. Kinda like an Apache or Abrams. And any one that thinks that all the cool military style killing machines he owns will fend off the govt...... I'll sell you blueprints for a great anti gravity flying devivce ...cheap! I'm not against owning a gun but I do believe in KISS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 It's not the same as the Army at all Doug. We had an army in 1771. They wore red coats and funny hats. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingfooldoug Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Technically, the Second Amendment is one sentence, though. Technically, the Second Amendment is one sentence, though. Yep, my misspeak. One sentence, two lines. All the more reason to acknowledge it as a whole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LogicIsForSquares Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 It's not the same as the Army at all Doug. We had an army in 1771. They wore red coats and funny hats. WSS This. The citizens were meant to be a check against a tyrannical govermment if a new one were to arise after ousting the Brits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 This: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingfooldoug Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 It's not the same as the Army at all Doug. We had an army in 1771. They wore red coats and funny hats. WSS Yep, and to revolt and take them on we came up with Minutemen which were common citizens with their muskets. And that pretty much evolved into Washington's revolutionary army. Yes, it's all militia but then you need to ask about State sponsorship. I think that's where our new Congress comes in. Call it tater or spud. Scary thought tho is a drone with a gun and with that, I'm going to enjoy a perfect summer day in rural n e Ohio, you do the same WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Yes but State sponsorship? The founding fathers believe that the state itself could go wrong and would need to be overthrown. Those guys were revolutionaries. These days it's more sit down and shut up. Even our votes are next to meaningless. Good? Bad? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 "sigh" Come on, Doug, some of us also live in NE Oh, and the heat hasn't gotten to us.... ************************************* Doug - Militia From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia For other uses, see Militia (disambiguation). A militia /mᵻˈlɪʃə/[1]generally is an army or other fighting unit that is composed of non-professional fighters, citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government who can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time military personnel, or historically, members of the warrior nobility class (e.g., knights or samurai). Unable to hold their own against properly trained and equipped professional forces, it is common for militias to engage in guerrilla warfare or defense instead of being used in open attacks and offensive actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 and it isn't that the "What I find interesting in this is that the NRA does not acknowledge the first sentence at it's headquarters." nothin. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is the main point of the entire 2nd Amendment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingfooldoug Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 The definition of militia is correct now. But wait, congress has changed that definition more t6han once. Interesting reading if you look up the meaning of the word in 1776. Also read Federalist paper 29. Thats not interpretation of what the founding fathers said. It's their own words. And for the record, why bash people for honest dialog? Seems like an argument of weakness to me. The far left and right are both whacko. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingfooldoug Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 And by the by. The term is "well regulated militia".... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingfooldoug Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 This. The citizens were meant to be a check against a tyrannical govermment if a new one were to arise after ousting the Brits. Well regulated militia. I'm curious if you include those 2 words. And in histrical court documents this was regarded as a States Rights issue. But now we have the US armed forces. They're also quite well regulated as well as State National Guard units. Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against sporting or home defense weapons. I sit on my back deck and plink a lot. I'm old skool tho and go back to a time before the NRA with the huge money and propaganda changed definitions and shout down rational discussion. You should not have access to weapons that are more military than sporting. If you really need 30-40 rounds to drop a deer, I would deny your hunting license too. If you can't shoot straight, you shouldn't be playing with it and if you don't know you can't shoot straight, you're too friggin stupid to be trusted. And this is honest to gawd truth here.... There is no such thing as a gun accident. That is always gun stupidity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 gun ownership is not all about hunting. Your home gets attacked by a gang of hoods, you want a single shot shotgun? I think you plink with a beer can, and aren't a gun owner. You aren't making any sense. The resistance in France was "well-regulated" without being an army. the colonists were "well-regulated", without being army. There can't be any serious discussion when you invent your own definitions and nuances of words to try to make your point. If it walks like a hard core liberal, posts like a hard core liberal, and flaps it's jaws like a hard core liberal... it's a hard core liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pumpkin Eater Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Your perverted definition of militia doesn't matter. It says they right to KEEP and BEAR arms shall not be infringed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 I had that question as well: How are our gun owners a "well regulated militia"? Shouldn't we require some kind of training? Some kind of regulation, to make them a functioning militia? Also, how can Billy bob with his rifle defend us from a developed nation attacking? What do they do against jets and tanks? Shouldn't we allow more heavy duty arms for proper defense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingfooldoug Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 The Bill of Rights uses the term person for an individual. It also uses the term people which was recognized to mean the state. At least that was how the Supreme court saw it. But then it got changed and I am becoming of the opinion that it was done for money and nothing else. Sorta the same as what is making Trump popular. Congress never seems to ask if something is good for America or Americans. A person or the people? A militia would be the Freemen group out west. A well regulated militia would be the YARS base or Camp Ravenna....unless you're a lobbyist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingfooldoug Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 gun ownership is not all about hunting. Your home gets attacked by a gang of hoods, you want a single shot shotgun? I think you plink with a beer can, and aren't a gun owner. You aren't making any sense. The resistance in France was "well-regulated" without being an army. the colonists were "well-regulated", without being army. There can't be any serious discussion when you invent your own definitions and nuances of words to try to make your point. If it walks like a hard core liberal, posts like a hard core liberal, and flaps it's jaws like a hard core liberal... it's a hard core liberal. Your wrong, I'm an independant that happens to read up on American history. I pretty much dislike both parties or anyone else that tells me how to think. It's your right to feel that way and have that opinion and I would fight to the death for your right to it no matter how ignorant I may find it. The braiwashing does emanate from both sides of the aisle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingfooldoug Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 gun ownership is not all about hunting. Your home gets attacked by a gang of hoods, you want a single shot shotgun? I think you plink with a beer can, and aren't a gun owner. You aren't making any sense. The resistance in France was "well-regulated" without being an army. the colonists were "well-regulated", without being army. There can't be any serious discussion when you invent your own definitions and nuances of words to try to make your point. If it walks like a hard core liberal, posts like a hard core liberal, and flaps it's jaws like a hard core liberal... it's a hard core liberal. Your wrong, I'm an independant that happens to read up on American history. I pretty much dislike both parties or anyone else that tells me how to think. It's your right to feel that way and have that opinion and I would fight to the death for your right to it no matter how ignorant I may find it. The braiwashing does emanate from both sides of the aisle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Your wrong, I'm an independant that happens to read up on American history. I pretty much dislike both parties or anyone else that tells me how to think. It's your right to feel that way and have that opinion and I would fight to the death for your right to it no matter how ignorant I may find it. The braiwashing does emanate from both sides of the aisle Fuck you and your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbedward Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 The Bill of Rights uses the term person for an individual. It also uses the term people which was recognized to mean the state. At least that was how the Supreme court saw it. But then it got changed and I am becoming of the opinion that it was done for money and nothing else. Sorta the same as what is making Trump popular. Congress never seems to ask if something is good for America or Americans. A person or the people? A militia would be the Freemen group out west. A well regulated militia would be the YARS base or Camp Ravenna....unless you're a lobbyist The us isn't a full blown democracy, we're a republic so we elect a few people to make decisions based on what we the people want. However many tend to believe we're an oligarchy, where only a few make decisions for the masses. I agree with that belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyingfooldoug Posted June 21, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 Fuck you and your opinion. Brilliant! well said. Did you know that Congress has the authority to quell any and all insurections? I could tell you to eat shit but I won't. It's a lousy point. And I'm not gay so keep it in your pants soldier boy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted June 21, 2016 Report Share Posted June 21, 2016 I had that question as well: How are our gun owners a "well regulated militia"? Shouldn't we require some kind of training? Some kind of regulation, to make them a functioning militia? Also, how can Billy bob with his rifle defend us from a developed nation attacking? What do they do against jets and tanks? Shouldn't we allow more heavy duty arms for proper defense? A militia is only formed in times of need. Do you think they required farmers to be trained? They only required them to pick up a gun and fight when it was necessary. So far the only other time a militia has formed wad early in the civil war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.