Beto O’Rourke: Ban AR-15 Sales in America

a reply to: Edumakated

Then you would also know that some 600,000+ citizens died fighting a civil war with slavery as a core issue....

Yeah, but the second amendment was altered to accommodate slave owners in the south, "militia" were partly formed for rounding up escaped "property".

Perhaps He would be better off running for office in NZ? After all, he could pass this stuff easily there, since they do not have a 2nd Amendment-esque protection in place.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: neo96

Where do you draw the line on how powerful a weapon can be to be considered illegal? The 2nd Amendment clearly says something about a "regulated Militia". What does regulated mean? Is it good public policy to allow people to buy stinger missiles or tactical nuclear weapons for their gun collection? Again, where does one draw the line and not be considered "liberal scum" ?

Regulated, in that context, means "well trained" and "in good order". It does NOT mean more laws.

Historic facts are your friends. And if you like I will refer you to an 18th Century dictionary where you can look it up for yourself.

Ok, so...do we have a well-trained militia? Not the armed forces because that's part of the government. Do we have an actual well-trained militia?

That depends upon what state you are referring to here. In additon, the 2nd was declared by the SCOTUS to NOT only apply to militias, but the individual citizen as well (without any requirement to be a member of a militia).

But that is easily researched if you truly are interested in truth.

You're talking about the D.C. vs. Heller case, where SCOTUS ruled that individuals can have firearms. The very same case that the SCOTUS said that the right to bear arms is NOT unlimited, and guns/gun ownership will continue to be regulated.

Is that the case you want to use in your argument?

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: neo96

Where do you draw the line on how powerful a weapon can be to be considered illegal? The 2nd Amendment clearly says something about a "regulated Militia". What does regulated mean? Is it good public policy to allow people to buy stinger missiles or tactical nuclear weapons for their gun collection? Again, where does one draw the line and not be considered "liberal scum" ?

Regulated, in that context, means "well trained" and "in good order". It does NOT mean more laws.

Historic facts are your friends. And if you like I will refer you to an 18th Century dictionary where you can look it up for yourself.

Ok, so...do we have a well-trained militia? Not the armed forces because that's part of the government. Do we have an actual well-trained militia?

That depends upon what state you are referring to here. In additon, the 2nd was declared by the SCOTUS to NOT only apply to militias, but the individual citizen as well (without any requirement to be a member of a militia).

But that is easily researched if you truly are interested in truth.

You're talking about the D.C. vs. Heller case, where SCOTUS ruled that individuals can have firearms. The very same case that the SCOTUS said that the right to bear arms is NOT unlimited, and guns/gun ownership will continue to be regulated.

Is that the case you want to use in your argument?

Yes, since the conversation was trending toward the militia aspect of the 2nd Amendment. Therefore, it need to be brought back toward the center regarding an individual's rights as well, regardless of militia affiliation.

Is that an issue with you? That we have a complete discussion, without any attempts to corral it into a specific area that is totally unrelated to the main topic?


ETA: Oh, and your use of the 21st century word "regulated" is irrelevant to the 18th Century phrase "well regulated". They mean two very different things. I certainly hope to at least will acknowledge that fact, even if it doesn't meet with your personal approval.

Since Tiny likes my memes so much.

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: narrator

Yeah i am curious too.

Do we have a well regulated militia?

I know there are little militia type groups here and there.

But as per what it says do we have that?

We do....Each state is like a country with a President (Governor), Supreme Court, congress (state legislature) etc and a military called the National Guard.

This is part of the regulated militia as it is every capable citizen duty to be called up in a time of need... The other aspect is to have the right of self defense as part of our life, liberty and happiness...

The national effing Guard.

Are state militias.

So, everyone on here that's pro-2nd is a part of the national guard? If not, the "well regulated militia" argument doesn't hold water. Not to mention that it's a part of the government, which is exactly what you're arguing the militia in question is designed to help overthrow if the need arises.

I truly don't understand that argument. It isn't a "gotcha" thing. Actually have a conversation with us instead of constant memes and "ask your state". Actually talk with us. It would be interesting to hear your own, true thoughts on the matter.

a reply to: narrator

So, everyone on here that's pro-2nd is a part of the national guard?

One more time.

The second preserved two things there.

Militias, and the PEOPLES RIGHT.

How you came to that conclusion is a failure of reading comprehension.

a reply to: neo96

I am sick of people like Beto.

So am I.

So why keep reporting on him and people like him? There is no reason to. I could write his script.

2020 cant be over soon enough for me.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: neo96

Where do you draw the line on how powerful a weapon can be to be considered illegal? The 2nd Amendment clearly says something about a "regulated Militia". What does regulated mean? Is it good public policy to allow people to buy stinger missiles or tactical nuclear weapons for their gun collection? Again, where does one draw the line and not be considered "liberal scum" ?

Regulated, in that context, means "well trained" and "in good order". It does NOT mean more laws.

Historic facts are your friends. And if you like I will refer you to an 18th Century dictionary where you can look it up for yourself.

Ok, so...do we have a well-trained militia? Not the armed forces because that's part of the government. Do we have an actual well-trained militia?

That depends upon what state you are referring to here. In additon, the 2nd was declared by the SCOTUS to NOT only apply to militias, but the individual citizen as well (without any requirement to be a member of a militia).

But that is easily researched if you truly are interested in truth.

You're talking about the D.C. vs. Heller case, where SCOTUS ruled that individuals can have firearms. The very same case that the SCOTUS said that the right to bear arms is NOT unlimited, and guns/gun ownership will continue to be regulated.

Is that the case you want to use in your argument?

Yes, since the conversation was trending toward the militia aspect of the 2nd Amendment. Therefore, it need to be brought back toward the center regarding an individual's rights as well, regardless of militia affiliation.

Is that an issue with you? That we have a complete discussion, without any attempts to corral it into a specific area that is totally unrelated to the main topic?

Not at all. But, you're referencing a case that directly violates what you, neo, etc. are arguing for.

That SCOTUS case specifically says that guns and gun ownership is NOT unlimited and will be regulated. That means it gives the government power to regulate firearms. I'm just surprised you're using that case as part of your argument, that's all.

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: narrator

Yeah i am curious too.

Do we have a well regulated militia?

I know there are little militia type groups here and there.

But as per what it says do we have that?

We do....Each state is like a country with a President (Governor), Supreme Court, congress (state legislature) etc and a military called the National Guard.

This is part of the regulated militia as it is every capable citizen duty to be called up in a time of need... The other aspect is to have the right of self defense as part of our life, liberty and happiness...

The national effing Guard.

Are state militias.

So, everyone on here that's pro-2nd is a part of the national guard? If not, the "well regulated militia" argument doesn't hold water. Not to mention that it's a part of the government, which is exactly what you're arguing the militia in question is designed to help overthrow if the need arises.

I truly don't understand that argument. It isn't a "gotcha" thing. Actually have a conversation with us instead of constant memes and "ask your state". Actually talk with us. It would be interesting to hear your own, true thoughts on the matter.

See my last post above. You are flailing and deflecting again using incorrect interpretations of words.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: narrator

So, everyone on here that's pro-2nd is a part of the national guard?

One more time.

The second preserved two things there.

Militias, and the PEOPLES RIGHT.

How you came to that conclusion is a failure of reading comprehension.

Then why constantly bring up the militia thing (you yourself posted a meme about it) if it doesn't really matter because individuals have rights also? That's my point. You're making an entirely unnecessary argument.

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: neo96

Where do you draw the line on how powerful a weapon can be to be considered illegal? The 2nd Amendment clearly says something about a "regulated Militia". What does regulated mean? Is it good public policy to allow people to buy stinger missiles or tactical nuclear weapons for their gun collection? Again, where does one draw the line and not be considered "liberal scum" ?

Regulated, in that context, means "well trained" and "in good order". It does NOT mean more laws.

Historic facts are your friends. And if you like I will refer you to an 18th Century dictionary where you can look it up for yourself.

Ok, so...do we have a well-trained militia? Not the armed forces because that's part of the government. Do we have an actual well-trained militia?

That depends upon what state you are referring to here. In additon, the 2nd was declared by the SCOTUS to NOT only apply to militias, but the individual citizen as well (without any requirement to be a member of a militia).

But that is easily researched if you truly are interested in truth.

You're talking about the D.C. vs. Heller case, where SCOTUS ruled that individuals can have firearms. The very same case that the SCOTUS said that the right to bear arms is NOT unlimited, and guns/gun ownership will continue to be regulated.

Is that the case you want to use in your argument?

Yes, since the conversation was trending toward the militia aspect of the 2nd Amendment. Therefore, it need to be brought back toward the center regarding an individual's rights as well, regardless of militia affiliation.

Is that an issue with you? That we have a complete discussion, without any attempts to corral it into a specific area that is totally unrelated to the main topic?

Not at all. But, you're referencing a case that directly violates what you, neo, etc. are arguing for.

That SCOTUS case specifically says that guns and gun ownership is NOT unlimited and will be regulated. That means it gives the government power to regulate firearms. I'm just surprised you're using that case as part of your argument, that's all.

The 2nd Amendment use of "well regulated" does NOT mean more laws. It is also bounded by the phrase "shall not be infringed". Infringed which also means limited.

Get educated on the context please.

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: narrator

Yeah i am curious too.

Do we have a well regulated militia?

I know there are little militia type groups here and there.

But as per what it says do we have that?

We do....Each state is like a country with a President (Governor), Supreme Court, congress (state legislature) etc and a military called the National Guard.

This is part of the regulated militia as it is every capable citizen duty to be called up in a time of need... The other aspect is to have the right of self defense as part of our life, liberty and happiness...

The national effing Guard.

Are state militias.

So, everyone on here that's pro-2nd is a part of the national guard? If not, the "well regulated militia" argument doesn't hold water. Not to mention that it's a part of the government, which is exactly what you're arguing the militia in question is designed to help overthrow if the need arises.

I truly don't understand that argument. It isn't a "gotcha" thing. Actually have a conversation with us instead of constant memes and "ask your state". Actually talk with us. It would be interesting to hear your own, true thoughts on the matter.

See my last post above. You are flailing and deflecting again using incorrect interpretations of words.

That post wasn't directed at you. It was directed at something neo said.

You've yet to respond to the questions I directly asked you though...? Why use a SCOTUS case in your argument that directly contradicts the main argument of ATS 2nd proponents?

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: neo96

Where do you draw the line on how powerful a weapon can be to be considered illegal? The 2nd Amendment clearly says something about a "regulated Militia". What does regulated mean? Is it good public policy to allow people to buy stinger missiles or tactical nuclear weapons for their gun collection? Again, where does one draw the line and not be considered "liberal scum" ?

Regulated, in that context, means "well trained" and "in good order". It does NOT mean more laws.

Historic facts are your friends. And if you like I will refer you to an 18th Century dictionary where you can look it up for yourself.

Ok, so...do we have a well-trained militia? Not the armed forces because that's part of the government. Do we have an actual well-trained militia?

That depends upon what state you are referring to here. In additon, the 2nd was declared by the SCOTUS to NOT only apply to militias, but the individual citizen as well (without any requirement to be a member of a militia).

But that is easily researched if you truly are interested in truth.

You're talking about the D.C. vs. Heller case, where SCOTUS ruled that individuals can have firearms. The very same case that the SCOTUS said that the right to bear arms is NOT unlimited, and guns/gun ownership will continue to be regulated.

Is that the case you want to use in your argument?

Yes, since the conversation was trending toward the militia aspect of the 2nd Amendment. Therefore, it need to be brought back toward the center regarding an individual's rights as well, regardless of militia affiliation.

Is that an issue with you? That we have a complete discussion, without any attempts to corral it into a specific area that is totally unrelated to the main topic?

Not at all. But, you're referencing a case that directly violates what you, neo, etc. are arguing for.

That SCOTUS case specifically says that guns and gun ownership is NOT unlimited and will be regulated. That means it gives the government power to regulate firearms. I'm just surprised you're using that case as part of your argument, that's all.

The 2nd Amendment use of "well regulated" does NOT mean more laws. It is also bounded by the phrase "shall not be infringed". Infringed which also means limited.

Get educated on the context please.

THE SCOTUS RULED THAT IT IS LIMITED. You're missing that key part.

ETA: hence my question, why use that case if it directly contradicts what you believe the 2nd to say?

a reply to: Krakatoa

Shall not be infringed means the same thing as Deny,Disparage, in the 9th amendment, and No state shall make or enforce any law that abridges in the 14th.

The triple smackdown on gun control.

A Quadruple smackdown if we apply Hr. 183.



Gun owners = political or social group.

oh damn, y 'all better go out and get more guns!! use your last dollars if necessary - they're really coming for them this time!! you'll need 'em too, the big bad scary dems might get ya. lol

suckers..

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: narrator

Yeah i am curious too.

Do we have a well regulated militia?

I know there are little militia type groups here and there.

But as per what it says do we have that?

We do....Each state is like a country with a President (Governor), Supreme Court, congress (state legislature) etc and a military called the National Guard.

This is part of the regulated militia as it is every capable citizen duty to be called up in a time of need... The other aspect is to have the right of self defense as part of our life, liberty and happiness...

The national effing Guard.

Are state militias.

So, everyone on here that's pro-2nd is a part of the national guard? If not, the "well regulated militia" argument doesn't hold water. Not to mention that it's a part of the government, which is exactly what you're arguing the militia in question is designed to help overthrow if the need arises.

I truly don't understand that argument. It isn't a "gotcha" thing. Actually have a conversation with us instead of constant memes and "ask your state". Actually talk with us. It would be interesting to hear your own, true thoughts on the matter.

See my last post above. You are flailing and deflecting again using incorrect interpretations of words.

That post wasn't directed at you. It was directed at something neo said.

You've yet to respond to the questions I directly asked you though...? Why use a SCOTUS case in your argument that directly contradicts the main argument of ATS 2nd proponents?

I did answer your direct question. But, since it doesn't agree with your dogma, you've disregarded it outright.

I do not have to repeat myself for those that fail to grasp simple concepts because they are blinded by a narrative.

originally posted by: neo96


The national effing Guard.

Are state militias.

People keep saying America and forget or never knew we are 50 United States formed into a union and not just one big nation. This is why we have 2 Senators per state as each state is equal in their independence and say in the federal Government that combines them all. This is why it take 2/3 states to change the Constitution, This is why each state has its own military.

If people would actually read the Federalist Papers and other documents that led to our Constitution they would understand our forefathers had great fears in a tyrannical Federal Government and this is why things are as they are. If we look at Federalist Paper 46...

" Federalist No. 46: Madison's brilliance. Federalist 46 deals with the issue in imaginative and brilliant form. Madison argues that standing army vs. militia is a false dichotomy. The nation can have both, and it is precisely the citizen militia that makes the standing army a safe thing to have.

We are the citizen militia...everyone of us with or without guns. We also have the right to personal defense in our right to bear arms to doing so...

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: Krakatoa

originally posted by: narrator

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: TinySickTears
a reply to: narrator

Yeah i am curious too.

Do we have a well regulated militia?

I know there are little militia type groups here and there.

But as per what it says do we have that?

We do....Each state is like a country with a President (Governor), Supreme Court, congress (state legislature) etc and a military called the National Guard.

This is part of the regulated militia as it is every capable citizen duty to be called up in a time of need... The other aspect is to have the right of self defense as part of our life, liberty and happiness...

The national effing Guard.

Are state militias.

So, everyone on here that's pro-2nd is a part of the national guard? If not, the "well regulated militia" argument doesn't hold water. Not to mention that it's a part of the government, which is exactly what you're arguing the militia in question is designed to help overthrow if the need arises.

I truly don't understand that argument. It isn't a "gotcha" thing. Actually have a conversation with us instead of constant memes and "ask your state". Actually talk with us. It would be interesting to hear your own, true thoughts on the matter.

See my last post above. You are flailing and deflecting again using incorrect interpretations of words.

That post wasn't directed at you. It was directed at something neo said.

You've yet to respond to the questions I directly asked you though...? Why use a SCOTUS case in your argument that directly contradicts the main argument of ATS 2nd proponents?

I did answer your direct question. But, since it doesn't agree with your dogma, you've disregarded it outright.

I do not have to repeat myself for those that fail to grasp simple concepts because they are blinded by a narrative.

First of all, what's my dogma? I'd be interested to know.

Second, I've disregarded nothing. I've said that the militia argument doesn't matter, because individuals have rights to own weapons as well.

Now, stop deflecting, and please answer this question directly: The SCOTUS case that you referenced, D.C. vs. Heller, SPECIFICALLY says that guns and gun ownership IS NOT UNLIMITED, and the government will continue to regulate firearms.

The SCOTUS said that. What is your response to what they said? Is that constitutional?

a reply to: TinySickTears

Ask the Bureau of Land Management if we have any well armed and disciplined militias that are capable of deploying and holding ground without firing on an under armed and outnumbered force. And while standing ready, can effectively communicate and humanely allow a withdrawal of that inferior force from the contested area.