Video showing Warlord RAZ handing out guns in the CHAZ

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: SouthernForkway26

Hmmm ... I can't say what others intentions are, I can only see what the words are.

And I have seen the words that claim that "there are no limitations on the 2nd" who then turn around and claim that these folks didn't have the right to CARRY in the CHOP by direct implication that the weapons would be used illegally.

What many fail to mention or acknowledge is the other part of the 2nd Amendment, which states, "Well Regulated". That means, in the vernacular of the 18th Century (I can provide source to an 1780 dictionary online if needed), "well trained, orderly". And, "orderly" means knowing how to keep the firearm in good order, cleaned and safe.

So, the 2nd Amendment says that firearm ownership shall not be infringed, but it also stipulates that those exercising that right MUST be well trained.

So, your attempt at false equivalence is a moot point. They handed a firearm to a person that was NOT well regulated, trained, or even orderly.

a reply to: Krakatoa

There is no attempt at false equivalence.

I've stated what people have repeatedly said. Also, the Second says ...

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.

Justice Scalia in Heller ...

Held:
1. 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.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22

District of Columbia v. Heller

So ... no. You're pretending the Second Amendment carries requirements that it doesn't.

I wonder why?

a reply to: Krakatoa

None of these kids invading my city are as well trained in firearms as our very well trained local police, who get zero support from our corrupt city council, so all the good ones leave or cant do a thing about it.

Many of the people in this zone aren't from here or are just junkies, this morning there was a different activist than sunday manning the East gate sitting on top of "Red Devil" (a grafittied suburban blocking the intersection) still a depressing af sight at 8am any morning.

If you wanna talk activism or something that might make Seattle better, that would be if the ACTUAL taxpaying citizens of Seattle take back city hall and put in a new council and mayor that actually represent the interests of the citizens and works with local police to make a fair and safe city, not the street junkies night of the living dead NOW with extra Antifa!

I totally agree. While some on the right MAY say that the actual "right" to bear arms can't be infringed upon, IMHO that doesn't mean that that anyone has the constitutional right to ignore the current laws of the land regarding that constitutional right.

I just really don't understand how that is not clear.... I'm sure there are *some* radicals on the right as there are on the left, but most conservatives I know - believe that the 2nd amendment as a constitutional right cannot be taken away but they still follow the laws associated with the 2nd.

Handing out guns from the trunk of a car without appropriate legal process and procedure, is not following the laws regarding that constitutional "right." It just isn't. It's a false equivalency.

a reply to: network dude

Guy looks like a typical know it all unstable jerk. What a fake POS. I'm white, I see right through his fake black exterior he is more white than black.

a reply to: Liquesence

Not even the same thing chuckles. Those yahoo's took over a small building on government land. They didn't occupy a city and trap residents of the area inside the insanity.

No wonder the left is such a mess. Reasoning skills that come across as childlike in their abject stupidity

a reply to: carewemust

Attacks from behind does seem to be ANTIFA’s preferred method .

a reply to: Liquesence

You're an idiot

Whazz the problem??.. I thought most of y'all believe in 2nd Amendment, and ok with farm boys pointing guns in the direction of LEOs occupying gov't lands, even city officials, what?? now this bothers ya??... a bunch of anarchist armed give you guys concern??? Thought y'all wanted this...
Look under your seats studio audience ..I get an AR , She get an AR U get an AR Eveeerybody get an AR!!...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Krakatoa

There is no attempt at false equivalence.

I've stated what people have repeatedly said. Also, the Second says ...

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.

Justice Scalia in Heller ...

Held:
1. 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.
Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22

District of Columbia v. Heller

So ... no. You're pretending the Second Amendment carries requirements that it doesn't.

I wonder why?

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.

Do you understand the amendment, the entire amendment?

A) "a well regulated militia". This refers to the militia requirement to be well trained and keep their arms in good working order or it's useless (if you understand the 18th century definition of "regulated" and the phrase "well regulated" you would understand). Now, who makes up this militia? The people, that's who.

B) "Being necessary to the security of a free state". This means that the militia is needed to keep the state (i.e. country not govt) free from tyranny, both internal and external. That means the government or any invaders or others that jeopardize freedom of the state (i.e. country) to protect that to keep it free from tyranny.

C) "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". Those people, the ones that will make up the militia are spoken of here. But as people, not just as militia. It means the PEOPLE have this right. And, since the people at that time were required to be in the militia as well, then they also needed to be well regulated, trained and know how to keep their arms in good order. The SCOTUS ruling Heller case further clarified it as meaning that the people, even if they are not in the militia, are still covered by this amendment, but, they still would need to be well trained and know how to keep their arms in good working order (otherwise the arm is rendered useless).

D) "Shall not be infringed". Meaning that laws cannot keep a person from expressing this right. No law can prevent this right from the people. Further rulings have skirted the line of infringement, slowly over time, death of a thousands cuts in a way. For example, who would disagree that a violent felon should be prevented from owning a firearm? But, the next cut is to keep expanding what "felon" means. Things like including actions that are classified as felonies, which would then legally prevent someone from owning a firearm. Even non-violent felonies are included. This is wrong, and is a massive scope creep used to work around the Constitution under the cover of "legality".

Now, who doesn't understand this amendment again?

Huh?

I await your enlightenment.

a reply to: Krakatoa

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.

Do you see and understand comas? Maybe people are to embarrassed for you to explain commas to you.

What Is a Comma?

While a period ends a sentence, a comma indicates a smaller break. Some writers think of a comma as a soft pause—a punctuation mark that separates words, clauses, or ideas within a sentence.

www.grammarly.com...

This is how I read the amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Like it or not. The comma makes them separate “rights” with the same protection.

Shrugs. Walks away.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Krakatoa

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.

Do you see and understand comas? Maybe people are to embarrassed for you to explain commas to you.

What Is a Comma?

While a period ends a sentence, a comma indicates a smaller break. Some writers think of a comma as a soft pause—a punctuation mark that separates words, clauses, or ideas within a sentence.

www.grammarly.com...

This is how I read the amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Like it or not. The comma makes them separate “rights” with the same protection.

Shrugs. Walks away.

I guess you failed to read and understand my post here? Let me highlight something you TOTALLY missed there in section "C".

Those people, the ones that will make up the militia are spoken of here. But as people, not just as militia. It means the PEOPLE have this right. And, since the people at that time were required to be in the militia as well, then they also needed to be well regulated, trained and know how to keep their arms in good order.

Now, I suggest you re-read and actually understand what I am saying. It covers BOTH those within a militia as well as those that are NOT in a militia.

SMFH

Quick Clip - Medics called to CHAZ-CHOP after violence injures a RAZ bro.

Looks like they yelled "Good Luck...Bye!" over the wall, and left.

Clip: twitter.com...

originally posted by: carewemust
Quick Clip - Medics called to CHAZ-CHOP after violence injures a RAZ bro.

Looks like they yelled "Good Luck...Bye!" over the wall, and left.

Clip: twitter.com...

Really sad situation these people in CHAZ / CHOP have
made for themselves. Their "border patrol" as they call
it has claimed another life.

What ever happened to "if we can save one life"?

a reply to: Krakatoa

I really don’t care about your option. I do care about the the actual Bill of Rights

www.archives.gov...

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

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.

Amendment III

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Now. How is the below wrong in the grammar of how the actual amendment is written....

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Krakatoa

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.

Do you see and understand comas? Maybe people are to embarrassed for you to explain commas to you.

What Is a Comma?

While a period ends a sentence, a comma indicates a smaller break. Some writers think of a comma as a soft pause—a punctuation mark that separates words, clauses, or ideas within a sentence.

www.grammarly.com...

This is how I read the amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Like it or not. The comma makes them separate “rights” with the same protection.

a reply to: Krakatoa

Let me make is simpler for you.

The comma in the 2nd amendment does separate militia from the right of the people.

Therefore, Like it or not. The comma makes them separate “rights” with the same protection.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Krakatoa

Let me make is simpler for you.

The comma in the 2nd amendment does separate militia from the right of the people.

Therefore, Like it or not. The comma makes them separate “rights” with the same protection.

And do you understand WHO makes up the militia? Well, it aint ghosts! No, it's the PEOPLE. Those same people with the right to keep and bear arms. How do not understand it encompasses BOTH ??

As such. since the people have the right, and also are part of the militia, they need to be "well regulated". And the word "regulated" in the 18th Century (you know, when it was written) means "trained, orderly". What it doesn't mean are more laws (regulation being the modern definition of that word and often misunderstood).

So, the PEOPLE have the right, the PEOPLE comprise the militia, and therefore need to be well trained and be able to keep those arms in working order.

THAT is what the amendment means.

a reply to: Krakatoa

I really don’t know what to say because your simply wrong. Sorry. Again. The commas separate militia in one group, and the “people” into a second differentiated group resulting in the two separate groups having equal protection.

The second amendment reads “ 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.”. Is that true?

You want it to read: 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.
Which it does not.

Sorry.

a reply to: Krakatoa

As such. since the people have the right, and also are part of militia

You kinda shot your self in the foot. Pun intended.

The most important part of the 2nd amendment is “ the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”

By insuring individuals have the right to bear arms, there will always be a “pool” to supply a “militia“ from. Your trying to say the states grant the privilege of gun ownership through militias? Your logic falls apart. Thanks for driving home the importance of individuals having the right to bear arms.

But the 2nd amendment makes no assertion that individuals must be a militia. But by comma, the 2nd amendment specifically states “ the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”