Homesteading Forum banner
1 - 20 of 52 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,930 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
With thought.

Here is a primer on "their" argument. Just for reference "THEY" exist. Know how they think.

The Second Amendment is a wholly different kind of statement, speaking to a unique situation that made much more sense 231 years ago. The Second Amendment’s twenty-seven words say this: “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.”​
The idea of the collective right to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia makes sense only in the context of the new nationhood of the United States in 1791. Given their oppressive experience with the British colonial government, many of the Anti-Federalist founders feared maintaining a standing army in times of peace. Because armies can be dangerously oppressive in the hands of autocratic leaders, they thought “the best antidote to them was a militia drawn from the body of the citizenry,” Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Jack N. Rakove and his colleagues wrote.​



Read the article. Know how they plan to come for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SLT18

·
Unapologetically me
Joined
·
21,922 Posts
The reason guns are a "consumer obsession" can be placed at the feet of the Democrats.
Every time they come to power, they start barking about gun control, higher taxes and loss of individual freedom.
They release thousands of violent criminals into the cities and open the border for any and every criminal, drug cartel and pervert.
Then they whine when people arm up to defend themselves against the Democrat created chaos.
We used to joke Obama was the world's best gun salesman. His rhetoric and careless blathering caused millions of guns to be sold.
If the Democrats would just shut up about taking rights, we wouldn't be where we are today.
To make matters worse, they glorify mass killers, giving them fame and notoriety, foolishly enticing other unbalanced people to try and top the last famous murderer.
Democrats will immediately stand on the still warm corpses and push their political agenda, shamelessly using dead children to manipulate the masses.
Then of course they blame the NRA. The organization who, over decades, taught gun safety and responsibility. Low hanging fruit, another leftist boogeyman to frighten the uneducated and ignorant.
Gun control is about control. If the Democrats cared about "the children", they'd be shouting to the rooftops about drugs, drunk drivers and gangs.
But they don't care about "the children"
They care about their power and their politics, and if you think they care about you, then you are the problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
410 Posts
Theyve tried those arguments in the past. The problem, from a legal point of view is precedent. There is 200 years of legal precedent that establishes and interprets the 2nd amendment as an individual right. The courts have upheld this many times, which further cements precedent.

I cant see them overturning the 2nd amendment, they might impose some limited controls mostly at the state level but I dont see them getting their way on this. They want the entire citizenry disarmed and its not going to happen.

IMO they have about 4 months to try to ram through all the usual garbage that Americans have been rejecting for 100 years already. After November [ assuming we can avoid the massive voter fraud that took place in 2020 ] I suspect these arguments will fade from the public discourse and we'll all be focused on the Biden recession.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,930 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Theyve tried those arguments in the past. The problem, from a legal point of view is precedent. There is 200 years of legal precedent that establishes and interprets the 2nd amendment as an individual right. The courts have upheld this many times, which further cements precedent.

I cant see them overturning the 2nd amendment, they might impose some limited controls mostly at the state level but I dont see them getting their way on this. They want the entire citizenry disarmed and its not going to happen.

IMO they have about 4 months to try to ram through all the usual garbage that Americans have been rejecting for 100 years already. After November [ assuming we can avoid the massive voter fraud that took place in 2020 ] I suspect these arguments will fade from the public discourse and we'll all be focused on the Biden recession.
The Left's effort now is to win converts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,870 Posts
With thought.

Here is a primer on "their" argument. Just for reference "THEY" exist. Know how they think.

The Second Amendment is a wholly different kind of statement, speaking to a unique situation that made much more sense 231 years ago. The Second Amendment’s twenty-seven words say this: “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.”​
The idea of the collective right to keep and bear arms as part of a well-regulated militia makes sense only in the context of the new nationhood of the United States in 1791. Given their oppressive experience with the British colonial government, many of the Anti-Federalist founders feared maintaining a standing army in times of peace. Because armies can be dangerously oppressive in the hands of autocratic leaders, they thought “the best antidote to them was a militia drawn from the body of the citizenry,” Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Jack N. Rakove and his colleagues wrote.​



Read the article. Know how they plan to come for you.

Hmmm, I thought we are currently lead by a bunch of "autocratic leaders"

au·to·crat·ic

taking no account of other people's wishes or opinions; domineering.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,883 Posts
IMO they have about 4 months to try to ram through all the usual garbage that Americans have been rejecting for 100 years already. After November [ assuming we can avoid the massive voter fraud that took place in 2020 ] I suspect these arguments will fade from the public discourse and we'll all be focused on the Biden recession.
The term "lame duck" comes to mind and this particular duck could be the earliest to ever show up at the pond limping.
However, without any legislative power, the two remaining options will be getting judges seated and EOs.
Dossiers and witnesses and copies of secret squirrel level Photoshop are being created as we speak for any even remotely viable opponent. What Duck #47 will have to endure will make the 4 years of Duck #45 seem like a spa day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Theyve tried those arguments in the past. The problem, from a legal point of view is precedent. There is 200 years of legal precedent that establishes and interprets the 2nd amendment as an individual right. The courts have upheld this many times, which further cements precedent.

I cant see them overturning the 2nd amendment, they might impose some limited controls mostly at the state level but I dont see them getting their way on this. They want the entire citizenry disarmed and its not going to happen.

IMO they have about 4 months to try to ram through all the usual garbage that Americans have been rejecting for 100 years already. After November [ assuming we can avoid the massive voter fraud that took place in 2020 ] I suspect these arguments will fade from the public discourse and we'll all be focused on the Biden recession.
What 200 year old precedent? The first Supreme Court case dealing with the 2nd Amendment was US v. Cruikshank in 1875. That case set precedent that the 2nd Amendment doesn't bar state restrictions on firearms. This was only changed to some degree by McDonald v Chicago in 2010... Not exactly 200 years ago. Based on how willing the court appears to be in recent years in overturning their prior decisions you can lose all your recent protections at the stroke of a lawyers pen unless congress were to add to the constitution. Good luck with that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,930 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
What 200 year old precedent? The first Supreme Court case dealing with the 2nd Amendment was US v. Cruikshank in 1875. That case set precedent that the 2nd Amendment doesn't bar state restrictions on firearms. This was only changed to some degree by McDonald v Chicago in 2010... Not exactly 200 years ago. Based on how willing the court appears to be in recent years in overturning their prior decisions you can lose all your recent protections at the stroke of a lawyers pen unless congress were to add to the constitution. Good luck with that.
More likely a majority vote by the SC to only allow a militia to have guns. It could happen. Considering our trajectory it seems almost certain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
179 Posts
More likely a majority vote by the SC to only allow a militia to have guns. It could happen. Considering our trajectory it seems almost certain.
That would be the lefts worst nightmare. Think about it. Thousands of armed trained civilian militias, organizing and possibly manipulated (as often happens in many large groups) by a leadership not controlled by the government.

Every neighborhood would have a neighborhood "Militia"

But then again liberals never think anything through, they never see the big picture or what consequences their policies will cause.

Heck the government cant even keep school boards from being radicalized
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Police. National Guard. Classified as militia. And tasked with protecting the state.

I really could care less what the 2nd says or how it's interpreted. The authors of the

constitution never took into account how one segment of society, conservatives,

could have their heads turned so easily by professional liars. That guns are needed

to protect themselves to a takeover by the govt. laugh...little late now.

Forehead Nose Smile Facial expression Jaw
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40,930 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
Police. National Guard. Classified as militia. And tasked with protecting the state.

I really could care less what the 2nd says or how it's interpreted. The authors of the

constitution never took into account how one segment of society, conservatives,

could have their heads turned so easily by professional liars. That guns are needed

to protect themselves to a takeover by the govt. laugh...little late now.
I was wrong. You seem even sillier when you put your own words in your posts
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,883 Posts
I can't see that. Maybe after shtf but not as a reaction to a SC ruling
There are European countries that currently have neighborhoods in which the LE are verboten. Communities of immigrants that willfully refuse to integrate into that country and society and the police there acknowledge it.
Now, in the US, there are numerous urban areas that are now currently controlled by gangs. Consider how many black communities that refuse to cooperate with law enforcement when there is a shooting.
They do not trust the police, which is an arm of the government.
That same scenario has been in rural areas since revenuers came thru with **** hounds and Remington 1987s.
Since the day a man and his wife rode down an escalator about 7 years ago, it has been "buckle up".
I would not be surprised by much anymore. This country has already been permanently divided; now the big pieces are just breaking into smaller pieces.
 
1 - 20 of 52 Posts
Top