Pingback: SPARKS FLY in Heated Debate Between Dana Loesch and Radical Far Left Gun-Grabber (VIDEO) | The Beltway Pundit()
Pingback: SPARKS FLY in Heated Debate Between Dana Loesch and Radical Far Left Gun-Grabber (VIDEO) - Rage and War()
“Arms” alone are insufficient to secure a “free State”, which the 1st 13 words of the 2nd Amendment make crystal clear. One has only to read the 2nd Amendment — all of 27 words— to know that the amendment is not declaring an individual “gun right” only. The Framers, in the 2nd Amendment. conjoined the individual right with the collective duty of the same individuals to serve in the Militia.
After having delegated broad legal authority to the Militia in the original Constitution, the 2nd Amendment reinforced them as “necessary”. Militia are state government institutions, organized under statute, with full legal authority, civilian in character.
You need to go back and read the writings of the founders concerning gun rights. They considered all people to be part of the militia. At the time, well regulated meant they had firearms that were kept in good condition and they knew how to use them. The militias were NOT state government institutions. Please, go back and read.
When THE PEOPLE referred to “[a] well regulated Militia” in the Second Amendment in1791, they knew exactly what the salient principles of “regulat[ion]” were, because those principles could be found, repeated again and again, in statute after statute the Colonies and then the independent States had enacted throughout the 1600s and 1700s. And when THE PEOPLE authorized Congress “[t]o provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia” (Article I, Section 8, Clause 16), they knew to the last detail what those activities entailed, because they were familiar with the “well regulated Militia” the Colonies’ and States’ statutes had produced in the past.
Militia had been existence as a matter of fact and law for over 150 years, at all times prior to and after the ratification of the Constitution. The militia statutes that define these structures in great detail define exactly what “a well regulated militia” was in every one of the 13 original colonies, then independent states. These are JUST SOME of the militia statutes from Rhode Island and Virginia:
[1699, 1701, and 1705] “An Act for the better regulating the militia, and for punishing offenders as shall not conform to the law thereunto relating.”
[1718, 1730, and 1744] “An Act for the Repealing several Laws relating to the Militia within this Colony, and for further Regulation of the same.”
 An Act for regulating the Militia, and the Election of the Officers of each respective Company in this Colony
 “[N]o Constraint shall be laid upon the Conscience of any Person whatsoever, by Force of any Act or Law for the keeping up or regulating the Militia within this Colony”.
 Petitioners seeking a charter for an Independent Company “proposed the Laws of the Colony made for regulating the Militia, for the Rule of their Conduct”.
 An ACT in Addition to the several Acts regulating the Militia in this Colony.
1756] An ACT in Addition to, and Amendment of the several Acts regulating the Militia.
 An ACT, regulating the Militia in this Colony.
 An ACT in addition to, and amendment of, an Act entitled “An Act regulating the Militia of this Colony[”].
 “WHEREAS the Security and Defence of all free States essentially depend, under God, upon the Exertions of a well regulated Militia: * * * Wherefore, for the better forming, regulating and conducting the military Force of this State, Be it Enacted * * * [.]” An ACT for the better forming, regulating and conducting the military Force of this State.
 “WHEREAS a due regulation of the Militia is absolutely necessary for the defence of this country * * * .” An Act for the settling and better Regulation of the Militia.
 An Act, for the better Regulation of the Militia.
 An Act for amending the act, intituled, An Act for the better regulation of the militia.
 An Act for the better regulating and training the Militia.
 An Act for the better regulating and disciplining the Militia.
 An Act for continuing an Act, intitutled, An Act for the better regulating and disciplining the Militia.
 An Act for amending and further continuing the act for the better regulating and disciplining the Militia.
]1766] An act to continue and amend the act for the better regulating and disciplining the militia.
 An act for further continuing the act, intituled An act for the better regulating and disciplining the militia.
 An act for regulating and disciplining the Militia.
 An act for the better regulation and discipline of the militia.
 An act to amend the act for regulating and disciplining the militia, and for other purposes.
 An act to amend the act, intituled, An act for establishing and regulating the militia.
 An act for amending the several laws for regulating and disciplining the militia, and guarding against invasions and insurrections.
 An act to amend and reduce into one act, the several laws for regulating and disciplining the militia, and guarding against invasions and insurrections.
What you have posted is proof of nothing. There is no hyphen in the 2nd amendment. It never existed, but often suddenly appears when quoted by the judiciary in their reasoning for what the 2nd amendment actually says. The reasoning is clear. Once “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” is read, then it makes no sense that “well regulated well-regulated”. This is of course to presuppose that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” has anything to do with the 2nd amendment. The fact is “well regulated” “well-regulated”. The judiciary does not OWN the rights to English interpretation, the dictionary does. Both terms were used in the 18th century. BOTH and they were most certainly not synonymous. The 2nd amendment is the ONLY PLACE IN HISTORY where they have been SOLD as being synonymous. I did not buy this. I pretended that James Madison was smart, and so to was Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin. As it turns out , I was right to do so. After much research it has been resolved that Benjamin Franklin “crafted” the 2nd amendment by at least 1780. “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” was nothing more than a sales pitch that was used to get the FULL 2nd amendment ratified into the constitution. The pitch, or slogan was bought hook like and sinker for the past 224 years. You see the 2nd amendment was always written for the future of USA by 7 men. They knew, due to politics and fear , it would never have been ratified if the people actually knew what it really said. Now you may wish to argue that what I say is nonsense, but you are simply under the influence of Benjamin Franklins experiment. He had to hide this from every level of intelligence for the future of his nation. Yours would of course fall within this scope that he had planned for. People will often read what they want to, and not read what was actually written. To add a hyphen is to change the constitution, and that can’t be done without a 2/3 house and senate vote. The 2nd amendment as its been known is about to VANISH. It will be relegated to the land of unicorns and leprechauns.
As the Bill of Rights itself recognizes, the Bill of Rights is a constitutional redundancy. See Bill of Rights: “further declaratory and restrictive clauses” http://bit.ly/2eqjldV
Yes, I’m totally good with your comment. What is your point? You see I know something you do not. I know what the 2nd amendment actually says. It has NOTHING to do with a Militia in the sense of what the purpose of Militias were or what they were used for. It is a word. read it. What is it? You have only reinforced what I already know. I didn’t say the text of the 2nd amendment was going to disappear from the Bill of Rights. It is there now ,as it has been since Dec 15, 1791. What I’m saying, is that every single precedent that has ever been set by any Supreme Court in the History of the United States will have to be nullified and reversed. Pure conjecture and speculation. The 2nd amendment has had to be “discerned” or “interpreted” but it can in fact actually be read. You don’t need a law degree to understand what it says. All you have to do is actually read it like any other sentence. It is encrypted though, but its been encrypted with your own bias. First take away what you want it to say. Take away what you yearn for it to say. Take away what makes sense to you and don’t re-author its text. Here, rather than me giving you these tips, lets have James Madison give you a tip… This is an excerpt of his written on Sept 15, 1821
“the legitimate meaning of the Instrument must be derived from the text itself; or if a key
is to be sought elsewhere, it must be not in the opinions or intentions of the Body which planned & proposed the Constitution” Hmm legitimate meaning. I wonder what he could be talking about? Why is he being so aloof? Is he hiding something? Why would he be doing that? What’s the big deal? Its a very big deal. The 2nd you see was always written for the future. It is in fact the final legacy of the United States Constitution. Now you may think your comment has locked up what you think the 2nd amendment is, in that you are wrong, but it does lock up what the 2nd amendment really is. Seven men did that. Your first four sitting presidents and a few others. Things are about to change. You are about to discover that you are on the wrong side of history. Everyone is , left and right. The debate is about to end, unless you can figure out a way to do a séance.
Dana cleaned her clock..
Why don’t Progressives have a conscience? They will distort the truth and flat out lie to achieve their ends, yet they never seem to honestly regret the deception.
Yep! Dana’s brilliant.
Everyone should clean their Glock.
Oh, wait, I read your comment too fast 🙂
I can assure you, when they banned the guns in Australia, 20 years later, you would think there were no shootings in Australia… But hey, we have drive by shootings etc nightly now. 90% of all shootings are investigated by the middle eastern crime squad… go figure…
The ignorant masses, as the under informed voters use to be labeled, will discount Jindal’s negative statement about the President’s comments as election year rhetoric when in fact Obama continues to stoke the fires of racism and divisiveness and he does nothing to lead the people he represents to come together and unite against the haters. He wants discord for a political goal of controlling guns, taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens while we know criminals will get them. Look at his home town Chicago with the strictest gun control laws on the books is awash with murder by illegally obtained guns.
Pingback: SPARKS FLY In Heated Debate Between Dana Loesch & Radical Far Left Gun-Grabber ➠ Video – BB4SP()
Correct, “gun crime” did go down in Australia…but she’s being deceptive & she knows it. All crime in Australia except for gun violence “shot up” drastically with no end in sight!!!
i think the public should take action on Obama and the Clintons. Fk gun control.
This is nonsense. Gun Control works just as seat belt laws work. Politics of fear and the imagination. Guns do in fact kill people. Its not a coincidence that they are used by the Army.
Total users online: 33
Guests online: 33
Registered online: 0;