No, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is not to facilitate insurrection

[pecksniff]

It couldn't be, because the Constitution puts the POTUS in command of the militia and the 2A does not change that. The militia was intended as an arm of the state, not as a countervailing force against it.

As for the actual, historical purpose of the 2A, see here.

 

[CornusKousa]

It couldn't be, because the Constitution puts the POTUS in command of the militia and the 2A does not change that. The militia was intended as an arm of the state, not as a countervailing force against it.

As for the actual, historical purpose of the 2A, see here.

Wrong....

DOI pretty much lays out that we the people (and the militia) are not an arm of any state.

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form,

You're illiberal authoritarian bullshit to the contrary.

 

[WillJ8787]

It couldn't be, because the Constitution puts the POTUS in command of the militia and the 2A does not change that. The militia was intended as an arm of the state, not as a countervailing force against it.

As for the actual, historical purpose of the 2A, see here.

Correct....the President has limited authority over the States....a concept well known to the founders and is explicit through out their writings....least we trade a tyrannical King for the same in a President.

 

[ShyBiGuy954]

https://64.media.tumblr.com/da64c264c1cd5b9d2f5efd3714b9be63/b19dd52d3d5f69d3-d3/s1280x1920/8330d386a523e0be1a956dc27fa6fec859e37114.jpg

https://64.media.tumblr.com/dbe07ac1d603e5362db41f19854613ce/d8156a2e3b9139dd-36/s1280x1920/6a13676668ba1fe30824b58361c23e89bf30ba08.png

https://64.media.tumblr.com/e4b3c9b86ecd4ba989e3effe11455919/7cfef5a3f6029c13-98/s1280x1920/40500331bf2e8ba6ac91ed788317df3e89f7b30d.jpg

 

[AlexBailey]

Tyranny:

synonyms:
despotism · absolutism · absolute power · autocracy · dictatorship · undemocratic rule · reign of terror · totalitarianism · Fascism ·


A government that is elected by the majority of voters is not tyranny.

Having the U.S. overthrown by an armed minority is not what the founding fathers had in mind. Republicans in the Senate are the first to point out that the insurrectionists were a slim minority of the people at the Capital on 1/6.


Since any sad loser can get a gun, in order to preserve the union, it may be time to repeal the 2a. Thank the deplorable if it happens.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure well regulated militias can be called up by the States in times of need

 

[CornusKousa]

A government that is elected by the majority of voters is not tyranny.

Tell that to the millions of starving progressive comrades in Venezuela...LOL

Tyranny of the majority is a real thing, take a history class and understand why the FF's put so many power checks and obstacles to democracy in our system.

Since any sad loser can get a gun, in order to preserve the union, it may be time to repeal the 2a. Thank the deplorable if it happens.

You're so fucking far from having the political juice to do that it's laughable.

Not that (R)'z would but they are much closer to being able to pull an Article V convention.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/multistate.us/production/landingpages/lZO9YmOKYwcsgtGY8/body/upload-6b2219.png

 

[pecksniff]

Wrong....

DOI pretty much lays out that we the people (and the militia) are not an arm of any state.



You're illiberal authoritarian bullshit to the contrary.

The DOI has nothing to do with it. It is a revolutionary document with no legal significance. The Constitution is law.

 

[AlexBailey]

Tyranny of the majority is a real thing, take a history class and understand why the FF's put so many power checks and obstacles to democracy in our system.



You're so fucking far from having the political juice to do that it's laughable.

It's not going to happen tomorrow or even the next election cycle. As you know, as the population grows and becomes more suburban it tends to become more progressive and less supportive of gun rights,and with luck, the future of the U.S. will be longer than its past.

'Tyranny of the majority' : the loser's lament.

 

[ShyBiGuy954]

in order to preserve the union, it may be time to repeal the 2a.

Even better, it may be time to go to a 2 yr or 4 yr MANDATORY military service after school. Toughen up some of you wimp pussies, lol.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-mandatory-military-service

https://64.media.tumblr.com/dc440fafde53b8c44dd47b218dfc6bc4/855a1e128067f167-1c/s500x750/1704dbd2cc33d6d7b0440f340f0ef39b520f977c.jpg

 

[pecksniff]

The purpose of the Second Amendment is to make sure well regulated militias can be called up by the States in times of need

"Well regulated" meaning "well armed" in 18th-Century parlance.

 

[Rightguide]

Note: 21 states have permitless carry laws. The number is going to get bigger.

 

[AlexBailey]

Even better, it may be time to go to a 2 yr or 4 yr MANDATORY military service after school. Toughen up some of you wimp pussies, lol.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-with-mandatory-military-service

https://64.media.tumblr.com/dc440fafde53b8c44dd47b218dfc6bc4/855a1e128067f167-1c/s500x750/1704dbd2cc33d6d7b0440f340f0ef39b520f977c.jpg

That would be great. Just think! The whole population would have access to all of those wonderful socialist services that military personnel get, and more voters would have a directly vested interest in peace.

I'm pretty good at skeet and long-range rifle.

 

[CornusKousa]

The DOI has nothing to do with it. It is a revolutionary document with no legal significance. The Constitution is law.

It has everything to do with intent.

And the Constitution doesn't say a fucking thing about the militia being

intended as an arm of the state, not as a countervailing force against it.

does it??

 

[CornusKousa]

It's not going to happen tomorrow or even the next election cycle. As you know, as the population grows and becomes more suburban it tends to become more progressive and less supportive of gun rights,and with luck, the future of the U.S. will be longer than its past.

Ya'll have been saying that for almost 200 years.

'Tyranny of the majority' : the loser's lament.

Still a real thing....History both modern and ancient is full of examples.

Winning a popular vote doesn't change the fact that you're a bunch of totlitaian control freaks looking to rob people for their labor that you feel entitled to.

That would be great. Just think! The whole population would have access to all of those wonderful socialist services that military personnel get, and more voters would have a directly vested interest in peace.

So you still haven't figured out what socialism is.

Not at all shocking.

I'm pretty good at skeet and long-range rifle.

You and most folks....how are you at indoor gunfights in the dark??

 

[AlexBailey]

So you still haven't figured out what socialism is.

Not at all shocking.

It would be socialist if everyone had mandatory service and received housing assistance, food, education, and medical benefits.

You and most folks....how are you at indoor gunfights in the dark??

Ooh, pistols in the dark? Is that what you want now? Bite me, botboy.

 

[ShyBiGuy954]

https://64.media.tumblr.com/581433695c9a8cbda5590db68c87ae83/0fbfcc84c43b2e88-00/s640x960/798c73490fd37d45a5f00e71d0a73937419a5b66.jpg

 

[BoyNextDoor]

"Well regulated" meaning "well armed" in 18th-Century parlance.

well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined

 

[pecksniff]

And the Constitution doesn't say a fucking thing about the militia being


does it??

Yes, it does, because the POTUS is CINC of the militia.

 

[pecksniff]

Ya'll have been saying that for almost 200 years.

And the country has been growing more progressive, in a two-steps-forward-one-step-back sort of way, for 200 years.

 

[phrodeau]

Yes, it does, because the POTUS is CINC of the militia.

Article II Section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.

And there’s more.

Article I Section 8: The Congress shall have the Power…

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

 

[WillJ8787]

It couldn't be, because the Constitution puts the POTUS in command of the militia and the 2A does not change that. The militia was intended as an arm of the state, not as a countervailing force against it.

As for the actual, historical purpose of the 2A, see here.

What do you think would have happened on Jan6th if it was a more armed event and they occupied the Capital Building?

How long before an armed force from the National Guard backed by the Federal Govt would have quelled the attempted takeover by terrorists traitors?

 

[CornusKousa]

Yes, it does, because the POTUS is CINC of the militia.

It gives him the power to call upon them.

They aren't like the military though, they can straight up give POTUS the finger.

And with the recent dissolving of the union hyper-accelerated by 45 and the (D)'s reaction to him.....at this point they would.

Red states aren't following any of your new laws much less your POTUS.

not my president

And the country has been growing more progressive, in a two-steps-forward-one-step-back sort of way, for 200 years.

It's grown more liberal, not so much "progressive", thus the "progressives" being so against the nation for not being very "progressive" and absolute RAGE over all the liberty we enjoy.

 

[phrodeau]

What do you think would have happened on Jan6th if it was a more armed event and they occupied the Capital Building?

How long before an armed force from the National Guard backed by the Federal Govt would have quelled the attempted takeover by terrorists traitors?

Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge was forty days, and that was at most 40 people.

 

[Cubantripod]

Having the U.S. overthrown by an armed minority is not what the founding fathers had in mind. Republicans in the Senate are the first to point out that the insurrectionists were a slim minority of the people at the Capital on 1/6.

The framers also wanted as many people as possible to have representations. We did away with that with the 12th amendment and now the left wants to do away with the filibuster and let 51% overrun the other 49%.

Since any sad loser can get a gun, in order to preserve the union, it may be time to repeal the 2a. Thank the deplorable if it happens.

You need a constitutional convention for that and you do not have enough states. I so encourage you to try. We would probably get rid of a few of your commie scum in the process. Nothing most sane Americans would lament getting rid of.