Jump to content
Blue Devil

A Well Regulated Militia...

Recommended Posts

(FAIRFAX, Va.) National Rifle Association president Wayne LaPierre conceded today that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, while preserving the right of citizens to “keep and bear arms,” would probably not stave off a mad attack on the populace by a tyrannical, destructive U.S. government.https://caesarsghost.wordpress.com/2015/07/14/nra-admits-2nd-amendment-would-be-pretty-useless-against-a-tyrannical-u-s-military/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, guilluamezenz said:

in the hands of the military fine

 

 

Your ideas are consistently wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, guilluamezenz said:

in the hands of the military fine

It makes no sense to trust a military with a war agenda over ordinary Americans who seek to defend themselves against violence and tyranny.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/1/2017 at 5:46 AM, harryramar said:

I've seen pictures of the Michigan militia, a bunch of fat slob old guys who strike fear into the hearts of no one.

well, maybe the owners of those all you can eat buffets, but no one else.

HEH-HEH-HEH.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/7/2019 at 11:35 AM, DennisTheMenace said:

Trump has never been a part of a "well regulated" militia.  In fact he dodged the chance to be a part of a "well regulated" militia...five times.

 

At least his daddy had enough money to help his son "avoid" military service and he didn't have to crap his pants like Ted Nugent. 

 

th?id=OIP.cw7hI18oVL11YGgj2JZ8GAHaF0&pid

Ted, the coward, did what he had to do.   Now he believes he's a patriot instead of a washed up, ugly guy with a big mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"well regulated militia"

 

If a state declared firearms to be illegal outside of its own well regulated militia, perhaps the National Guard, it would be well within its rights to do so.  Obviously no state has or will see fit to limit firearms that severely, but the 2nd Amendment specifically says that it protects the right to an armed "well regulated militia".  That's all it protects.

 

The rest of it, all your hunting rifles and shotgun and handguns...not protected by the 2nd Amendment outside of the context of the "well regulated militia".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, splunch said:

"well regulated militia"

 

If a state declared firearms to be illegal outside of its own well regulated militia, perhaps the National Guard, it would be well within its rights to do so.  Obviously no state has or will see fit to limit firearms that severely, but the 2nd Amendment specifically says that it protects the right to an armed "well regulated militia".  That's all it protects.

 

The rest of it, all your hunting rifles and shotgun and handguns...not protected by the 2nd Amendment outside of the context of the "well regulated militia".

The language of the amendment is clear. There is no individual right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the second amdnent was about keeping negroes slaves not freedom the white man is a devil an oppressor of the human spirit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
The Gun Lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.  The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies - the militia - would be maintained for the defense of the state.  The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.
Retired Chief Justice Warren Burger, "The Right to Bear Arms," Parade Magazine,January 14, 1990.

In 2008, this fraud was furthered by Mr. Scalia, joined by his fellow ideologues Thomas, Alito, Roberts and Kennedy.  Yet five zealots in black robes cannot change the historical record. Writing something down on paper or pushing the send button to the internet doesn't make it so. Scalia and gang, in ganging together to pen District of Columbia v. Heller, cannot change history, anymore than a Truther diary about how the 9-11 hijackers were Republican ideologues giving their lives for Bush and Cheney, makes such idiocy so.I hope, in a future diary, to analyze Scalia's Heller opinion and illustrate why Scalia is wrong and a hypocrite to claim that he is governed by original intent.https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2012/12/25/1171716/-The-Second-Amendment-Has-Nothing-to-Do-with-Gun-Ownership

 

The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slaver

The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says “State” instead of “Country” (the Framers knew the difference – see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia’s vote.  Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.

In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the “slave patrols,” and they were regulated by the states.

In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state.  The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings.

As Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, “The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search ‘all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition’ and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds.”

It’s the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio in Django Unchained when he asks, “Why don’t they just rise up and kill the whites?”  If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.

Sally E. Haden, in her book Slave Patrols: Law and Violence in Virginia and the Carolinas, notes that, “Although eligibility for the Militia seemed all-encompassing, not every middle-aged white male Virginian or Carolinian became a slave patroller.” There were exemptions so “men in critical professions” like judges, legislators and students could stay at their work.  Generally, though, she documents how most southern men between ages 18 and 45 – including physicians and ministers – had to serve on slave patrol in the militia at one time or another in their lives.

And slave rebellions were keeping the slave patrols busy.

By the time the Constitution was ratified, hundreds of substantial slave uprisings had occurred across the South.  Blacks outnumbered whites in large areas, and the state militias were used to both prevent and to put down slave uprisings.  As Dr. Bogus points out, slavery can only exist in the context of a police state, and the enforcement of that police state was the explicit job of the militias.

If the anti-slavery folks in the North had figured out a way to disband – or even move out of the state – those southern militias, the police state of the South would collapse.  And, similarly, if the North were to invite into military service the slaves of the South, then they could be emancipated, which would collapse the institution of slavery, and the southern economic and social systems, altogether.

These two possibilities worried southerners like James Monroe, George Mason (who owned over 300 slaves) and the southern Christian evangelical, Patrick Henry (who opposed slavery on principle, but also opposed freeing slaves).

Their main concern was that Article 1, Section 8 of the newly-proposed Constitution, which gave the federal government the power to raise and supervise a militia, could also allow that federal militia to subsume their state militias and change them from slavery-enforcing institutions into something that could even, one day, free the slaves.

This was not an imagined threat.  Famously, 12 years earlier, during the lead-up to the Revolutionary War, Lord Dunsmore offered freedom to slaves who could escape and join his forces.  “Liberty to Slaves” was stitched onto their jacket pocket flaps.  During the War, British General Henry Clinton extended the practice in 1779.  And numerous freed slaves served in General Washington’s army.

Thus, southern legislators and plantation owners lived not just in fear of their own slaves rebelling, but also in fear that their slaves could be emancipated through military service.

At the ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788, Henry laid it out:

“Let me here call your attention to that part [Article 1, Section 8 of the proposed Constitution] which gives the Congress power 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. . . .

“By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither . . . this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory.”

George Mason expressed a similar fear:

“The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them. Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia; and the state governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution] . . . “

Henry then bluntly laid it out:

“If the country be invaded, a state may go to war, but cannot suppress [slave] insurrections [under this new Constitution]. If there should happen an insurrection of slaves, the country cannot be said to be invaded. They cannot, therefore, suppress it without the interposition of Congress . . . . Congress, and Congress only [under this new Constitution], can call forth the militia.”

And why was that such a concern for Patrick Henry?

“In this state,” he said, “there are two hundred and thirty-six thousand blacks, and there are many in several other states. But there are few or none in the Northern States. . . . May Congress not say, that every black man must fight? Did we not see a little of this last war? We were not so hard pushed as to make emancipation general; but acts of Assembly passed that every slave who would go to the army should be free.”

Patrick Henry was also convinced that the power over the various state militias given the federal government in the new Constitution could be used to strip the slave states of their slave-patrol militias.  He knew the majority attitude in the North opposed slavery, and he worried they’d use the Constitution to free the South’s slaves (a process then called “Manumission”).

The abolitionists would, he was certain, use that power (and, ironically, this is pretty much what Abraham Lincoln ended up doing):

“[T]hey will search that paper [the Constitution], and see if they have power of manumission,” said Henry.  “And have they not, sir? Have they not power to provide for the general defence and welfare? May they not think that these call for the abolition of slavery? May they not pronounce all slaves free, and will they not be warranted by that power?

“This is no ambiguous implication or logical deduction. The paper speaks to the point: they have the power in clear, unequivocal terms, and will clearly and certainly exercise it.”

He added: “This is a local matter, and I can see no propriety in subjecting it to Congress.”

James Madison, the “Father of the Constitution” and a slaveholder himself, basically called Patrick Henry paranoid.

“I was struck with surprise,” Madison said, “when I heard him express himself alarmed with respect to the emancipation of slaves. . . . There is no power to warrant it, in that paper [the Constitution]. If there be, I know it not.”

But the southern fears wouldn’t go away.https://www.filmsforaction.org/articles/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, slideman said:

The language of the amendment is clear. There is no individual right.

 

 

It is already been established that it is an  individual right by the  Supreme  Court.   Militias are composed of  individuals.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I Am a Well Regulated Militia.

 

Second-_Amendment--620x358.jpg

 

"The Sound of Freedom"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/10/2019 at 2:06 AM, guilluamezenz said:

The Second Amendment Was Ratified to Preserve Slavery

 

 

Ridiculous revisionist history.  You are utterly delusional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

- YOUR LIBERTY RIFLE -

 

M1-Garand-10.jpg

 

...on this Celebration of THE INDIVIDUAL over the Collective(Hive)

 

Second-_Amendment--620x358.jpg

 

amazing-electrc-feel-fireworks-gif.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

at-the-core-of-liberalism-is-the-spoiled

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Debs said:

 

giphy.gif

 

 

Ha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/4/2019 at 12:47 AM, Blue Devil said:

- YOUR LIBERTY RIFLE -

 

M1-Garand-10.jpg

 

...on this Celebration of THE INDIVIDUAL over the Collective(Hive)

 

 

My "Liberty Rifle" is just as powerful, holds 50 rounds of full-power .308 instead of 8 30-06, and is half the size:

 

m17s.jpg&f=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎6‎/‎10‎/‎2019 at 3:34 PM, EltonJohnson said:

 

 

It is already been established that it is an  individual right by the  Supreme  Court.   Militias are composed of  individuals.   

It has also been determined by the USSC that you will only have a right to own the firearms declared acceptable by your gov't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Scout said:

It has also been determined by the USSC that you will only have a right to own the firearms declared acceptable by your gov't.

Too late.  It does not matter what someone's "government" declares acceptable.  I own all the black, evil rifles that I could ever want, and then some.  I will make sure that my kids, their kids and their kid's kids get them all.  With sufficient supplies of ammo.  Not a damn thing you our your bureaucrats can do about it either.

 

Did you know that today's ammunition, if kept dry, can perform flawlessly even after 100 years?  Beyond that, I don't much care what happens to my guns, this world or the Universe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skans said:

My "Liberty Rifle" is just as powerful, holds 50 rounds of full-power .308 instead of 8 30-06, and is half the size:

 

m17s.jpg&f=1

 

A brute for sure.

(won't be winnin' any beauty contests, though)

 

Kind of a short sight radius, and some low entrails.

 

How is it from the 500 yard line, or the prone shooting position?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Skans said:

Too late.  It does not matter what someone's "government" declares acceptable.  I own all the black, evil rifles that I could ever want, and then some.  I will make sure that my kids, their kids and their kid's kids get them all.  With sufficient supplies of ammo.  Not a damn thing you our your bureaucrats can do about it either.

 

Did you know that today's ammunition, if kept dry, can perform flawlessly even after 100 years?  Beyond that, I don't much care what happens to my guns, this world or the Universe. 

Well, if you own something illegal, that makes you criminal scum.  Just like people who cross the border illegally.

You would be no better than them.....or a thief.....or murderer.

Definitely NOT anyone we want to call himself American.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Scout said:

Well, if you own something illegal, that makes you criminal scum.  Just like people who cross the border illegally.

You would be no better than them.....or a thief.....or murderer.

Definitely NOT anyone we want to call himself American.

 

 

Says the Fascist Nazi.

 

79736d5805acf0f0e3dc18f38f4e7248.jpg

 

Ha!

 

560056_443227175749584_169791408_n.jpeg&

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Skans said:

...Did you know that today's ammunition, if kept dry, can perform flawlessly even after 100 years?  Beyond that, I don't much care what happens to my guns, this world or the Universe. 

 

Unless correctly disassembled... for Fascists and Communists.

 

The Last Thing.

108271853.jpg

...a Communist should see.

 

Ha!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Blue Devil said:

 

A brute for sure.

(won't be winnin' any beauty contests, though)

 

Kind of a short sight radius, and some low entrails.

 

How is it from the 500 yard line, or the prone shooting position?

I haven't done any 500 yard shooting with it.  As far as sight radius goes, a scope mounts solidly to the rail and holds zero, so that would be preferred.  The sight radius for iron sights is rather short - not a long distance .308.   The barrel is actually 16" long; longer than you would think.  They also make it with a 20" barrel.  I believe the barrel length on your Garand is 24".

 

The K&M bullpup is rock solid.  Extruded aluminum frame; forged aluminum grip; Bolt, bolt carrier and barrel extension are more robust than any other system I've seen.  Gas adjust.  Sweet adjustable trigger!  Super reliable.  Not ammo sensitive. 

 

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I've always wanted a large-capacity, semi-auto super compact .308 that is basically the size of a small gym bag.   For distance shooting, I prefer a bolt-action 30-06, .308, 300Winmag, and 22-250.  Actually, make that a .223 bolt action - almost as good as .22-250 without the cost or headache.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scout said:

Well, if you own something illegal, that makes you criminal scum.  Just like people who cross the border illegally.

You would be no better than them.....or a thief.....or murderer.

Definitely NOT anyone we want to call himself American.

 

Criminal who should be destroyed like a rabid animal.  Just like all those illegals.

 

Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Scout said:

Well, if you own something illegal, that makes you criminal scum.  Just like people who cross the border illegally.

You would be no better than them.....or a thief.....or murderer.

Definitely NOT anyone we want to call himself American.

 

I am an American who does not own anything illegal.  But, if I legally own a gun, and then a law is passed making it illegal, without even giving me the opportunity to register it, then Scum I will proudly become.  Because such a law is illegal itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...