The "insurrectionary theory" of the Second Amendment is nonsense

[jeninflorida]

Now this is some awesome shit!

Why work to change something that was never meant to be into something that already exist?? Just go to the EU bro....your paradise awaits.

 

[Byron In Exile]

No, it doesn't; that is irrelevant to constitutional interpretation.

^ Stupid bitch.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Now this is some awesome shit!

He sounds like a confused woman.

I like women who talk like men.

Fuck that guy. He's an idiot.

 

[KingOrfeo]

I am not even suggesting here that insurrection is a bad idea. That's a different discussion. I am merely pointing out that it is never legal and in no sense a constitutional right.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I am not even suggesting here that insurrection is a bad idea. That's a different discussion. I am merely pointing out that it is never legal and in no sense a constitutional right.

You're incorrect.

 

[KingOrfeo]

We're armed, and you don't fucking matter.

You're armed, and it doesn't fucking matter.

 

[Byron In Exile]

I am not even suggesting here that insurrection is a bad idea. That's a different discussion. I am merely pointing out that it is never legal and in no sense a constitutional right.

You're pointing to a pile of shit and telling us it smells great.

Stop putting on airs, you dope.

 

[Recidiva]

I am not even suggesting here that insurrection is a bad idea. That's a different discussion. I am merely pointing out that it is never legal and in no sense a constitutional right.

That's kind of like saying you never had the constitutional right to have water for the specific purpose of watering your grass, if there was a constitutional right to have no right infringed in regard to your possession of water.

It's not a point worth making.

 

[Byron In Exile]

You're armed, and it doesn't fucking matter.

It'll matter to you when I put a hole in you the size of a dinner plate.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

No, it doesn't; that is irrelevant to constitutional interpretation.



No. Keeping guns with that purpose in mind might be within the letter of the law, but there are no circumstances ever under which insurrection is within the letter of the law.

The American Revolution is precedent. We tossed out the British Government and installed our own thieves and cut-throats.

 

[KingOrfeo]

You're incorrect.

Cite the law, then.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Cite the law, then.

Are you even being serious?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

This country is no less mine than yours, and I will stay here and work to change it, and you can shoot yourself in the face. Today, please.

Youre wrong again. Whats yours is what you can hold and keep the pols and nigguhs from taking.

 

[Byron In Exile]

That's kind of like saying you never had the constitutional right to have water for the specific purpose of watering your grass, if there was a constitutional right to have no right infringed in regard to your possession of water.

It's not a point worth making.

The 9th Amendment rocks my socks:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

Oh, snap!

 

[unregistered]

 

[BotanyBoy]

Cite the law, then.

Natural law man....the state only governs at the consent of the people, if it goes outside that consent, the people will put it down. History has shown this true time and time again....fuck it's how the US came to be.

Still wondering why you try and make US into N.Korea?? Why don't you just move there instead??

 

[Byron In Exile]

Youre wrong again. Whats yours is what you can hold and keep the pols and nigguhs from taking.

The Negroes are your friends, Jim.

They're the reason the US government is so rabid about disarming us.

When the shit falls down, they'll be on our side.

 

[Byron In Exile]

He has his own interpretation of the Second Amendment, an interpretation that would be alien to those who included it in the Bill of Rights. He refuses to read and understand the historical scholarship presented in Heller. He refuses to acknowledge the language of the Second Amendment itself implies a right to bear arms that precedes the Constitution itself. He refuses to acknowledge the concept that the Founders left in the hands of our citizens, rights to arms technology of sufficient quality to defeat the premier military in the world at the time. He opposes an armed citizenry because he opposes individual freedom. He, like many totalitarians before him, hate the Constitution, the constitutional republic, limited government, and America in general. Like an idiot.

Like ten thousand other Americans who trash the Constitution, and who have... NO FUCKING GUNS!!

Talk about maroons...!~

 

[unregistered]

 

[Byron In Exile]

Vetteman: ever been to Minnesota?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The Negroes are your friends, Jim.

They're the reason the US government is so rabid about disarming us.

When the shit falls down, they'll be on our side.

Obama wants my guns NOT theirs.

 

[Byron In Exile]

Obama wants my guns NOT theirs.

Oh, no... he wants them all.

 

[unregistered]

 

[KingOrfeo]

It'll matter to you when I put a hole in you the size of a dinner plate.

It doesn't matter. You will never shoot me. You will never shoot the police, not even if they are coming for your guns. You might someday shoot a burglar, but that will make little difference in the world.

 

[dan_c00000]

And youre fulla shit.

EVERY WHITE MALE tween the ages of 18-45 were militia subject to service at the pleasure of the several district militia commanders whom voters elected. The President could draft militia for Federal service, and did, but militia per se were armed civilians obligated to furnish guns and sundry accouterments at muster.

Males must register for Federal draft when theyre 18, its their entry into the militia.

And there's where your case for "guns ALWAYS" falls apart. Since the militia is everyone; everyone's guns are subject to regulation.