What do you think of the creator of the 2nd amendment's thoughts?

[Juxtapose]

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)

"... to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)

https://www.madisonbrigade.com/g_mason.htm

Not to mention the Supreme Court has ruled that you do not need to be part of some state-run militia to own firearms.

So what the heck are these gun control advocates talking about when they mention a militia? Why are they so ignorant on what was really meant?

[Lliam]

Supporters of "gun control" just look for any excuse to invalidate the second amendment. They can't pass an amendment, so they do everything possible to skirt it.

I have 1960s-70s liberal values and have studied the issue a lot. I have done my own research by compiling stats and I have used my own logic. I am not swayed by political ideology. I have come to the conclusion that the measures suggested by gun control advocates don't make sense.

The sole goal of "gun control" is to disarm the American people, NOT to save lives. The average person who has bought into the gun control narrative doesn't realize that. They just support it because of political partisanship and propaganda. Their views are emotional, not logical. Logic can't penetrate their emotional "feelings".

The logic is incontrovertible, but gun control advocates react to it with cognitive dissonance. It's like trying to use scientific fact against a Creationist.

[Lliam]

@Juxtapose. Thanks for the MHO. 🇺🇸 😀

[Juxtapose]

No problem, you put out good comments.

[RealMarek]

They want us to be like the Candadians and Australians were during covid. They only dare to take things as far as they did in the US for a reason.

[Exterminatore]

That’s right and an armed populace would be a threat to their tyranny and monopoly on the ability to use force. Just like how those men marched into the Michigan state capital armed because they had enough of the COVID lockdowns. I could be mistaken, but I believe it was Michigan.

[Exterminatore]

To be clear it wasn’t just George Mason who created the 2nd Amendment, and all the following fathers ratified it and contributed to it.


Mason’s comments you quoted are not the only ones in similarity. Washington, Jefferson, and even Noah Webster (who was not technically a founding father) made statements very similar to Mason’s, including James Madison in his Federalist Papers. Not only do we have quotes by the founding fathers on the 2A, we also have a number of their writings and personal letters regarding it.


But that’s not all. We also have the Militia acts of 1792 and 1794.


A quote from the Militia Act of 1792:


... each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside...



So EVERY…. that’s right EVERY free born white male was considered the militia.


But that’s not all. Here’s some of the provisions of that piece of legislation:


Militia members were required to equip themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a box able to contain not less than 24 suitable cartridges, and a knapsack. Alternatively, everyone enrolled was to provide himself with a rifle, a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shot-pouch, and a knapsack.[10] Exemptions applied to some occupations, including members of Congress, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen.



So to sum this up, at one time BY LAW it was MANDATORY EVRY free born white male was the militia and not only that BY LAW it was MANDATORY they own a rifle and other pieces of military equipment as listed above.


But low and behold, the militia was defined to be the national guard in the future. Hmmm why would that be? Because they have “US Army” on their uniforms and are under direct control of the US military. I ask this: would it not be a bit difficult to have them overtake our government in the event of tyranny if they are controlled by our armed forces.


Turd liberals want to say arms are not a right without connection to the militia. How could that be when all the able bodied men are part of the militia? As also defined by the militia act of 1968 I believe (could be wrong on the date) I’ll tell you how. They don’t want resistance to tyranny. They want to be unopposed. They want a monopoly on use of force. Just like all tyrants.


As cited above there is LEGAL precedent for the common man to be considered the militia and we also have the very writings of the men who wrote both the Constitution and Bill of Rights to prove it.

Yet turd liberals want to say “we need judges to interpret the constitution.” NO WE DON’T it says what it says clearly and plainly. They say: “the constitution is a flexible and breathing document.” NO IT IS NOT. Those rights are unalterable apart from a 2/3rds state vote to repeal an amendment if I’m not mistaken.

It is abundantly clear all of these gun control laws infringe on our rights to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS. They are illegal, they are not what the founders intended, they are not in keeping with actual legal precedent. All of us should not obey any gun control laws. They are an attempt to deprive us of our rights and leave us to be victimized by the tyrants in Washington who do not want opposition to their tyranny. They want a monopoly on force.

For those concerned with mass shootings. Quit being a sissy and exercise your rights to own and bear arms and start shooting back.

Molon Labe! (Greek) means “come and take them.” The response rendered to the Persians at Thermopylae when the Persians demanded the Spartans lay down their arms.

MOLON LABE!!!

[Exterminatore]

Also, they can eliminate the 2A for the Constitution if they want. They can’t eliminate it from the Bill of Rights which are the 1st 10 amendments of the Constitution. There is no process to amend or alter the Bill of Rights, so they loose on this one anyway.

[AviatorTom]

@Exterminatore Your final sentence is incorrect. Any amendment can be changed or overridden by a later amendment. That's what happened with Prohibition. The 18th Amendment banned the sale of alcohol and the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment. It's unlikely, but it would be possible (theoretically) to repeal any of the Bill of Rights Amendments, including the 2nd Amendment, and replace it with a more restrictive "right to bear arms" amendment.

[Exterminatore]

I disagree. The purpose of the Constitution was to restrain the power of the federal government, however James Madison in his wisdom also wanted a Bill of Rights which is exactly the same as the first 10 constitutional amendments so they they expressly granted these rights to the people and could not be taken away.

[Exterminatore]

See Madison was smart enough to know some tyrants may one day try to snatch those incorporated rights from the American people. Within the Constitution there are processes for amending it or repealing it. There are NONE for the Bill of Rights. Even if the first 10 amendments are altered, added to or repealed, there is no process to do that to the Bill of Rights because they were intended to be permanently granted rights to the people.

[Exterminatore]

See it must be understood the the Bill of Rights and the Constitution are 2 separate documents. Article 5 of the Constitution states the processes for amending it, repealing an amendment or altering it. There is no such process for the Bill of Rights, which although is the first 10 amendments of the Constitution is a different document. Many of the founding fathers thought there was no need for a Bill of Rights, but Madison in his wisdom knew otherwise.

The two documents have different purposes. Although the Constitution does grant individual rights, it’s main purpose as I stated was to restrict the power of the federal government, the main purpose of the Bill of Rights was to grant those rights, not to the federal government, nor the states but the individual.

Otherwise a Bill of Rights would have been completely redundant because it simply stated what the Constitution already did.

[Exterminatore]

Now, all of that said it must be understood what was in the Bill of rights was later added to the Constitution. I’ll leave you with a quote from an article and link the article itself.

Is the Bill of Rights Part of the Constitution?

In short, while we see the Bill of Rights as part of the United States Constitution due to its housing, it is its own document with a crucial place in American history.

constitutionus.com/.../

See although the Bill of Rights is incorporated into the Constitution, and there are very definite processes for adding to, removing from, or altering the Constitution, I see nothing that allows that for the Bill of Rights.

Remember, it is the Bill of Rights that is incorporated into the Constitution, NOT VICE VERSA.

[Exterminatore]

The Bill of Rights is a separate document as stated and I see nothing in the Constitution that allows for any of those rights to be repealed or altered.

Perhaps it could be changed as any other law can be apart from the Constitution, and I am not a Constitutional lawyer, but I would strongly question the legality of altering anything in the Bill of Rights.

[Exterminatore]

@AviatorTom

I may stand corrected by you sir. After doing further research, the Constitution contains the Supremacy Clause, which states the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and no states or persons shall make laws that nullify anything in it. If the 2A were changed in the Constitution, the Constitution is above the Bill of Rights due to the Supremacy Clause. Therefore I think you may well be correct.

[Telekinetic-Potato]

Luckily, the supreme court is overturning a lot of their bs. One of the judges making a post bruen decision said something along the lines of "we're sick of you disrespecting the courts, we gave you some leeway because of the mass shootings but you've gone too far for too long"

It made my left eye water up a little bit. Even at such a low point, this country is seriously the shit lmao.

[gorydetails]

They're hoping you believe the BS. I even doubt they believe it in their soul. They just don't care. Just like the phrase "promote the general welfare" absolutely doesn't mean literal welfare. But they try that one also.

[Juxtapose]

Unfortunately power attracts the worst sorts of people.

[gorydetails]

And that’s literally all they want. The power to control you.

[Exterminatore]

Agree with you both.

[Snakeyes7]

"Ok, we just won a war against a king that had no qualms about having his soldiers shooting and killing his own people in the street. Let's allow citizens to be armed in case someone in the future decides to try that same funny business or violates our rights in any other way."

[NamerOfStars]

They're not ignorant, they're just trying to reduce gun crime by banning private ownership of guns.

That it did such a bang-up job at stopping abortions never crosses their minds, apparently.

[Juxtapose]

You try to disarm a populous when you're trying to fuck them.

[NamerOfStars]

Like they did in Canada, Australia, Germany (twice!), Russia, China, Cuba, Yugoslavia (goodness KNOWS how many times), and so on? I don't know what you makes you think I'm so bad at being evil.

Also, a populous WHAT, exactly? That's an adjective.

[Juxtapose]

Meant populace, voice to text was confused.

Those countries are all dystopian nightmares.

[NamerOfStars]

Yes (except Yugoslavia, which is several). But it CAN happen.

[Juxtapose]

Yeah, that just proves my point.

[NamerOfStars]

No it doesn't. Their actions suggest malice far more than incompetence.

[Pterodon]

The definition of a militia is armed civilians that assist a military

[Juxtapose]

There is legal precedent for how you do not have to be part of an organization to own firearms and this has been reaffirmed several times by the Supreme Court.

[Pterodon]

I agree. Point being you can’t have a militia unless the citizens are armed

[disgustingweebtrash]

The state should use tax money to help local communities organize into independent militias, maybe people might trust the government more then