Politics Girl is spot on again.
- Thread starter Tom Paris
- Start date
Well, I own 2 FN M4s..... granted mine don't have the fun switch, they are the exact firearm the military uses should I be called upon. I know how to operate that system.
They have the training, tactics, and better fire power. Even if you had the fun switch it would be moot
So again you have nothing..... Joe, you used to be so much more entertaining.
A well regulated militia, being necessary.....
The only time the word regulation comes up is regarding the standards of the militia.
You go Caitlyn! This is a serious matter, you’re really making Earth better with your contributions.
I have the actual language of the Amendment.
That Amendment does NOT simply state "The rights of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed", yet they COULD have said only that.
Boy, you really hate that comma, don't you....
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
No, not in any way, and don't move the goal post.
I've spoke to the well regulated part with al.ost every post.
Be better Joe.
I didn't
I've referred to the entire content of the Amendment. You're the one trying to move the posts and ignore it.
Provably…and these guys were responsible for having their weapon…they were not “governmentally issued”….today, the military….even National Guard, issues their members their weapons, The 2nd was written long before the US Government started issuing firearms to its members. That is why the 2nd was written because militia had to have access weapons upon being called.
When it was written, there were no such things as local, county or state police forces.
The Amendment explicitly states it refers to "being necessary for the security of a free state".
Armed bands of people running around with guns do not provide for "the security of a free state".
Local law enforcement does; which is fully able to be armed w/o any intervention from the federal government.
THAT is what 2A refers to.
There's an awful lot of speculation in her argument. I'm not convinced Trump is losing. Now, I'm seeing people regurgitating these points on social media and it feels like wishful groupthink.
The 2020 polls showed Biden with a decisive lead before the election. That didn't stop Trump from claiming the election was stolen.
I don't think there is any scenario where Trump loses and doesn't claim that the election was stolen. He WILL claim the election was stolen, no matter what (unless he wins).
Fortunately, Trump is not currently the president, is not in the White House, and is not the commander-in-chief. This means his previous strategy of launching a thousand frivolous law suits and pulling every blocking and delaying tactic while waiting out the clock isn't to work for him.
Oh, but if this is coordinated with states run by GOP governors and GOP legislatures, it most certainly could.
If Trump loses the election, many of the elected officials who currently "support" him may suddenly forget his number.
This actually happened for a few weeks after 1/6, when even a hagfish like Lindsay Graham actually briefly turned on him.
Yes, the sycophants got back in line behind him when it was clear he was going to be the GOP nominee again. But if he loses again, I don't think he's going to be nominated for the fourth time in his 80s.
