|
Post by moose1am on Jul 19, 2019 18:15:15 GMT -5
Man, youre a weird dude. Im not sure you understand how things actually work but I do know its not my job to teach you. Have a great day. Lots of people from the South still think that they won the civil war. They are wrong but you can't tell them that they lost after the South's main General turned over his sward to Sherman.
|
|
|
Post by firstwd on Jul 19, 2019 18:25:28 GMT -5
Man, youre a weird dude. Im not sure you understand how things actually work but I do know its not my job to teach you. Have a great day. Lots of people from the South still think that they won the civil war. They are wrong but you can't tell them that they lost after the South's main General turned over his sward to Sherman. In the grand scheme of things, the only winner of the Civil War was the Federal Government. We the people all lost in one way or another.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 19, 2019 20:42:48 GMT -5
Neither north or south won. We lost. 14th amendment was never ratified by congress. So it's not an amendment. Congress just went ahead a pretended it was. There are also 2 more amendments that weren't ratified. There is a large group of lawyers trying to push this to the supreme court.
|
|
|
Post by whitetaildave24 on Jul 19, 2019 21:24:22 GMT -5
Neither north or south won. We lost. 14th amendment was never ratified by congress. So it's not an amendment. Congress just went ahead a pretended it was. There are also 2 more amendments that weren't ratified. There is a large group of lawyers trying to push this to the supreme court. They’ve had to been pushing for a long time now.
|
|
|
Post by js2397 on Jul 19, 2019 22:18:07 GMT -5
Neither north or south won. We lost. 14th amendment was never ratified by congress. So it's not an amendment. Congress just went ahead a pretended it was. There are also 2 more amendments that weren't ratified. There is a large group of lawyers trying to push this to the supreme court. I don't think Congress ratified any amendments. Amendments to the constitution are ratified by the states.
|
|
|
Post by nfalls116 on Jul 19, 2019 23:01:18 GMT -5
The 14th amendment shall parish along with REAL news if we don’t wake up people! FRRE THE PRESS, FREE THE PRESS, FREE THE PRESS. Amazing how a country whose top rules are about the way we are allowed to act freely is so restricted. 😉
|
|
|
Post by medic22 on Jul 21, 2019 20:45:59 GMT -5
My case in point - this guy for leader of a "militia"? I wonder how many realize that there is a State militia, the Indiana Guard Reserve, that is an all volunteer force subject only to the control of the Governor, and cannot be federalized. False, in times of war or national emergency they can be called up to federal duty.
|
|
|
Post by duff on Jul 21, 2019 21:46:28 GMT -5
I am so lost. I should never open any of the political threads
|
|
|
Post by dbd870 on Jul 22, 2019 7:45:35 GMT -5
I am so lost. I should never open any of the political threads I’m kind of sorry I did myself!
|
|
|
Post by greyhair on Jul 22, 2019 21:07:54 GMT -5
The National Guard can be called to Federal duty, but the Guard Reserve is strictly an unpaid volunteer State force and not subject to Federal authority. They answer only to the Governor. Their primary duty is to maintain the armories while Guard units are activated. They also do emergency response and help at major events like the 500.
They are not a large organization, and many don't even know they exist.
|
|
|
Post by greyhair on Jul 22, 2019 21:21:28 GMT -5
See Indiana Code 10-16-8-7.
The Guard Reserve cannot be Federalized. However membership in the IGR does not exempt a person from being drafted into Federal service (the regular military) should that become necessary.
Check out the whole code on IGR, it is very interesting.!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2019 11:33:27 GMT -5
www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htmBasically the citizens are the militia and well regulated meant prepared for war. From my understanding of history it was there for a time when the government became corrupt and tyrannical so the citizens could reset through force. I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials. George Mason The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government. Thomas Jefferson
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 5, 2019 17:54:45 GMT -5
Well-regulated is part of the language too. That could be interpreted several ways. Regulated by the government? Or regulated by a self-appointed cult-style leader? There are some militia organizations out there that are led by wanna-be dictators. Case in point- in Oregon it is perfectly legal for Senators to walk out, and perfectly legal for the Governor to order the State Police to bring them back. It is not legal for self-appointed militias (or the Senators) to shoot police who are carrying out lawful duties. If they can do that, they can do it to you too. We either have the rule of law, or we don't. If not it's anarchy. There are laws I don't like for sure, but I obey them anyway. Well regulated doesn`t have a thing to do with any sort of regulation. Period. No, there really aren`t several ways to interpret that. Well regulated in that time period simply meant in proper working order. Since we know that the primary, and really only reason for the Second Amendment was to allow We the People, as a last resort, to resist an overbearing, despotic government, it is foolishness to even consider that government regulation could ever be an option. That`s exactly why the Founders expressly said: shall NOT be infringed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2020 17:30:02 GMT -5
I just saw this online for what must be the 20th time. I like the way it`s written as it puts it into a more contemporary perspective, and, I think, makes it feel more relevant:
Boston – National Guard units seeking to confiscate a cache of recently banned assault weapons were ambushed by elements of a Para-military extremist faction. Military and law enforcement sources estimate that 72 were killed and more than 200 injured before government forces were compelled to withdraw.
Speaking after the clash, Massachusetts Governor Thomas Gage declared that the extremist faction, which was made up of local citizens, has links to the radical right-wing tax protest movement.
Gage blamed the extremists for recent incidents of vandalism directed against internal revenue offices. The governor, who described the group’s organizers as “criminals,” issued an executive order authorizing the summary arrest of any individual who has interfered with the government’s efforts to secure law and order.
The military raid on the extremist arsenal followed wide-spread refusal by the local citizenry to turn over recently outlawed assault weapons.
Gage issued a ban on military-style assault weapons and ammunition earlier in the week. This decision followed a meeting in early this month between government and military leaders at which the governor authorized the forcible confiscation of illegal arms.
One government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, pointed out that “none of these people would have been killed had the extremists obeyed the law and turned over their weapons voluntarily.”
Government troops initially succeeded in confiscating a large supply of outlawed weapons and ammunition. However, troops attempting to seize arms and ammunition in Lexington met with resistance from heavily-armed extremists who had been tipped off regarding the government’s plans.
During a tense standoff in the Lexington town park, National Guard Colonel Francis Smith, commander of the government operation, ordered the armed group to surrender and return to their homes. The impasse was broken by a single shot, which was reportedly fired by one of the right-wing extremists.
Eight civilians were killed in the ensuing exchange.
Ironically, the local citizenry blamed government forces rather than the extremists for the civilian deaths. Before order could be restored, armed citizens from surrounding areas had descended upon the guard units. Colonel Smith, finding his forces over matched by the armed mob, ordered a retreat.
Governor Gage has called upon citizens to support the state/national joint task force in its effort to restore law and order. The governor also demanded the surrender of those responsible for planning and leading the attack against the government troops.
Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, and John Hancock, who have been identified as “ringleaders” of the extremist faction, remain at large.
And this fellow Americans, is how the American Revolution began, April 20, 1775.
God Bless our “inalienable” American Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, that provides for the protection of freedom-loving US citizens to fight against a repressive and totalitarian Democrat / Socialist / “Progressive” government should the other 9 Amendments fail.
|
|
|
Post by moose1am on Jan 13, 2020 18:57:11 GMT -5
Well-regulated is part of the language too. That could be interpreted several ways. Regulated by the government? Or regulated by a self-appointed cult-style leader? There are some militia organizations out there that are led by wanna-be dictators. Case in point- in Oregon it is perfectly legal for Senators to walk out, and perfectly legal for the Governor to order the State Police to bring them back. It is not legal for self-appointed militias (or the Senators) to shoot police who are carrying out lawful duties. If they can do that, they can do it to you too. We either have the rule of law, or we don't. If not it's anarchy. There are laws I don't like for sure, but I obey them anyway. I think it says. A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state. That is the part you are talking about. The other part I'll discuss last The first part is talking about the State Militia being well regulated. Well regulated by the State's authorities ie the Governor and his chosen people. Now remember this is the State Militia of the late 1700's. The second part of the 2nd amendment states. The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. to me this means that the "PEOPLE" have the righ to keep and bear arms. Nothing shall prevent them from doing so. There is no regulation of the people's right to keep and bear arms in 1700's according to the 2nd amendment. That should not change with time. The only way to change the 2nd amendment is spelled out in the US Constitution. Either follow the constitution or have another revolution and write and ratify another constitution.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 13, 2020 19:27:36 GMT -5
Well-regulated is part of the language too. That could be interpreted several ways. Regulated by the government? Or regulated by a self-appointed cult-style leader? There are some militia organizations out there that are led by wanna-be dictators. Case in point- in Oregon it is perfectly legal for Senators to walk out, and perfectly legal for the Governor to order the State Police to bring them back. It is not legal for self-appointed militias (or the Senators) to shoot police who are carrying out lawful duties. If they can do that, they can do it to you too. We either have the rule of law, or we don't. If not it's anarchy. There are laws I don't like for sure, but I obey them anyway. I think it says. A well regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state. That is the part you are talking about. The other part I'll discuss last The first part is talking about the State Militia being well regulated. Well regulated by the State's authorities ie the Governor and his chosen people. Now remember this is the State Militia of the late 1700's. The second part of the 2nd amendment states. The people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. to me this means that the "PEOPLE" have the righ to keep and bear arms. Nothing shall prevent them from doing so. There is no regulation of the people's right to keep and bear arms in 1700's according to the 2nd amendment. That should not change with time. The only way to change the 2nd amendment is spelled out in the US Constitution. Either follow the constitution or have another revolution and write and ratify another constitution. Well regulated in that time period simply meant, in proper working order. Understanding the purpose of the Second Amendment is to, as Thomas Jefferson said, "...As a last resort, resist tyranny in government" it would make no sense for government to have any control over the militia. And always remember, the Constitution is designed to restrain government, not We the People.
|
|