Agnostic.com

2 2

The national guard is not a militia, my E-6 friend will attest to that. They are an auxiliary force scantioned and encompassed by the US army. He is not a full fledged citizen because of it. One of my roommates was in the air reserves as an E-5. He's out and working in the private sector as an airplane mechanic. He still doesn't have the right to sue the government for damages he suffered while in the military. That means he is also not a full citizen because his right to sue the government has been perminantly revoked.

The definition of a militia is an armed citizenry. Those soldiers, good friends of mine, will never again have full fledged citizen because of their service to you and your rights. They are eligible for a militia, but prior service is not required. Technically, by old laws that still exist every person eligeable for the draft or voluntary service is a member of the militia. Thusly granting them, the people, access to arms. Arms means all weapons and armaments.

The founding fathers knew weapons technology would advance. They heard of mythical weapons of immense power from religion and other fiction. They could easily comprehend wielding the power of 1000 Sun's.

The bill of rights was established expressly to limit government. You can not remove an amendment unless it conflicts with a pre-existing one. As was the case with the 21st and 18TH amendments.

The bill of rights aknowldeges certain human rights. It does not grant them. A right is an inalienable and unabridgable need of a person.

jayneonacobb 7 Feb 17
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

2 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

One has to wonder why people feel the need to arm themselves regardless of the 2nd amendment when they have supposedly the best military in the world defending them.

SamL Level 7 Feb 19, 2018

I will continue to arm my self regardless of your ability to have weapons or not, to the fulest extent of my expertise within the confines of my extensive licensing expertise and training. Which means as much as you try to take away my ability to defend my self I will make more money and therefore more high end weapons platforms. Your crusade only helps me out. Keep going, you're freeing up more of my time by bolstering the need for arms.

And your way of thinking frightens me rather than makes me feel safer. Good luck with that.

2

The liberals don’t understand the meaning of the 2nd amendment as 4 of the liberals judges on the bench think it is ok for a city to ban its residents from owning a gun in their own home. If that’s not in violation of the 2nd amendment I don’t know what would be. The state of California along with several other states are in violation of the 2nd amendment on there concealed carry as they have “May Issue” instead of “shall issue” which means the carry permit there is left up to the sherrif on wheather you can have a permit. There are several other states in violation in that way also. If the national concealed carry bill could pass the senate that would take care of that problem.

You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:25670
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.