Tyranny of the ATF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

Armaments held publicly as necessary for every state to keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia. The original articles creating our union as the precursor to the Constitution was clear that the right to bear arms belonged to well regulated militias. This was also written expressly in the Constitution and the common interpretation until a bunch of conservative hillbillies decided to misinterpret the test in 2008.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

I, the Supreme Court and Federal/State agencies prior to 2008, constitutional scholars and a host of others reject your fabrication that a militia refers to a single individual that cannot be regulated. Just waiting for a few conservative justices to lose their seats so the mockery of constitutional law passed in Heller and a few other notable rejections of stare decisis are overturned.

---

So, you don't believe in the 3 branches of government. Gotcha. They only "work" when it works for you, otherwise it's partisan. Did I capture your argument correctly? Or is this where you go radio silent after having been resoundingly rebuffed and your strawman thrown in the trash?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

Armaments held publicly as necessary for every state to keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia. The original articles creating our union as the precursor to the Constitution was clear that the right to bear arms belonged to well regulated militias. This was also written expressly in the Constitution and the common interpretation until a bunch of conservative hillbillies decided to misinterpret the test in 2008.

---

You literally think the government is in charge of "regulating" said militias.

You'll never not be a complete failure.

Ok Seran, a question for you since you obviously think that the term militia refers to a government entity of some kind, however, the US Code would disagree

Quote:

---

246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

---

That is from the house.gov website and before you start in about 'see it means the National Guard', there was no National Guard when the constitution was written so it clearly could not apply to that and the National Guard would have no need for the 2nd amendment since their weapon are provided to them by the states. Ergo the only possible conclusion, per the Federal government which you seem to trust so implicitly is the unorganized militia, ie. every able bodied male 17-45 who is a citizen or desires to become one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kutter

Ok Seran, a question for you since you obviously think that the term militia refers to a government entity of some kind, however, the US Code would disagree



That is from the house.gov website and before you start in about 'see it means the National Guard', there was no National Guard when the constitution was written so it clearly could not apply to that and the National Guard would have no need for the 2nd amendment since their weapon are provided to them by the states. Ergo the only possible conclusion, per the Federal government which you seem to trust so implicitly is the unorganized militia, ie. every able bodied male 17-45 who is a citizen or desires to become one.

---

Honestly a decent attempt on your part, but you're overlooking the fact this is a legal definition as part of USC 10 concerning the ability to draft or conscript. Doesn't change the fact that the Federal law being derivative of the Constitution identifies the right to bear arms under the auspices of a "well regulated militia".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

Honestly a decent attempt on your part, but you're overlooking the fact this is a legal definition as part of USC 10 concerning the ability to draft or conscript. Doesn't change the fact that the Federal law being derivative of the Constitution identifies the right to bear arms under the auspices of a "well regulated militia".

---

Imagine being even 1% as stupid as this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage

So, you don't believe in the 3 branches of government. Gotcha. They only "work" when it works for you, otherwise it's partisan. Did I capture your argument correctly? Or is this where you go radio silent after having been resoundingly rebuffed and your strawman thrown in the trash?

---

I see, it's where you go radio silent on the topic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

Honestly a decent attempt on your part, but you're overlooking the fact this is a legal definition as part of USC 10 concerning the ability to draft or conscript. Doesn't change the fact that the Federal law being derivative of the Constitution identifies the right to bear arms under the auspices of a "well regulated militia".

---

Ok Seran, no offense but USC 10 does not apply to Selective Service registration, that is covered in USC 49 and USC 50. And again, those people are not by definition a militia since if they are drafted into service then they are now government employees and again, any firearms they use are provided to them by that government entity. So by your logic there would be no need for anyone to own firearms since the government would provide any needed. Only that is the antithesis of what the founding fathers intended. They had just won their freedom from a tyrannical king and wanted to ensure that the people would be able to defend themselves from that very same tyranny.

But if you continue to insist on being a sheep, that's fine, there are a lot of sheepdogs in this country. Lets just hope that there is one around when you need it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kutter

Ok Seran, no offense but USC 10 does not apply to Selective Service registration, that is covered in USC 49 and USC 50. And again, those people are not by definition a militia since if they are drafted into service then they are now government employees and again, any firearms they use are provided to them by that government entity. So by your logic there would be no need for anyone to own firearms since the government would provide any needed. Only that is the antithesis of what the founding fathers intended. They had just won their freedom from a tyrannical king and wanted to ensure that the people would be able to defend themselves from that very same tyranny.

But if you continue to insist on being a sheep, that's fine, there are a lot of sheepdogs in this country. Lets just hope that there is one around when you need it.

---

Wait, you don't think the federal statute that defines who is eligible for conscription isn't relevant to who can be drafted? You're a fucking moron.

NYC Councilwoman Inna Vernikov to be cleared of gun charge after toting firearm at pro-Palestinian rally
https://nypost.com/2023/11/17/metro/...ian-rally/amp/

The gun control activists reaction is hilarious to watch. She straight up trolled & eviscerated NY’s sensitive places gun control law. Apparently if a pistol is unloaded & absent a recoil spring (making it inoperable), it’s perfectly legal to open carry that it into a NYC school or any other gun free zone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seran

Wait, you don't think the federal statute that defines who is eligible for conscription isn't relevant to who can be drafted? You're a fucking moron.

---

I would avoid using the word "conscription" unless you support rich people being able to buy their way out of being drafted.