Posted on 08/21/2023 7:53:59 AM PDT by ShadowAce
It is super important to know your stuff when it comes to debating ultra-MAGA Republicans about guns. This video will arm you (but not "arm" as in the scary gun way) with completely true knowledge nuggets about guns and gun crime. END GUN VIOLENCE TODAY.
And you counter this with the truth. Why did our Founding Fathers give us the 2nd.
Watch their jaws drop...........................
Babylon Bee. :^)
What is the definitive argument against the left’s saying the 2nd amendment is only for the “militia”?
“END GUN VIOLENCE TODAY.”
Lock up liberals for their minor crimes and they won’t be around to commit the larger violent crimes.
Another racist video. Black Guns Matter!
"If you were serious about reducing gun crimes, you would insist that any use of a gun during the commission of a crime should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and that prosecutors are prohibited from plea bargaining away gun charges."
That usually invokes a response of "B-b-but minorities would be incarcerated at a disproportionate rate..."
GOD GIVEN RIGHT. Debate over. Come and try to take em yourself, or shut up.
Ghost gun part was hilarious...
Hilarious... dead on accurate.
A very funny video by the Babylon Bee!
How does government restrict the sale and access of private sales of a legal item? Registration only helps accounts to a name to a purchase or sale. What other product does that that is Constiutionally guaranteed as a right? It saves zero lives, what it does do is leave a paper trail for bureaucrats to follow. It is not like the forensics can link a gun back to an owner. It is an unnecessary limit on freedom.
What is the definitive argument against the left’s saying the 2nd amendment is only for the “militia”?
militia
mə-lĭsh′ə
noun
An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
engage them, defend your point. The more you do it the clearer your thoughts become. They want to stop the discussion; they don’t want us to think.
There are many other words in the second to point to. It is a part of something bigger, the Bill of Rights. We are going to have to educate ourselves, and study history.
There is no magic pat answer for you.
Because it used the term ‘the people’, just like all the other individual rights in the ‘protected from the government’ list called the BOR.
You type SLOWLY, explaining that we are ALL “militia,” then ask them to read this:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
It’s US Code of law defining militia.
If they don’t get it, don’t even try.
Your rights exist independently of the Constitution and it’s Bill of Rights. The passing reference to militia is only an aside regarding why government should not, as a practical matter, interfere with your pre-existing and inalienable right to bear arms.
YEP! START WITH HUNTER.
The militia act of 1792, 1862 and 1903 applies to free able-bodied male citizen between the ages of 18 and 45 (54 from the 1862 act). There are historical precedence for persons older than 45/54 serving in the militia.
The 1903 act establishes a formal militia but maintains an informal militia consisting of all able bodied men.
Actually, there is. The Militia is defined in the US Code as being all males between the ages of 18 and 45. Given current laws against gender and age discrimination, that would mean it would be expanded to pretty much include everyone. Also, the key operative phrase in the 2nd Amendment is "right of the people". The first part of the sentence is a dependent clause. A dependent clause does not restrict or otherwise limit the rest of the sentence. It is easier for the grammatically challenged to understand if they insert the word "because" at the beginning. The dependent clause just explains why the right of the people shall not be infringed.
Their interpretation is that the gov’t has the right to guns and not you.
1) They completely ignore that the constitution states the right of the people shall not be infringed rather than gov’t.
2) They will change the meaning of the word “people” to that of “gov’t”.
3) They completely ignore the fact that it is the 2nd amendment in what is referred to as the bill of rights for the people (you and I).
4) They completely ignore the fact that gov’t does not need a bill giving them the right to own weapons as it is already enumerated in Article I Section 8 Clause 12 (power to raise and support an army).
5) They will change the subject when you bring all this up and in a week/month/year will make their same irrational/illogical arguments again totally forgetting that you proved them wrong already.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.