NRA to Parkland Teens: You’re Only Relevant Because Your Classmates Died

I think I'm still considered southern, but since VA went blue and WV went red - we might be northern now with WV being southern - I can never tell how the term is used around here.

Regardless, which of these lesser known meetings are you talking about?

Lesser known meetings = like AA or SA meetings... not all of them get spoken of, or heard of. They are smaller, non publicized. Spread through SM. Not KKK (like I could attend, haha)... just LESSER KNOWN (as in not in MSM, not in local news, just gatherings).

This is like inquiring about parties people have. Jesus Christ people, you do realize things happen outside of what you see? :D
 
@Scrody I feel bad for you, no joke. "Oh noes a drone?" Any weapons used to acquire better ones? You are severely "outgunned" in this topic. Cheers!

I don't want to be that guy, but did you notice the Taliban lately? An idea can't be shut off with superior fire power.
 
So... because you haven't gone out and tried to investigate for yourself, because you haven't personally seen anything (and who knows what your beliefs are and what you would find out of place, eh?) it doesn't exist.

Everything is normal and they just grill out singing Kumbaya, lol. There is no extremist points of view, no wildly misinterpreted facts, no delusions of granduer, and DEFINITELY no religious agendas in these gatherings of angry white people. None at all. O_O
I'm not saying it NEVER happens. But to act like its prevalent enough to cause concern seems crazy. Scared of a few outliers? I'm white in the deep deep south so if shit like that was happening all the time I would've heard about it. It's not like that type thing would go unnoticed.
 
You didn't read that Heller case very well because it cited an 1846 ruling from Nunn: "perfectly captured the way in which the operative clause of the Second amendment furthered the purpose announced in the prefatory clause"

1846-"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia.

does it follow that because the people refused to delegate to the general government the power to take from them the right to keep and bear arms, that they designed to rest it in the State governments? Is this a right reserved to the States or to themselves? Is it not an unalienable right, which lies at the bottom of every free government? We do not believe that, because the people withheld this arbitrary power of disfranchisement from Congress, they ever intended to confer it on the local legislatures.




Further:
1857-It would give to persons of the negro race, ... the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, ... the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

1875-The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress.

1886 - We think it clear that there are no sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


1939- These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.

1968-Such is the character of the privileges and immunities spoken of in the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution ...the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms

Citing Nunn v GA was a strategic move. You could just as easily have cited State v. Buzzard, which represented prevailing legal theory at the time (as shown in US v. Miller). But Scalia didn't, and why is that?

What made DC vs. Heller so nefarious is that up to that point, the collective right to owm firearms was tied to service within the militia. Now you couldn't restrict arms to infringe on militia readiness, but you could regulate them accordingly. Scalia took that militia requirement, separated it from the right to bear arms entirely, and applied it to individuals with no bearing on militia service. Then, to avoid destroying gun law, he applied a caveat that it didn't mean guns couldn't be regulated. If the amendment says "shall not be infringed", then why would it logically follow that straight line bans could be seen as constitutional?

But hey, it's all good. There's no precedent for DC vs Heller, and Mcdonald vs Chicago cites Heller extensively. A future activist court will rectify that in time. Or we'll just scrap the second entirely and make it a moot point.
 
I'm not saying it NEVER happens. But to act like its prevalent enough to cause concern seems crazy. Scared of a few outliers? I'm white in the deep deep south so if shit like that was happening all the time I would've heard about it. It's not like that type thing would go unnoticed.
I sense that @theoutflow may not be being completely honest.
 
"System of Militia discipline"

"Sense of their burthens"

But hey, he's saying that everyone should have firearms willy nilly amirite? Especially when he points out at the end that this indifference to regulatory action would eventually lead to contempt and disgust for the second amendment.

Damn Story was prescient.

Edit: Glad you finally referenced the primary source btw. Shame it's not saying what you think it's saying. Militias weren't private paramilitary organizations lmao.

Of course they weren't private organizations.

Part is speaking to the militia and part to the individual right. When he is speaking of overcoming tyranny you don't think he is referrencing the people (individuals)?

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable...


Do you not see the commas, and's periods, etc. Talking about the citizens individual rights and importance of the miltia.
 
Lesser known meetings = like AA or SA meetings... not all of them get spoken of, or heard of. They are smaller, non publicized. Spread through SM. Not KKK (like I could attend, haha)... just LESSER KNOWN (as in not in MSM, not in local news, just gatherings).

This is like inquiring about parties people have. Jesus Christ people, you do realize things happen outside of what you see? :D

Alcoholics Anonymous and San Antonio? Can you just say what you're talking about?
 
Of course they weren't private organizations.

Part is speaking to the militia and part to the individual right. When he is speaking of overcoming tyranny you don't think he is referrencing the people (individuals)?

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable...


Do you not see the commas, and's periods, etc. Talking about the citizens individual rights and importance of the miltia.

The "truth that seems so clear" is that a militia is a "strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers". He's literally talking about why a militia is a good idea, he's not addresssing "individual rights" at all.

This is especially obvious when he goes on to bemoan the people's lack of care for regulation and degradation of the purpose of the militia as a result.

Did YOU not read the entirety of the document?
 
I'm not saying it NEVER happens. But to act like its prevalent enough to cause concern seems crazy. Scared of a few outliers? I'm white in the deep deep south so if shit like that was happening all the time I would've heard about it. It's not like that type thing would go unnoticed.

Judging you by your avatar and your response... move along. You would've heard about it? Who the fuck are you? An undercover investigative journalist? Deep, deep South... lol. Your labels blind you.

I sense that @theoutflow may not be being completely honest.

Honest about what? This was simply stupid.

Alcoholics Anonymous and San Antonio? Can you just say what you're talking about?

You can't tie AA (like you did) to Alchololics Anonynous and Substance Abuse (the logical leap)? Can you just say you're obfuscating?
 
Citing Nunn v GA was a strategic move. You could just as easily have cited State v. Buzzard, which represented prevailing legal theory at the time (as shown in US v. Miller). But Scalia didn't, and why is that?

What made DC vs. Heller so nefarious is that up to that point, the collective right to owm firearms was tied to service within the militia. Now you couldn't restrict arms to infringe on militia readiness, but you could regulate them accordingly. Scalia took that militia requirement, separated it from the right to bear arms entirely, and applied it to individuals with no bearing on militia service. Then, to avoid destroying gun law, he applied a caveat that it didn't mean guns couldn't be regulated. If the amendment says "shall not be infringed", then why would it logically follow that straight line bans could be seen as constitutional?

But hey, it's all good. There's no precedent for DC vs Heller, and Mcdonald vs Chicago cites Heller extensively. A future activist court will rectify that in time. Or we'll just scrap the second entirely and make it a moot point.

Probably because Buzzard was about CCW, while Nunn was about banning handguns entirely in the state of GA? I mean it seems the most similar (identical) case to Heller does it not?

And at least you're honest about your intent to turn us into Mexico.
 
Judging you by your avatar and your response... move along. You would've heard about it? Who the fuck are you? An undercover investigative journalist? Deep, deep South... lol. Your labels blind you.



Honest about what? This was simply stupid.



You can't tie AA (like you did) to Alchololics Anonynous and Substance Abuse (the logical leap)? Can you just say you're obfuscating?
Actually, you're just being dishonest. Why should I believe you? Just because you say it makes it true? Can I not question your statements when they are obviously false? Keep peddling your lies to someone dumb enough to believe you.
 
Judging you by your avatar and your response... move along. You would've heard about it? Who the fuck are you? An undercover investigative journalist? Deep, deep South... lol. Your labels blind you.



Honest about what? This was simply stupid.



You can't tie AA (like you did) to Alchololics Anonynous and Substance Abuse (the logical leap)? Can you just say you're obfuscating?
About the south and your relationship too it. I don't believe you.
 
Probably because Buzzard was about CCW, while Nunn was about banning handguns entirely in the state of GA? I mean it seems the most similar (identical) case to Heller does it not?

And at least you're honest about your intent to turn us into Mexico.

Just pointing out where the tides are turning. I'm in favor of responsible gun ownership, but when gun owners refuse to do amything while mass shootings happen on a seemingly weekly basis, you can't get upset when people start going for the throat.

Am easy target is an activist case that overturned 200 years of legal precedent. A harder (but accessible) target is an archaic amendment that in the current day only serves as a bludgeon by activists to stop regulation in it's tracks. You might not like it, I might not like it, but the winds of change are blowing.
 
Actually, you're just being dishonest. Why should I believe you? Just because you say it makes it true? Can I not question your statements when they are obviously false? Keep peddling your lies to someone dumb enough to believe you.

How am I being dishonest? WTF, idiot.

You avoided answering anything or providing anything of substance. You admitted they exists, yet they're not "as prevalant." Quite subjective of you. Now you're attacking me because you've been emotionially triggered.

GFY you living, breathing stereotype. Go drink some Bud and drive your truck into a tree, mental midget. I mean, that's probably going to happen anyways with your mentally frail view of the world, along with some other bandwagon idiots ITT.
 
About the south and your relationship too it. I don't believe you.

I don't care what you believe. Why and how would I prove it to you? I could say you have an inappropriate relationship with your dog. Or your father. I think you're angry about what I've mentioned and now you're sticking your fingers in your ears.

PS- Noone, not even your parents, give a shit about what you believe. GTFO.
 
I think you have a grandiose talk online and a fragile ego IRL. You retort like one, bucko. ;)

You'd know. If you're dismissing the most heavily armed citizenry in the world, you're just naive. There's no way for the government to win that fight while maintaining their status as the good guys. Which would help the "rebels" or what have you.
 
How am I being dishonest? WTF, idiot.

You avoided answering anything or providing anything of substance. You admitted they exists, yet they're not "as prevalant." Quite subjective of you. Now you're attacking me because you've been emotionially triggered.

GFY you living, breathing stereotype. Go drink some Bud and drive your truck into a tree, mental midget. I mean, that's probably going to happen anyways with your mentally frail understandig of the world, along with some other bandwagon idiots ITT.
<Dany07>
Look at this guy lmao. I'm "attacking" you....wow you must be a fragile one. Look at that shit forreal lol. It's like the nicest post I've ever made.
 
Back
Top