...& this is what happens when people ignore the wishes of Yankees...

Eye is rejoycing in death, what a set of values methinks.

---

These people were United States citizens living under the Second Amendment with access to firearms, etc.:



Doesn't seem to have made a difference. Tyranny has much larger and deadlier weapons (and better defenses) than citizens are allowed, or can afford.

---

How lame can 1 be?

Oliver North, incoming NRA chief, blames school shootings on ‘culture of violence’.

But what do you expect from an ex-arms dealer and terrorist supporter.

Those that can't understand that "guns" play a very huge role in that "culture of violence" are even more stupider than I thought.

These people were United States citizens living under the Second Amendment with access to firearms, etc.:


Doesn't seem to have made a difference. Tyranny has much larger and deadlier weapons (and better defenses) than citizens are allowed, or can afford.

And your lot never had a moment of regret over YOUR policies towards your ORIGINAL citizens.
Canadian Government Apologizes For Abuse of Indigenous People
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/11/AR2008061100419.html

Don't throw stones in a glass house.

Can you say "supercilious"?

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Further evidence that access to guns is too easy to those at least one can short of a six pack.

Probably another "incel"

Warm; Cozy; Secure BLANKeee DEM/Libs/LEFTists Want Me In.

NO THANKs

I'd Rather DODGE F**King Bullets.

COMFY and LULL to OBEDIENCE Yap

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

Oh

---

Speaking as someone who has dodged bullets, F U and the horse you rode in on.

Warm; Cozy; Secure BLANKeee DEM/Libs/LEFTists Want Me In.
NO THANKs
I'd Rather DODGE F**King Bullets.
COMFY and LULL to OBEDIENCE Yap

Dodging Bullets
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuWx7DBuT0A
One shot, one kill
To save humanity, it's a done deal
To save my family from a strange calamity
Man, this ain't insanity, this is unreal
Yap.
Well in movies/computer games perhaps...

And your lot never had a moment of regret over YOUR policies towards your ORIGINAL citizens.

Are you a mind-reader? I think you must think you are. I don't know you can possibly pretend to know what others think or feel.

We also don't have a "Second Amendment" that we pretend would have prevented these abuses, either. Personally, I think I would have agreed strongly with the native Canadians if they had taken up arms against the government trying to take their children from them, but you didn't bother asking.

---

We also don't have a "Second Amendment" that we pretend would have prevented these abuses, either.

I am truly sorry for you.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

I am truly sorry for you.

Why? We can still buy firearms.... defensive ones.

Edit: I also note that you have not addressed the disconnect in your argument. You claim that the Jews were able to be taken to prison camps because they had no access to firearms. But the Americans of Japanese ancestry were also taken to internment camps, and yet did have a right to own firearms. This shows that your argument that firearm ownership will prevent this is incorrect. How can this be explained?

Whatever did or did not happen in Canada has no bearing or relevance.

---

Canadian Government Apologizes For Abuse of Indigenous People

Something the US Government still has failed to do.
Perhaps you are in a service area and can learn
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nations_Experience

I am truly sorry for you.

Why? We can still buy firearms.... defensive ones.

Edit: I also note that you have not addressed the disconnect in your argument. You claim that the Jews were able to be taken to prison camps because they had no access to firearms. But the Americans of Japanese ancestry were also taken to internment camps, and yet did have a right to own firearms. This shows that your argument that firearm ownership will prevent this is incorrect. How can this be explained?

Whatever did or did not happen in Canada has no bearing or relevance.

What is relevant about an admitted mistake and black mark that we have apologized for enough? There is a difference between internment of an ethnic group when attacked by their homeland for the duration of the conflict and wholesale extermination of an ethnic group in an attempted genocide. The fear of Japanese Americans was irrational and demonstrated on 9/11/2001 we learned from that error.

I brought up the indigenous people issue as example that no one is without past sin.

And the fact remains it has no bearing on the existence and continued existence of the 2nd Amendment and the right to express support for that position by the 1st Amendment.

These are OUR laws and if The People wish, by a vote of 2/3 of the States comprised of The People, to change or rescind those laws they will change.

The odds have it with at least 100 million legal gun owners that are supporters of both those laws neither will be overturned.

In answer, did it make a difference when the Japanese were interred, no. The point made by the boxcar meme is not that gun ownership could totally prevent a 'round up' of citizens by a determined military force, the point is it would be extremely costly to consider by any would be despot '...foreign or domestic.....' and has worked successfully, with one bloody exception, for nearly 250 years.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

The second doesn't have to be overturned, it just has to be enforced correctly. Sorry SCOTUS but your present interpretation is wrong. The term "to bare arms" is a military term and has no use in a civilian setting. It would only have been recognised as such by Founding Fathers in the 18th century.

So therefore the rights to firearms only applies if you belong to the Militia. As there is no requirement for a militia these days because you now have an Army, the right "to bare arms" is obselete.

The second doesn't have to be overturned, it just has to be enforced correctly. Sorry SCOTUS but your present interpretation is wrong. The term "to bare arms" is a military term and has no use in a civilian setting. It would only have been recognised as such by Founding Fathers in the 18th century.

So therefore the rights to firearms only applies if you belong to the Militia. As there is no requirement for a militia these days because you now have an Army, the right "to bare arms" is obselete.

The other way to solve this is for the 50 Governors to create a State Militia and have it open to a small number of people so only those people can bare arms.

The second doesn't have to be overturned, it just has to be enforced correctly. Sorry SCOTUS but your present interpretation is wrong. The term "to bare arms" is a military term and has no use in a civilian setting. It would only have been recognised as such by Founding Fathers in the 18th century.

So therefore the rights to firearms only applies if you belong to the Militia. As there is no requirement for a militia these days because you now have an Army, the right "to bare arms" is obselete.

Just how screwed up is your reasoning here? Totally.

Even IF SCOTUS is totally wrong when it said the right to keep/bear arms does not depend on militia status (which it is not), that does not eliminate very many people. You seem to have no idea about the current status/size of the various State Militias in the USA.

OK, let us quote US Federal Law on the subject...

10 U.S.C.

United States Code
Title 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA
Sec. 311 - Militia: composition and classes

§311. 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.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, §1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

Sec 313 of Title 32 U.S.C. just extends the upper age limit for the militia to 64 if the person has been in the regular army/navy/marine corps/air force...

But, even the most basic number (men 17-45) is around 59 million people right there....

And YES... We STILL have and use State Militias, in a very significant way.

The 'organized militia' (National Guard/Naval Militia) make up between 1/4th and 1/3rd of our total military strength and have been heavily used in the various military actions we have been in over the last 55 to 60 years.

And be glad that SCOTUS has ruled it to be an individual right, and not restricted it to militia only, because their decision allows some hope of regulating what people have... if it was militia only, you would have somewhere well over 50 million people demanding full military weapons (M16s, etc.).

---

https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.

Major you have earned an Oh

---

plus a yawn

The second doesn't have to be overturned, it just has to be enforced correctly. Sorry SCOTUS but your present interpretation is wrong.

Sorry Sirius, but your understanding is wrong, in 2 ways not covered by Major Kong's usual concise synopsis.

1) It doesn't matter what you think about SCOTUS' ruling, as the supreme law interpretation and enforcement branch of the US Government, what they rule IS LAW. PERIOD.

2) You disregard the portion of the 2nd Amendment that states clearly and firmly "...SHALL NOT be infringed........"

According to Merriam Webster...............
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infringe
"Infringe : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another"

"arms : a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm"

And Collins.............
https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bear-arms
"bear arms in American
1. to carry or be equipped with weapons
2. to serve as a combatant in the armed forces"

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>