If those in control of these banks/ financial institutions want to act politically, their stockholders and clients can also act politically. Molon Po LaBear!
Notice the article describes the NRA’s actions as an “attack” in an effort to invoke sympathy, while the credit card companies simply placed “restrictions” in the name of safety. The credit card companies “attacked” perfectly legal businesses in compliance with federal/state/local laws, all to gain political favor.
Gosh, all of these gun advocates are sounding like a bunch of snowflakes. Just go to a different bank if you don’t like the policies these banks are practicing. Pretty simple solution.
“Snowflakes”. Man, you are creative, insightful, useful.
For snowflake reasons, the banks that are choosing not to lend to the NRA are doing so very publicly to
gain sympathy from the simpletons in the gun hating crowd. If banks did this to Black Lives Matter or MSNBC, oh the outrage. But conservatives generally abhore trying to damage any organization for political reasons, so long as conservatives are being forced to pay taxes for that cause or alter behavior because of politics.
So, if lefty politics are going to be forced into every avenue of corporate babble, let those corporations live with the political consequences when the right fights back legally.
So being called a “snowflake” got your panties in a bunch? The horror…
The banks are choosing this direction and it seems the NRA is the group being public to try and draw people to their cause. But, as so many people get reminded on this site, it is a free, capitalist country so take your business elsewhere. Isn’t that the option you would have given to a gay couple trying to have a cake made for their ceremony and were outraged when they sued to be treated fairly?
“Conservatives generally abhor trying to damage any organization for political reasons.. ” Were you laughing when you wrote this? What is the NRA and its minions trying to do based on this article alone?
“Lefty politics are going to be forced into every avenue…” versus “righty politics” being forced into our everyday lives based on religion, antiquated/outdated ideals and being close minded.
I’ll take being a snowflake versus being inbred.
Good point! If we can force a baker to cater a gay wedding, why let a bank refuse to do business with a legitimate American organization they disagree with politically?
So, you are against the Gay marriage mandate? Or not?
The school shooting in IL makes a strong case for the NRA and putting armed guards in schools. The shooting in TX also makes the same case even stronger. We need armed personnel in every school.
Guns are not the problem. The problem is the person pulling the trigger. Don’t blame Ford for the DUI fatality. You blame the driver.
So, the banks made their decision. The NRA has responded. There are other banks out to lend them the money.
How is the NRA in a ‘Death Spiral of its own’ when membership grows every time a Socialist / Communist politician makes a ‘gun grab’? You’ve already seen which ‘lobby’ is more powerful. People own guns, banks do not. People vote. Banks do not. Get it?
Snowflakes???? Really-thats all you got?
NRA can mobilize its members and 2nd amendment followers to advocate for or boycott groups who threaten our freedoms so @Cap’t Planet its already happening.
Every action like what the banks, Lockton, Chubb and NYDFS tends to be divisive to a nation which needs to come together on how important the 2nd amendment really is.
This is ironic when you consider that we fought our revolution against a despotic unresponsive government who had no problem trying to enforce its will against defenseless colonists.
The Brits and Euro monarchies in general outlawed their own common citizens from owning guns and now they are helpless sheep.
By God that’ll never happen to us as long as we stay armed.
Good Bless America
No matter what weapons you own, you can’t defeat the U.S. government and its blackhawk helicopters, tanks, missiles, etc. If you think the second amendment is guarding you from government tyranny, you are a not-so-bright snowflake as well.
Good job taking the post out of context. The point was that if the NRA and all anti-government gun owners went against the U.S. military, they would lose.
That is why there has yet to be a revolution and will not likely be one. Unless you get other countries and their militaries to support the revolution. Good luck with that.
The Red Dawn mentality cracks me up. I get it, you are talking about against our own gov’t and not the Ruskies, but equally if not more so hilarious. Yeah, you and your buddies are going to be able to stand against the strongest military force in the world. Wow!
May 21, 2018 at 1:42 pm
Sally Anne Fannymaker says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20
10
The NRA is such a bunch of snowflakes. “Oh no, people don’t like us!”
Grow a pair and find alternate banks rather than whining.
That’s what we say to Planned Parenthood all the time: Grow a pair and go find your own funding without forcing taxpayers to feed you. After all, it is all about “women’s health”, and “choice”.
(Just don’t say the “a” word)
Planned parenthood also does not use any tax payer money for abortions (I assume you were referencing since you were talking about choice). You should research the company more to figure out what they actually do. I find it helpful before making comparisons.
Great, send us a link to their financials since you have it handy. I’d like to review the entire report like I would for any account. I’d especially like to review the notes portion in the back. Thank you in advance for providing this link.
While yes planned parenthood does make money off of abortions, these are normally through paying upfront the cost. The only time when your taxpayer money would be used is for incest and rape. I am an honest person and I dig into the data instead of just spouting off points that are out of context. Please do more research cherry-picking data to misleading others. A
The NRA already grew many pairs when the first efforts to grab guns occurred during the Obama era. Membership soared (many new pairs!). The revitalized and energized NRA stood up to Obama and Congress, and the latter ‘pair’ backed down because they didn’t have a pair betwixt them.
You who support the cake shop/flower shop owners that don’t want to provide services to the LGBTQ community, should also support the banks choice not to provide services to the NRA.
Correct! But I am also in favor of the NRA being able to lobby against banks, in the same way the Planned Parenthood lobbies for millions of tax dollars.
We are supporting one side; those who choose liberty to do as they wish, and not those who choose to restrict Constitutional rights of those who they oppose. No one on the right restricts the rights of those to live their lives as they wish. That’s a distinction you failed to grasp in your suggestion.
Sally, dear Sally.
You’re quite the negative Nelly…so possibly a name change might be appropriate for future posts?
The US Gov’t has nukes too and to your point, there isn’t too much of a defense for the might of the US Gov’t. Its lucky for us that the US Military is prohibited from any domestic actions under Posse Comitatus. Further, as a an officer vet of the US Navy, part of our obligation and training is that strict prohibition and our militiaries desire to avoid any and all domestic entanglements
The broader concern is how the domestic police force changed from peace officers to the pseudo military group that they have become over the last several decades and the rights which have been stripped from us in those decades following Vietnam.
There are few things despots and their like fear more then an informed and armed citizenry and we will keep our right to bear arms.
You’re not providing any substantive arguments to support your claims. Please make a better effort in the future by stating reasons someone isn’t tethered to reality. You aren’t tethered to a discipline of logical constructs to support your assertions.
I feel that both sides use personal insults when their arguments fall weak. I will even go further as to say humans do that frequently. The issue is seeing things right vs. left rather than attempting to understand the other side on both sides of the spectrum.
… or attempts to censor the opposing views rather than argue without substantive support or logical constructs. Hence, multiple down votes here, now, and BOTTED down-voting previously.
…says the guy who says things like:
APRIL 9, 2018 AT 2:28 PM
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
2
Sounds like you don’t have any original thoughts
MARCH 23, 2018 AT 9:39 AM
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
It’s another IJ story to bring out the George Sore-ass trolls
MARCH 26, 2018 AT 11:08 AM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Don’t bother reading any of my posts. You wouldn’t understand them. Stick to Libitteral websites.
MARCH 26, 2018 AT 9:16 PM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
Accept responsibility for your actions, whiner.
I almost wish I hadn’t switched all my accounts to Credit Unions years ago so that I could do it now.
I can’t say that I am upset. Both Bank of America, and Citigroup are unethical banks that treat their customers like garbage. It actually makes me happy to know that only leftists will be using them now.
People need to stop comparing this to the bakery. It is apples and oranges.
While I personally believe the owners of the bakery should be able to choose with whom they should do business there are 2 significant differences.
1. Sexual orientation is a protected class against discrimination. Whether or not you think it should be is a separate discussion.
2. One is a legal decision, the other is civil. The government has made no decision regarding the banks’ decision with whom to do business.
To all anti gunners the 2nd amendment is quite clear in it’s final statement. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That said if you desire to amend the constitution feel free to attempt to . But for the time being that is the language. Those who argue that nukes and mini guns are illegal are correct, but they remain that way for good reason the reasonable gun owner can see the value in these prohibitions and have allowed this to remain so, I for one feel that the National Firearms Act of 1934 although certainly reasonable is in violation of the protection of freedom provided in the second amendment. Why has this not been fought more strongly is due to the fact that although some will scream that the NRA are killers they are not they are an organization of responsible gun owners who are more than willing to give up some rights for the good of the whole. Unfortunately history has shown us that the far left are no more reasonable than the far right and would take away all rights to own weapons if they could have their way.
the framers were pretty focused on using unambiguous words wherever possible to ensure their intent wasn’t misconstrued. if their intent was that “everyone should have guns”, they would have written everyone.
And if their intent was for only the government to have guns – since the liberal definition of “militia” is one connected to a government entity – the founders would have said only the government can have guns.
Instead, they said “militia”. Which was the loose organization of private citizens that fought the British.
May 24, 2018 at 9:06 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
Craig,
Nobody knows their intent, but them. We can only interpret. If you choose to interpret “well regulated” as a free-for-all, that is your choice. I prefer an analytical interpretation.
I cannot speak to what Liberals define militia, but, in my opinion, it does not need to be the government. However, there should be a defined structure with rules.
May 24, 2018 at 9:03 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
Any time someone starts with, “In context..” , they do not have substance to debate.
Well regulated militias include:
1. Military
2. National Guard
3. Police
4. Trained security guards
5. Local militias with a defined structure and rules
6. Any similar organization not mentioned above.
Not well regulated militias:
1.Individuals, unless they are members of one of the above.
While I do support any law abiding, adult citizen to keep and bear arms as part of my personal belief in freedom and liberty, we are not allowed to pick and choose how we interpret clear language or which parts of the Constitution we support.
As others have stated, you missed the definition of ‘well-regulated militia’ when the US Constitution was taught in your school. Perhaps liberal teachers never taught you about your Constitutional Rights and Amendments thereto?
It is due to quotes attributed to George Mason and Thomas Jefferson
“…to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
Thomas Jefferson of Virginia:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
So, your proof is to quote people who did not even provide the language of the Amendment?
“James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard.”
Ron, Have you had the chance to read federalist paper 46, me thinks that James Madison feels differently than you limited interpretation sir.
To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.
This statement seems to sum up Mr. Madison’s feelings on the subject of private ownership of firearms, Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
Were it not sir that private citizens were expected to stomp down a tyrannical federal government from overstepping it’s bounds why would the prior statements have been made in the federalist papers?
Further quotes attributed to Madison
Quotes on the Second Amendment:
“The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)
“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country….” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (The Federalist, No. 46)
“It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it.” (The Federalist, No. 46)
Time and time again in reviewing the historical record of this great country the founders seem to always stand on the right of men to self defense.
That’s cool of you, FFA. I hope you are able to pass it along and I sincerely pray it helps Agent’s wife. We have our differences, of course. But, it has to be an awful situation for Agent, his wife, family, and friends. I certainly hope they can be graced with some relief.
If those in control of these banks/ financial institutions want to act politically, their stockholders and clients can also act politically. Molon Po LaBear!
Notice the article describes the NRA’s actions as an “attack” in an effort to invoke sympathy, while the credit card companies simply placed “restrictions” in the name of safety. The credit card companies “attacked” perfectly legal businesses in compliance with federal/state/local laws, all to gain political favor.
How is it that large corporations can make a moral decision of who they will work with but a small business cannot?
Gosh, all of these gun advocates are sounding like a bunch of snowflakes. Just go to a different bank if you don’t like the policies these banks are practicing. Pretty simple solution.
“Snowflakes”. Man, you are creative, insightful, useful.
For snowflake reasons, the banks that are choosing not to lend to the NRA are doing so very publicly to
gain sympathy from the simpletons in the gun hating crowd. If banks did this to Black Lives Matter or MSNBC, oh the outrage. But conservatives generally abhore trying to damage any organization for political reasons, so long as conservatives are being forced to pay taxes for that cause or alter behavior because of politics.
So, if lefty politics are going to be forced into every avenue of corporate babble, let those corporations live with the political consequences when the right fights back legally.
Now, who’s the Snowflake?
So being called a “snowflake” got your panties in a bunch? The horror…
The banks are choosing this direction and it seems the NRA is the group being public to try and draw people to their cause. But, as so many people get reminded on this site, it is a free, capitalist country so take your business elsewhere. Isn’t that the option you would have given to a gay couple trying to have a cake made for their ceremony and were outraged when they sued to be treated fairly?
“Conservatives generally abhor trying to damage any organization for political reasons.. ” Were you laughing when you wrote this? What is the NRA and its minions trying to do based on this article alone?
“Lefty politics are going to be forced into every avenue…” versus “righty politics” being forced into our everyday lives based on religion, antiquated/outdated ideals and being close minded.
I’ll take being a snowflake versus being inbred.
Oh snap! Nice one, companyman.
Good point! If we can force a baker to cater a gay wedding, why let a bank refuse to do business with a legitimate American organization they disagree with politically?
So, you are against the Gay marriage mandate? Or not?
Last I checked, being a gun owner is not a protected class.
MAY 19, 2018 AT 1:39 PM
Craig Cornell says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
Please, no more boring stories. I don’t have time.
The NRA is in a death spiral of its own making. They will find out which lobby is more powerful – banks or gun nutters.
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Ahhh, so it depends on who is the well regulated militia?
The school shooting in IL makes a strong case for the NRA and putting armed guards in schools. The shooting in TX also makes the same case even stronger. We need armed personnel in every school.
Guns are not the problem. The problem is the person pulling the trigger. Don’t blame Ford for the DUI fatality. You blame the driver.
So, the banks made their decision. The NRA has responded. There are other banks out to lend them the money.
Seriously- who’s got their panties in a bunch over background checks? Did I hear you say guns don’t kill, people kill??
Not me… My Panties are just fine. I have things within the scope of my control to worry about.
How is the NRA in a ‘Death Spiral of its own’ when membership grows every time a Socialist / Communist politician makes a ‘gun grab’? You’ve already seen which ‘lobby’ is more powerful. People own guns, banks do not. People vote. Banks do not. Get it?
Snowflakes???? Really-thats all you got?
NRA can mobilize its members and 2nd amendment followers to advocate for or boycott groups who threaten our freedoms so @Cap’t Planet its already happening.
Every action like what the banks, Lockton, Chubb and NYDFS tends to be divisive to a nation which needs to come together on how important the 2nd amendment really is.
This is ironic when you consider that we fought our revolution against a despotic unresponsive government who had no problem trying to enforce its will against defenseless colonists.
The Brits and Euro monarchies in general outlawed their own common citizens from owning guns and now they are helpless sheep.
By God that’ll never happen to us as long as we stay armed.
Good Bless America
You’re a special snowflake, too.
No matter what weapons you own, you can’t defeat the U.S. government and its blackhawk helicopters, tanks, missiles, etc. If you think the second amendment is guarding you from government tyranny, you are a not-so-bright snowflake as well.
Tell that to the people in Iran. There is routine talk of a revolution this year. But they have no guns.
And the Mullahs have all those special weapons you mention.
You on the side of the Mullahs are you?
Good job taking the post out of context. The point was that if the NRA and all anti-government gun owners went against the U.S. military, they would lose.
That is why there has yet to be a revolution and will not likely be one. Unless you get other countries and their militaries to support the revolution. Good luck with that.
WOLVERINES!!!!!!
The Red Dawn mentality cracks me up. I get it, you are talking about against our own gov’t and not the Ruskies, but equally if not more so hilarious. Yeah, you and your buddies are going to be able to stand against the strongest military force in the world. Wow!
The NRA is such a bunch of snowflakes. “Oh no, people don’t like us!”
Grow a pair and find alternate banks rather than whining.
That’s what we say to Planned Parenthood all the time: Grow a pair and go find your own funding without forcing taxpayers to feed you. After all, it is all about “women’s health”, and “choice”.
(Just don’t say the “a” word)
“Oh No, People Don’t Like Us”.
You’re not very good at this game.
Planned parenthood also does not use any tax payer money for abortions (I assume you were referencing since you were talking about choice). You should research the company more to figure out what they actually do. I find it helpful before making comparisons.
I apologize for adding to this unless the pregnancy is caused by rape or incest.
Great, send us a link to their financials since you have it handy. I’d like to review the entire report like I would for any account. I’d especially like to review the notes portion in the back. Thank you in advance for providing this link.
While yes planned parenthood does make money off of abortions, these are normally through paying upfront the cost. The only time when your taxpayer money would be used is for incest and rape. I am an honest person and I dig into the data instead of just spouting off points that are out of context. Please do more research cherry-picking data to misleading others. A
The NRA already grew many pairs when the first efforts to grab guns occurred during the Obama era. Membership soared (many new pairs!). The revitalized and energized NRA stood up to Obama and Congress, and the latter ‘pair’ backed down because they didn’t have a pair betwixt them.
You who support the cake shop/flower shop owners that don’t want to provide services to the LGBTQ community, should also support the banks choice not to provide services to the NRA.
Correct! But I am also in favor of the NRA being able to lobby against banks, in the same way the Planned Parenthood lobbies for millions of tax dollars.
You with me?
So, do you support all special interests and their lobbying efforts, or just those with whom you agree?
Re-read what I wrote. ” . . . in the same way . . .”
We are supporting one side; those who choose liberty to do as they wish, and not those who choose to restrict Constitutional rights of those who they oppose. No one on the right restricts the rights of those to live their lives as they wish. That’s a distinction you failed to grasp in your suggestion.
Sally, dear Sally.
You’re quite the negative Nelly…so possibly a name change might be appropriate for future posts?
The US Gov’t has nukes too and to your point, there isn’t too much of a defense for the might of the US Gov’t. Its lucky for us that the US Military is prohibited from any domestic actions under Posse Comitatus. Further, as a an officer vet of the US Navy, part of our obligation and training is that strict prohibition and our militiaries desire to avoid any and all domestic entanglements
The broader concern is how the domestic police force changed from peace officers to the pseudo military group that they have become over the last several decades and the rights which have been stripped from us in those decades following Vietnam.
There are few things despots and their like fear more then an informed and armed citizenry and we will keep our right to bear arms.
You’re not tethered to reality.
You’re not providing any substantive arguments to support your claims. Please make a better effort in the future by stating reasons someone isn’t tethered to reality. You aren’t tethered to a discipline of logical constructs to support your assertions.
Ibeg to differ on both accounts. The left insults when their arguments fail.
I feel that both sides use personal insults when their arguments fall weak. I will even go further as to say humans do that frequently. The issue is seeing things right vs. left rather than attempting to understand the other side on both sides of the spectrum.
… or attempts to censor the opposing views rather than argue without substantive support or logical constructs. Hence, multiple down votes here, now, and BOTTED down-voting previously.
‘argue with’, not ‘argue without’. Bear culpa.
…says the guy who says things like:
APRIL 9, 2018 AT 2:28 PM
Tax Cuts 4 PolaRich Bears says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
2
Sounds like you don’t have any original thoughts
MARCH 23, 2018 AT 9:39 AM
DNCs Coll(F)usion GPShip Strzok an IceberGowdy says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
1
It’s another IJ story to bring out the George Sore-ass trolls
MARCH 26, 2018 AT 11:08 AM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
0
0
Don’t bother reading any of my posts. You wouldn’t understand them. Stick to Libitteral websites.
MARCH 26, 2018 AT 9:16 PM
PolarBeaRepeal says:
LIKE OR DISLIKE:
1
0
Accept responsibility for your actions, whiner.
I almost wish I hadn’t switched all my accounts to Credit Unions years ago so that I could do it now.
I can’t say that I am upset. Both Bank of America, and Citigroup are unethical banks that treat their customers like garbage. It actually makes me happy to know that only leftists will be using them now.
People need to stop comparing this to the bakery. It is apples and oranges.
While I personally believe the owners of the bakery should be able to choose with whom they should do business there are 2 significant differences.
1. Sexual orientation is a protected class against discrimination. Whether or not you think it should be is a separate discussion.
2. One is a legal decision, the other is civil. The government has made no decision regarding the banks’ decision with whom to do business.
To all anti gunners the 2nd amendment is quite clear in it’s final statement. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That said if you desire to amend the constitution feel free to attempt to . But for the time being that is the language. Those who argue that nukes and mini guns are illegal are correct, but they remain that way for good reason the reasonable gun owner can see the value in these prohibitions and have allowed this to remain so, I for one feel that the National Firearms Act of 1934 although certainly reasonable is in violation of the protection of freedom provided in the second amendment. Why has this not been fought more strongly is due to the fact that although some will scream that the NRA are killers they are not they are an organization of responsible gun owners who are more than willing to give up some rights for the good of the whole. Unfortunately history has shown us that the far left are no more reasonable than the far right and would take away all rights to own weapons if they could have their way.
mrbob,
The first part of the 2nd Amendment is also clear, “A well regulated militia…”. Why do people overlook that part?
In context, a “well regulated militia meant” everybody. If you could fire a weapon, you were part of The Militia.
the framers were pretty focused on using unambiguous words wherever possible to ensure their intent wasn’t misconstrued. if their intent was that “everyone should have guns”, they would have written everyone.
And if their intent was for only the government to have guns – since the liberal definition of “militia” is one connected to a government entity – the founders would have said only the government can have guns.
Instead, they said “militia”. Which was the loose organization of private citizens that fought the British.
Craig,
Nobody knows their intent, but them. We can only interpret. If you choose to interpret “well regulated” as a free-for-all, that is your choice. I prefer an analytical interpretation.
I cannot speak to what Liberals define militia, but, in my opinion, it does not need to be the government. However, there should be a defined structure with rules.
Any time someone starts with, “In context..” , they do not have substance to debate.
Well regulated militias include:
1. Military
2. National Guard
3. Police
4. Trained security guards
5. Local militias with a defined structure and rules
6. Any similar organization not mentioned above.
Not well regulated militias:
1.Individuals, unless they are members of one of the above.
While I do support any law abiding, adult citizen to keep and bear arms as part of my personal belief in freedom and liberty, we are not allowed to pick and choose how we interpret clear language or which parts of the Constitution we support.
As others have stated, you missed the definition of ‘well-regulated militia’ when the US Constitution was taught in your school. Perhaps liberal teachers never taught you about your Constitutional Rights and Amendments thereto?
It is due to quotes attributed to George Mason and Thomas Jefferson
“…to disarm the people ― that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380)
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.” (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
Thomas Jefferson of Virginia:
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” — Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” — Jefferson’s “Commonplace Book,” 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/g_mason.htm
So, your proof is to quote people who did not even provide the language of the Amendment?
“James Madison originally proposed the Second Amendment shortly after the Constitution was officially ratified as a way to provide more power to state militias, which today are considered the National Guard.”
https://www.livescience.com/26485-second-amendment.html
Ron, Have you had the chance to read federalist paper 46, me thinks that James Madison feels differently than you limited interpretation sir.
To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.
This statement seems to sum up Mr. Madison’s feelings on the subject of private ownership of firearms, Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
Were it not sir that private citizens were expected to stomp down a tyrannical federal government from overstepping it’s bounds why would the prior statements have been made in the federalist papers?
Further quotes attributed to Madison
Quotes on the Second Amendment:
“The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (James Madison of Virginia, The Federalist, No. 46)
“The right of the people to keep and bear…arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country….” (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
“Americans have the right and advantage of being armed ― unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (The Federalist, No. 46 at 243- 244)
“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” (The Federalist, No. 46)
“It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it.” (The Federalist, No. 46)
Time and time again in reviewing the historical record of this great country the founders seem to always stand on the right of men to self defense.
http://www.collegehumor.com/video/40002998/the-new-face-of-the-nra
Agent, you around today? New Doc with new info that pertains to your wife I want to share.
That’s cool of you, FFA. I hope you are able to pass it along and I sincerely pray it helps Agent’s wife. We have our differences, of course. But, it has to be an awful situation for Agent, his wife, family, and friends. I certainly hope they can be graced with some relief.