Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

David got schooled


Lawdog Dago Dom

Recommended Posts

David Hogg and I have something in common... we both lived through a school shooting.

 

That's where the similarity ends.

 

Hogg is the Greta Thurnburg of anti-2A ideology.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Second Amendment says in part, "A well regulated Militia..."  So we need to look at Militia. 

According to The U.S. Code, Title 10 Part 1, Chapter 12, "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."

Many of us have aged out of the Militia by now, but at one time we were ALL the Militia, and those who fall into the description above ARE the Militia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Wallaby Jack, SASS #44062 said:

David Hogg ......... is he still around ?  :huh:



 Yeah with a free Harvard scholarship with a SAT of 1270 in a major they dont have . He's a Cling-on 
 

Can I get into Harvard with a 1200 SAT?
 
 
SAT exam is an entrance test to get into colleges and universities in the United States. To get admission to top colleges like Harvard, MIT, and Stanford, one needs to score at least 1500. 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reality is that the Bill of Rights applies to the government.  It is a list of restrictions on the federal, and now most of it has been applied to the states, of things which it may not do. It may not set up a state religion or imped our free exercise of our chosen faith or sect.  It may not limit our speech.  It may not prevent us from printing almost anything we want. And so on.

The Preamble to the Bill of Rights:

 

Quote

The First 10 Amendments to the

Constitution as Ratified by the States

December 15, 1791

Preamble

Congress OF THE United States

begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday

the Fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

 

That, especially the word "further" makes plain that the Constitution as a whole is to delineate and restrict the powers of the government.  Further, In WV Board of Education v. Barnette, the US Supreme Court said,
 

Quote

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

: Robert H. Jackson, US Supreme Court Justice West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

So everything enumerated in the Bill of Rights should be off the political table.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

If the 2nd only applies to militias then the first must only apply to the press so David Hogg can just shut the f*** up, no?

 

A guy once tried to tell me that the 2nd didn't apply to ammunition, only the firearm.  I said that then the 1st doesn't apply to ink and type, only the press, and to only hand set, muscle powered presses at that.  He didn't care for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm waiting for the headline "David Hogg arrested, convicted and sent to jail" or "Who the hell is a David Hogg"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Context is important. 
 

The 2nd Amendment came only a few years after Shays’ Rebellion, in which a ‘well-regulated’ state militia violently ended a tax rebellion of veterans and farmers. 
 

Arguably, the intent of the rebel group at the time of the encounter with militia troops was not to fight, but to get out of the Massachusetts winter cold. Nevertheless, militia troops opened fire, ending the protests. 
 

It had to be apparent to the Framers that; a) an organized and trained (hence, ‘well-regulated) militia was need in the face of native threats to settlers, hostile nations on our borders, and the potential for organized banditry, but that; b) placing limitations on a government to protect individual liberty was futile, without ensuring ‘the People’ had a means by which to stand up to a government that could resort to a militia’s force if it became tyrannical. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You need an armed populace to be able to form the militia. When the 2nd was written the phrase "well regulated"  meant well supplied and working as expected, properly calibrated. At that time it didn't refer to having rules and laws as the connotation might be today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.