Comments on: Militias, guns, yada, yada http://www.saysuncle.com/2007/12/03/militias_guns_yada_yada/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 19:22:47 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Cactus Jack http://www.saysuncle.com/2007/12/03/militias_guns_yada_yada/comment-page-1/#comment-191748 Cactus Jack Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:34:52 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/12/03/militias_guns_yada_yada/#comment-191748 "What is the purpose of the militia? The Constitution says it is "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." It is confusing, therefore, to conclude that the Second Amendment - with its explicit militia purpose - might somehow provide individuals the right to mount an armed insurrection against the very law and order that the militia was designed to defend. There is no Second Amendment right to treason" Y'know, I didnt even think about this until I saw that paragraph posted by Wormtongue Helmke but it seems like the anti's goal to disarm us is so that they can have their communist nanny state without true Americans being able to do anything about it. Which is exactly why the founding fathers created the 2nd ammendment, to prevent that from happening. HardCorps Says: December 3rd, 2007 at 11:28 am Reading helmke and other liberal posters on the HP makes me smirk; they seem to take the position that because the militia doesn’t exist in their mind, there is no right to personal ownership of firearms. That is a rather idiotic position to take on their part because they have no idea what that would entail if the militia was formed. Imagine, a group of all the able body, and minded, enforcing the Constitution. Able bodied and minded sure does rule out the libs dont it? You damn sure would'nt see any of those worthless culls in any militia. “What is the purpose of the militia? The Constitution says it is “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” It is confusing, therefore, to conclude that the Second Amendment – with its explicit militia purpose – might somehow provide individuals the right to mount an armed insurrection against the very law and order that the militia was designed to defend.

There is no Second Amendment right to treason”

Y’know, I didnt even think about this until I saw that paragraph posted by Wormtongue Helmke but it seems like the anti’s goal to disarm us is so that they can have their communist nanny state without true Americans being able to do anything about it. Which is exactly why the founding fathers created the 2nd ammendment, to prevent that from happening.

HardCorps Says:

December 3rd, 2007 at 11:28 am
Reading helmke and other liberal posters on the HP makes me smirk; they seem to take the position that because the militia doesn’t exist in their mind, there is no right to personal ownership of firearms.

That is a rather idiotic position to take on their part because they have no idea what that would entail if the militia was formed. Imagine, a group of all the able body, and minded, enforcing the Constitution.

Able bodied and minded sure does rule out the libs dont it? You damn sure would’nt see any of those worthless culls in any militia.

]]> By: HardCorps http://www.saysuncle.com/2007/12/03/militias_guns_yada_yada/comment-page-1/#comment-191731 HardCorps Mon, 03 Dec 2007 15:28:18 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2007/12/03/militias_guns_yada_yada/#comment-191731 Reading helmke and other liberal posters on the HP makes me smirk; they seem to take the position that because the militia doesn't exist in their mind, there is no right to personal ownership of firearms. That is a rather idiotic position to take on their part because they have no idea what that would entail if the militia was formed. Imagine, a group of all the able body, and minded, enforcing the Constitution. Just think of all the nasty laws which would be rendered obsolete - thanks for giving me something to fantasize at work about Paul! Reading helmke and other liberal posters on the HP makes me smirk; they seem to take the position that because the militia doesn’t exist in their mind, there is no right to personal ownership of firearms.

That is a rather idiotic position to take on their part because they have no idea what that would entail if the militia was formed. Imagine, a group of all the able body, and minded, enforcing the Constitution.

Just think of all the nasty laws which would be rendered obsolete – thanks for giving me something to fantasize at work about Paul!

]]>