Trumps wins NRA endorsement, blasts Clinton on gun stance at forum

[stabetha]

The US still had a small standing army in 1789, so it did have a military when the Bill of Rights came about. Seeing as you couldn't even get that simple fact right, why should anyone accept your opinion about the function of the 2nd Amendment?

- - - Updated - - -



Sounds like you just described yourself.

don't bother I showed him quotes from the people that wrote the constitution saying exactly what they meant and his answer was basically putting his fingers in his ears going "na na na na I can't hear you"'

[Gorgodeus]

mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə/
noun
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

Hint: There is no militia any longer. We have a gov't military now. Militias were civilians thrown into service, and to save money, provided their own guns. When is the last time you heard of a state calling up a militia? 18th century?

- - - Updated - - -

The US still had a small standing army in 1789, so it did have a military when the Bill of Rights came about. Seeing as you couldn't even get that simple fact right, why should anyone accept your opinion about the function of the 2nd Amendment?

And the US still had the possibility of needing a militia. That has not been the case for a long time.

- - - Updated - - -

don't bother I showed him quotes from the people that wrote the constitution saying exactly what they meant and his answer was basically putting his fingers in his ears going "na na na na I can't hear you"'

You did not show anything like you describe. The quotes were from people knowing that, at the time, there was a reason for militias to exist. There is no longer.

[akris15]

Hint: There is no militia any longer. We have a gov't military now. Militias were civilians thrown into service, and to save money, provided their own guns. When is the last time you heard of a state calling up a militia? 18th century?

- - - Updated - - -



And the US still had the possibility of needing a militia. That has not been the case for a long time.

Its a stretch but in modern times it would be similar to the governor calling in the national guard which was the evolution from militias.

[Gorgodeus]

Its a stretch but in modern times it would be similar to the governor calling in the national guard which was the evolution from militias.

The National Guard is gov't funded military, and is in no way, shape or form a militia.

[Kellhound]

Hint: There is no militia any longer. We have a gov't military now. Militias were civilians thrown into service, and to save money, provided their own guns. When is the last time you heard of a state calling up a militia? 18th century?

- - - Updated - - -



And the US still had the possibility of needing a militia. That has not been the case for a long time.

Once again you are wrong, there are state militias still, and they are still called into service. You really are not well versed in this subject.

You were wrong about a very simple historical fact yet want people to accept your interpretation of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

Well it makes sense. Now that Trump has decided he wants access to the GOP's funds for his presidential campaign...he's gonna have to tug on the same jimmies that they do. I do hope he remembers to work the balls.

[akris15]

The National Guard is gov't funded military, and is in no way, shape or form a militia.

Historically a militia has been defined as non professional fighters. Just because its funded by a government doesn't disqualify it from being considered a militia historically.

[Gorgodeus]

Once again you are wrong, there are state militias still, and they are still called into service. You really are not well versed in this subject.

You were wrong about a very simple historical fact yet want people to accept your interpretation of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

And these state miltias have little semblance to the old ones. They are state only and controlled by the individual state. The miltia the Constitution refers to is militias that were called up to defend the country. Stop trying to come up with BS trying to support an invalid interpretation that was only ruled the way it has been due to the political leanings of the SC at the time of the ruling.

- - - Updated - - -

Historically a militia has been defined as non professional fighters. Just because its funded by a government doesn't disqualify it from being considered a militia historically.

There currently is no "non-professional" group in the US that defends the country. Even the National Guard is trained militarily, and I do not think they supply their own weaponry.

[Kellhound]

And these state miltias have little semblance to the old ones. They are state only and controlled by the individual state. The miltia the Constitution refers to is militias that were called up to defend the country. Stop trying to come up with BS trying to support an invalid interpretation that was only ruled the way it has been due to the political leanings of the SC at the time of the ruling.

- - - Updated - - -



There currently is no "non-professional" group in the US that defends the country. Even the National Guard is trained militarily, and I do not think they supply their own weaponry.

Listen, I have proven you wrong twice, you have proven me wrong zero times. Why should anyone believe your view?

[Gorgodeus]

Listen, I have proven you wrong twice, you have proven me wrong zero times. Why should anyone believe your view?

You have proven nothing by comparing apples to oranges, other than your own misguided arrogance. Billy Bob has no need to worry about being called up to defend the country and having to bring his own weaponry. Keep trying and failing.

[Kellhound]

You have proven nothing by comparing apples to oranges, other than your own misguided arrogance. Billy Bob has no need to worry about being called up to defend the country and having to bring his own weaponry. Keep trying and failing.

I called you out on being wrong about the US having a standing army when the Bill of Rights was written and I called you out on being wrong concerning the existence of state militias. The arrogance here is yours, as is the failure.

[Gorgodeus]

I called you out on being wrong about the US having a standing army when the Bill of Rights was written and I called you out on being wrong concerning the existence of state militias. The arrogance here is yours, as is the failure.

Hint: The current state militias have fuck all to do with defending the country, so they have nothing to do with the discussion, even though you badly want them to be.

The standing army is also irrelevant when you consider the fact that should the need arise, guess who was called to help? The miltia.

Apples to oranges. Fail harder.

[Kellhound]

Hint: The current state militias have fuck all to do with defending the country, so they have nothing to do with the discussion, even though you badly want them to be.

The standing army is also irrelevant when you consider the fact that should the need arise, guess who was called to help? The miltia.

Apples to oranges. Fail harder.

"The mission of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF) is to maintain an organized, trained military force capable of timely and effective response to state emergencies, or, on other occasions deemed appropriate by the Governor, to provide military assistance to civil and military authorities in the preservation of life, property, and public safety." Such is the mission statement of the ASDF.

So you have gone from there being no standing army to the militias acting as a source of manpower, and you say I am the fail.....

[Milchshake]

Hey, if the NRA wants to tie itself to Trump... i mean go right ahead.

Anyways its a win win for the NR... oops I mean gun industry.

[Cthulhu 2020]

mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə/
noun
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

So does this mean that people can only own a gun if they are between the ages of 17 and 39, and those with disabilities cannot? Because those are the loosest requirements to join any branch of the military.

[Gorgodeus]

"The mission of the Alaska State Defense Force (ASDF) is to maintain an organized, trained military force capable of timely and effective response to state emergencies, or, on other occasions deemed appropriate by the Governor, to provide military assistance to civil and military authorities in the preservation of life, property, and public safety." Such is the mission statement of the ASDF.

So you have gone from there being no standing army to the militias acting as a source of manpower, and you say I am the fail.....

Thanks for proving my point that current militias are state controlled and used in-state only, and bear no resemblance to what the founders were speaking of.

[Kellhound]

Thanks for proving my point that current militias are state controlled and used in-state only, and bear no resemblance to what the founders were speaking of.

Acting as a trained military force to provide defense is nothing like what the founders though militias did

[Gorgodeus]

Acting as a trained military force to provide defense is nothing like what the founders though militias did

They are not used to defend the country, never have been, and never will be. They are in-state only. So no, nothing like the original militias, and what the founders were speaking of. Try again.

[Kellhound]

They are not used to defend the country, never have been, and never will be. They are in-state only. So no, nothing like the original militias, and what the founders were speaking of. Try again.

Yes, because defending a state doesnt defend the country.

[Paranoid Android]

It's really no different than the dems constantly claiming the pubs are going to repeal Roe v wade, just because they don't support abortion for religious reasons. Or Shrillary claiming that the pubs are executing some shadow war on woman and she is the champion of these women (well, except for Bill's women of course).

I don't support the pubs or dems (I believe them all to be liars and cheats on the take from lobbyists). I don't own a gun and nvere plan to, but I wouldn't repeal the second amendment. I would never have an abortion (I would carry it and give it up for adoption at the end), but I have no desire to repeal Roe v Wade (you want an abortion, that is all you).

Both parties are totally ridiculous in the things they say. It just shows you what craziness people would actually believe when they support one of these parties- it is some strange form of brain washing or something.

Difference between Roe v Wade and a Constitutional Amendment. Nice try doh.