Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
I just want to make sure I clarify here.
You believe that the term Militia should be applied today as what the term meant at the time? Because that’s exactly as it is written in the Constitution’s 2nd Amendment?
“who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States ”
Interesting . That’s a pretty loose criteria .
I've read this 1,000 times but my dumb brain cant figure it out
I read this as, Militia is Males 17-45, and females that are part of the national guard
Wouldn't this mean that to own a gun, you must fit in the criteria above?
Bullshit, boy.
Play your little linky link games with someone else.
Man your ass up and tell me about this "agenda" you were so mouthy about earlier.
The Shop
Free shipping: VITALMX
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
Rocket Propelled Grenade …? At the corner store?
Reminds me of a billboard that I saw years ago in Arizona along I-10.
Fireworks, ammo, and ordinance.
Those were the days.
The US Code was written in 1926. It does not supersede the plain language of the 2nd amendment.
Personally I am glad that the Supreme Court has, for now, asserted that the right to keep and bear arms is a personal one. However, I do think that that the language of the Second Amendment leaves a lot of wiggle room to argue either way. I wish that we could clarify it better because if you ignore the first 4 words then mutt is correct; any and all laws that may impede anyone from a weapon should be considered unconstitutional.
As for the first 4 words, this seems to be an exception to the 'originalist' arguments for many. To be fair and consistent, the best place to look to find out what was meant by 'militia' is probably The Federalist Paper 29: Concerning the Militia. Even using that there are several different ways that the militia can be interpreted also..........
The Avalon Project : Federalist No 29 (yale.edu)
Not sure what you mean, Nothing to clarify, the original meaning of Militia? It is what the meaning of the 2nd amendment intended when it was written, not what someone redefines it to mean today. So no If someone decides to re-define militia that's their business, as long as they don't start confusing the terms.
That’s exactly what I mean. Do you believe we should go by what those words meant when the Constitution was written? Not what we know those words to mean today?
I agree schools should not be gun free zones. The trans shooter went to other targets 1st but they had too much security . More gun laws etc is not the answer. Look at Chicago one of the most strict gun law cities. It’s really sad & unbelievable that schools hv shootings. But it’s been around along time it used to not make the news. We had kids bring guns to school in the 80,s. We beat him up. A shocking & much higher number of kids are murdered by there parents not using guns than school shootings. The media has everyone thinking getting shot is the worst thing that could ever happen. Most people that get shot never report it.
“Red Flag” laws are crazy. Can you imagine the amount of false reporting by pissed off family members, neighbors, coworkers etc;?
Used to like Dan Crenshaw until he supported red flag bullshit against Veterans.
Yes. The intent was as clear now as it was then. Unless you are confusing the intent, with someone's modern definitions of terms used.
Now you can make an argument about whether the 2nd amendment is necessary but when the default mode of most Countries throughout the world is tyrannical rule, with very few exceptions, the US being one of them, perhaps the 2nd amendment is doing exactly what it was intended to do.
So I see the topic of arming teachers pop up a lot - by saying "let" the teachers carry, that is an opt in/out type thing? I've noticed the more left-leaning media that I've seen frame that as "teachers have to carry guns", and I've never really gotten much clarification on whether that's a leftist talking point or a viewpoint that some hold on this topic. Regardless, if this was the case, I think it'd be smart to have some kind of reholster/seek cover protocol for when the authorities reach the school. I watched the Nashville footage and was impressed by how quickly they moved through the school and worry about what that would look like if they had to discern armed friendlies throughout the process. Teachers/hired veterans + dads would for sure need an effective radio channel to communicate directly with SWAT or whatever team is managing the assault.
I'm personally not super into the idea of arming teachers, although I can see your point regarding the 14 minute response time. However, the idea of having veterans/dads onsite is intriguing to me and an angle that I have yet to see. I'm curious how this would look fully implemented.
Of course. Why do you think they’re trying to destroy it through limitations, including banning and confiscation? Never in the history of history, has gun confiscation ever worked out well.
The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the lives and liberties of citizens. Today it effectively achieves the opposite. Believing “more guns in the hands of more people” will cure our woes ignores the fact that, in the US, we already have more guns in the hands of more people than any 1st world country.
The number one way a kid is likey to die in America is from a fire arm. Not cancer, not car crashes, not opioids. That is pretty sad.
There were more school shootings in America last year than the rest of the world combined over the last decade.
These are undeniable facts. They are also only true of America. A place with the least strict gun control laws in the developed world. Seems like common sense gun control makes for safer schools and communities against gun violence all over the world.🤷♀️
In our country the leading states for firearm death per capital are Mississippi, Louisiana, Wyoming, Missouri, Alabama, Alaska, New Mexico, Arkansas, south Carolina, Tennessee, Montana....what do they all have in common? They are all states with less strict gun control laws...
Pit Row
Has it been discussed how this POS got into the building in the first place?
They shot their way in. Shot the glass doors until they shattered. Then used the butt of the gun to smash them out and proceed inside.
You could also look to the words of the man who helped write the 2nd Amendment.
I’m glad we have clarified that you believe we should take each word of the Constitution, and specifically the 2nd Amendment, as what those words meant when they were written. I disagree and I have the more Jeffersonian viewpoint, that we should mold and adjust it as necessary to keep up with the modern times. But, given what your view point is …
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
If you were to tell someone in 1789 to take up Arms, what specific weapon might they immediately think of? What did they know Arms to be at the time the Constitution was written?
For those of you arguing for more laws or stricter gun buying processes:
Which law or laws would have had the most impact?
At what point do you say more laws isn't cutting it?
What laws specifically target criminals successfully that don't punish law abiding citizens?
If you believe laws should be passed each time a gun crime occurs, you will eventually outlaw gun rights.
People will find ways to circumvent the laws to commit crimes of every nature. The only way to reduce gun crimes is to not only eliminate legal gun possession, but to literally destroy every gun in the nation. Not realistic at this point.
I'd be in favor of a law that (1) can provably cease huge swaths of gun crimes but (2) doesn't affect the ability of a lawful citizen to purchase a gun and (3) has a set formula that politicians can't tinker with to get the result they want and (4) will sunset if the law doesn't decrease gun crimes by it's stated effect.
This isn't how laws are written or how they work. And for that reason I'm opposed 100% to more laws than we currently have.
Your concerns are certainly justified when it comes to the police trying to figure out who the good guys are. However, that’s a risk we must take in these situations. Obviously tragic if a Good Samaritan is killed by the police. And yes it happens. But it is rare.
There is training you can go through that describes the right way to handle this type of situation.
If staff were to engage the shooter and shoot or hopefully kill the shooter, the protocol calls for reholstering your weapon before police arrive.
As a security leader for a large church congregation, we discuss this very thing. As lay people, we are to engage target. When threat is neutralized we reholster our weapon.
These things usually happen very very fast when you engage a shooter. Unlikely there is a shootout that lasts 15 minutes. And the police can’t tell good guys from bad guys.
It would be rare, near impossible, that police show up to an active firefight between staff and a shooter. But if so, that’s a risk we must take.
14 minutes is a long damn time. The shooter or the staff are dead most likely.
I’ve advocated for a long time to remove police from schools. They don’t belong in schools. Police have different training and different knowledge. You do not need to know traffic laws and penal code to protect school children.
Staff the schools with retired veterans, Dads, and Granddads who have training.
We have several 65+ year old retired police and military on our team at church. They could drop you like a bag of dirt from 50 yards. They all are more then willing to “go to gun” as we call it.
That means every single member of our team is trained to “go to gun”. We keep going until threat is neutralized. We don’t need to be trained to clear rooms. You hear Gun shots, you hear reports of a gun somewhere. The policy and training says we go to gun. End of story.
The uvalde shooting taught us a lot of lessons. Namely, police make crappy school resource officers. Just because you wear blue pants doesn’t make you a super hero.
Give me some veterans, some trained dads and grand dads, and we will all go to gun and take out the shooter. Or die trying atleast.
That’s a far better plan than some of these fat and lazy police officers assigned to the schools. A lot of the officers assigned to school duty are not the best if the best.
So in many cases you have the least capable officers, watching over the most vulnerable and high target assets. School children.
Plenty, and I mean plenty of vets and trained Dads would absolutely be more effective.
In a perfect world, someone should be able to walk into the clerks office/DMV/whatever easily and walk out with a voter ID. In that case, I totally get where you're coming from. But we have some logistical work to do before this doesn't create barriers for busy low income Americans. Fees, weird DMV hours, ID requirements, and other hoop-jumping nonsense that makes it hard for some people to obtain their ID. Again, I'm not opposed to ID requirements, but I just think we need to iron things out well before election time so that someone doesn't find out a month before the election that they need to take a day off from work to travel to the nearest DMV (also many counties don't have DMV's, requiring very long commutes) or handle paperwork, etc.
I obviously would need to chew on this for a while, but your take on this is something that I hadn't considered. I think that many of us on both sides of the aisle agree that we don't really do enough to welcome veterans back into our communities, and I think that having the opportunity to interface with the future of the country that they served for is a really cool concept. I'm kind of a weirdo in the sense that I don't really like guns (for a few reasons, some personal) but am pro-2a leaning, and am generally skeptical of gun control laws, especially with their racial history (ie Mulford Act, Dred Scott v Sandford, etc). This is a topic that I'm willing to converse on but typically don't put ink to the ballot because of my general lack of stance.
Thanks a ton for taking the time to type out a thoughtful response to my question. You've obviously put a lot of contemplation into that and have given me a lot to chew on.
That’s not true. Because it’s in the media you think guns are the biggest killers. Your brain washed. More people are beaten to death or stabbed in death . The shootings r a mental health disaster. Watch on yt, interview with a evil child and where she is today,17 mil views. Super innocent 6 yr old girl but it will blow your mind on what & how she answers questions. She is a rare lucky one that made it threw to become normal.
When the constitution was written they had a pretty good idea what the evolution of arms were, club, sword, shield, spears, pikes, cannons , bow and arrows , big rocks, slingshot, catapult, explosives, muskets etc.
The fact they used the term "Arms" instead of muskets tells you they weren't fucking around with their idea of what the sovereignty of the individual meant.
BTW it's not like I have a dog in the fight don't own a firearm and never have.
As a medical marijuana cultivator card holder they won't allow me to buy or own guns so I gave them all to my grandson
Dude, everything I stated is 100% factual. Not brain washing.
I am all for 2nd amend rights. But it is undeniable that more gun control = less gun related deaths per capita pretty much everywhere in the world. Including our own country.
Post a reply to: Firearm Laws