If anyone has doubts on 2A

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787

Read more: The Founding Fathers Explain The Second Amendment

What we are going through is the Feds attempt to seize absolute power. We must sue the fed every time they try to disarm us or infringe on our right to bear arms.

15 Likes

I recently posted this sign in my front yard. :us:

image

25 Likes

Exactly, not only is it a right but I also am an oath keeper, I once said these words:

I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

Which also makes it a part of my religion according to Ecclesiastes 5:4, Deuteronomy 23:21 and it is a violation of my religious liberties to restrict me from carrying out my oath to God Almighty.

Any Christian or Jewish person who has said those words is bound till death to keep their promise if they take God seriously.

13 Likes

I also. :us:

4 Likes

And I!

3 Likes

“The First Amendment is first for a reason. And the Second is in case the first one doesn’t work out.”
-Founding Father Dave Chappelle

5 Likes

And if the USA falls, the World will fall.

8 Likes

Yet, the first amendment was not the first in the proposed original 12 amendments, it was the third:

[Not passed] Article the first … After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

[Now the 27th] Article the second … No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

[First that passed] Article the third … Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Second that passed] Article the fourth … 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.

2 Likes

However you look at it after it was signed it was perfect.
If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.
Seems they just need a few minutes to get it straight!
How they got there makes no difference, how we got here makes all the difference in the world!

9 Likes

“I consent Sir, to this Constitution because I expect no better, and because I am not sure, that it is not the best.”
– Dr. Benjamin Franklin

Dr. Franklin sums up what I’ve long said about re-writing the Constitution. It isn’t that the Constitution is perfect. It’s that I don’t trust anyone in power to come up with a better version.

13 Likes

It is time for the Patriots to do other things than protest and use the law suits,neither seem to be working!

3 Likes

That ship sailed a long time ago! 1/3 of this country has already publicly admitted they would cut and run!
Those are adversarial words, when you’re ready, call me!
I’m not fast anymore, but you know what they say, “slow is smooth…

My oath hasn’t expired! However let’s get something straight, I’m fighting for the guy to my left and to my right, but not for this administration! And I don’t take orders from someone who doesn’t remember his name, his oath or his location on the planet and is too weak to salute or checks his watch after he murders fellow servicemen and women!
That is NOT a Commander in Chief!
These are just a few of the things that make my blood boil!


People don’t respect this anymore, how do we expect them to respect the founding documents?
Someone want to explain to me how somebody can tear up the State of the Union Address on the world stage on public television in the face of the President, and is not tarred and feathered? Seriously?

Don’t be surprised when they burn the Constitution! Where exactly do patriots draw the line? It shouldn’t take a lawyer to figure this one out!

It’s pretty sick that when doing a search for an emoji of a salute, the best they can come up with is Spock’s “live long and prosper”!

So, YEAH! CALL ME!

5 Likes

I totally agree with you and admire you for not forgetting your OATH taken so long ago,and I definitely will not die on my knees a slave,I just hope that I can rack and stack-em as I die and make it expensive For them and whether I an with some one or not but if I am will have their back, and if we do,will go down together and Be PROUD

7 Likes

He also wrote “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

Thomas Jefferson

I truly believe that the Left has been actively pursuing and pushing conservatives toward their own violent eruption, and that if it had happened, they would establish the Martial Law they want, which would then allow them to complete their takeover of America. God help us if they get anywhere close to that.

Bit by bit, as they break things in America and dismantle her, the Left is pushing us toward another revolution. Stay aware, folks, and stay calm. Don’t let them force a violent outbreak via our emotions.

6 Likes

I believe the larger problem is people in general like and have been brainwashed into thinking an authoritarian government is how its supposed to be when its we who rule the government and not the other way around.

10 Likes

You are correct Sir. Jan. 6th was just the beginning. :us:

1 Like

Jan6 was a simple photo op. Look what the Leftists turned it into! I await the entire Capitol video release for that day, don’t you? And I await the list of FIB instigators so we can get every single conservative charge dismissed.

3 Likes

Its important to legally define “people”,

Heller was a deviation from precedent as is argued in this article.

Only in that they excluded those that are not “law-abiding”, which many of us disagree with due to the issue that once the person has served their sentence, he/she should not continue to be punished. To other than lawyers, the people are those that are citizens of the USA and/or protected by our laws. In your link the writer(s) attempt to poke holes in the definition by claiming a difference between Political and National community and showing how one amendment was interpreted differently than another, i.e., the 4th and 5th amendments.

The mentioned case about the 4th concerned a drug dealer that “was a Mexican citizen and resident with no connection to the United States, and he was challenging a search in Mexico”. I have no issue with not extending our laws to cover citizens living in another country and their foreign property. That is an issue for the foreign government that conducted the search with US agents. Apparently, they did not have an issue with it - case closed - and neither did the SCOTUS. “[T]he Court noted, the Fourth Amendment had never applied in such circumstances; its purpose was not to restrain the government’s actions ‘against aliens outside of the United States.’”

Lawyers are paid to parse words and find “legal” ways around laws. The paper’s main argument was about “political” and “national” communities, and how - in the writer’s opinion - the “people” are defined differently in each. A political community must be a national community, unless one is a Globalist. Here is another description of community that essentially unites the two that that paper tried to separate:

What Constitutes a Community
Citizens living under government do constitute a real community defined as a public-legal community, and all of its members (who should properly be called “citizens”) have a right to share in the fruits and benefits of its commonwealth. Government in a republic has more responsibility than merely to defend individuals against thieves and murderers. A minimal government will not be able to promote the general welfare of the republic. But by the same token, a maximalist effort to promote any and every good thing by means of government may interfere with or dislodge responsibilities that properly belong to parents, teachers, scientists, doctors, pastors, neighbors, friends, and entrepreneurs. Public justice means doing justice both to the “republic” (from the Latin res publica, meaning public entity) in which all citizens share, as well as to what people hold separately in capacities that are not politically qualified.

3 Likes