2 Likes
And this is why I am NOT Catholic.
3 Likes
It’s a free country. If the Catholics want to give up all their firearms that’s their choice. I’d even be willing to help them find some new homes for their poor unwanted firearms;)
They just shouldn’t go around demanding that other groups, like Jewish people for instance, give up theirs. We all know how that story ends.
13 Likes
I agree with you. Just requested to stand for all our Constitution and all our Rights. We all have had many months of Biden and friends lies. They are seeking to Null and Void the 2nd Admendment in there BS.
I am for our Jewish friends and families and you get in trouble picking on them.
4 Likes
To all the Cardinals throughout the Nation, go door to door to wherever all the criminals are living and have them surrender all their weapons and ammo, preach to them about turning away from violence and become Good Catholics, maybe even join the Priesthood. Good Luck! 
4 Likes
The devil appears in countless guises.
7 Likes
Take a Stand for the Constitution and Our Rights. Really? That horse left the barn some time ago.
Every time you line up at the airport or public building to consent to a warrantless search of your person and property by a government employee, you are saying that the illusion of security trumps the 4th Amendment’s “right” to be free from government searches without a warrant.
Those who oppose the 2nd Amendment’s “right” to keep and bear arms based on security and safety arguments are just following the same precedent.
3 Likes
Millions of people have died or punished severely
for believing in our Constitution and Our Bill of Rights.
Thousand have died in many wars and they swore a oath to up hold and honor our Constitution.
The Constitution 1776-1791 was written and signed to give The American People, of many backgrounds and
many Religious Backgrounds; Freedom. Many other people joined American and have served This Nation
with their lives. Freedom that you will not find elsewhere.
I believe we need to legally take a stand to defend our
Constitution and our Country; Legally. If someone
choose to destroy or abandon our Constitution and
walk away from America, that is their freedom being
Thrown Away, not ours.
There are consequences that will follow their choices
and it will cost greatly.
9 Likes
I get the sentiment and have taken the oath to defend the Constitution several times in my life. But most Americans believe the Constitutional restrictions on government are just advisory and can be ignored if government decides it is necessary. In a contest between the illusion of security and the Constitution, the Constitution loses every time.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Unless we’re really ascared of terrorists, of course, then none these rights apply. 
1 Like
Mark I am not the enemy here. Appreciate your service
and help in all that you do.
I have been with USCCA for almost 7 years now, but they are limited and they help give
us a foundation that help us to know things the right way and USCCA has our
Liability Insurance with a good company that can help Us in the Legal Department.
Governments Issues and lawsuits are very hard to fully understand many times and we all can get lost and you do not want in a lawsuit and you’re innocent.
Thank you for your thoughts and I wish the best.
1 Like
Hmmm as I recall the Pope stated they are beset by an elegant demon, perhaps they should pay attention
2 Likes
Preaching To Da Choir Never Works ! Keep Ya Lame Ideas To Yaself Rev. !
.
2 Likes
Francis 23 Welcome to the community! 
1 Like
What we call our rights were very carefully listed and described in our founding documents and supported as much as possible by the framework as a whole.
That declared freedom and those identified rights are currently being systematically dismantled.
The reason there is such a fierce battle over history and teaching, is because of what genuine history shows is the regular and consistent result of the loss of freedom, rights, and the protections they provide to the citizen.
There is nothing so predictable as the result of unaccountable authority in possession of unlimited power.
History shows unequivocally that by far the greater danger to society as a whole, and the greater insecurity a people can face at the hands of others, is the danger of the unaccountable in possession of too much unchecked power.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms was intended very deliberately as one such “check” on the power that government always seeks to grow.
So surrender your freedom and rights if you will, but it will be at your very great peril. A peril vastly greater than any minor securities you imagine you gained in doing so.
5 Likes
This is absolutely correct “The right of the people to keep and bear arms was intended very deliberately as one such “check” on the power that government always seeks to grow.” It’s not about hunting or sport shooting. It’s about the people maintaing the ability to overthrow a tyranical government. But then what does “well regulated” mean in the 2A. These words are there, so they must mean something.
2 Likes
Response in brief:
“well regulated” either in context, or out of context, does NOT possess within it, the default meaning of " owned and operated by the government". Which is the usual destination being sought out when raising that question. What it does speak too, in my opinion, is the need and value of the qualities that bring about the condition of being able, ready, and equipped for the task. " well regulated" can simply be a state of fitness. Today however, regulation is nearly synonymous with government authority, which is the desired default understanding being evoked, I do not think that leads to a correct understanding.
Long form response:
I learned an understanding of what “well regulated” meant, in it’s connection to the word “Militia”, that was based in a further understanding of the times and, how they said things, and what they were addressing with the text. Other people, however, prefer to embrace other understandings.
I have not recently done a deep dive into those two words, but such words often become confused when taken out of the context of the times in which they were penned, and the precise way the language of the times was used and understood. It can also shed light when one takes those words not only in the context of the times, but in context of the text in which they appear, the point being that it is highly unlikely that the use of those words was intended to, in some way, contradict other plainly stated objectives that were clearly written into the document.
The meaning of well regulated, I should think, would be a simple enough concept, what people get confused by, and often wish to conflate, is it’s use in connection with the word " Militia ". After which they begin to speculate as to what qualifies as a Militia, and who it is to be comprised of, then they move on to who is to have authority over it. After all, “well regulated” refers directly to the word “militia” so to separate them from each other seems unhelpful.
I will argue here that the simple meaning of one goal and intent expressed in the constitution is not negated by confusion over the precise meaning of a less understood provision. Rather it requires an accurate and unbiased assessment of how the terms and words were understood in their use at the time, and under the existing conditions they were addressing. The idea of the “citizen soldier”, (who could be understood to be any able-bodied citizen who might be expected to rise to the call of their imperiled nation), is neither new, nor is it unique.
As my service to my country was to be a “citizen rescuer” of people in trouble in the mountains, I can identify with the need for such “citizen responders” to be both well regulated ( trained, organized, able ) as well as being allowed to have the tools with which to accomplish the task. We too could have been seen in that same light as, a “militia” or, (able and available, with a right to own our mountaineering equipment), a “citizen response contingent”. A " mountain rescue citizen militia" if you like.
In that light " well regulated" is simply an expression of the important value of being ready and able.
It should be no surprise that those who wish to remove such rights and ability from the hands of the citizens, would very naturally begin by trying to confuse and conflate the words used to establish and preserve those rights and thereby eliminate the ability.
Therefore, In conclusion, it is my opinion that the words “well regulated” are a recognition of the need for a quality state of stand-by readiness, and not a call for the militia to be government owned and operated, as is often suggested. If it were, it would then properly be called “The Army”.
5 Likes
Good read. On the point I extracted from you above is the reason why in more modern times terms are defined in the document. Back then most if not everyone knew what was being said. Seems like today ppl want to jump to the craziest conclusion possible of the wording. Not that it didn’t happen back then, it only seems more prevalent in modern society.
2 Likes
agreed, and thank you.
2 Likes
Well said. Either way, the second part of the sentence that makes up the Second Amendment couldn’t be more clear. The “people” are clearly all citizens of the United States, as the term is used throughout the document, starting with “We the People.” “Keep and bear arms” could not be more clear, even 232 years later, as “shall not be infringed” is equally obvious.
A good analog is: “A well balanced breakfast, being necessary for good health, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.” No one could argue with the fundamental meaning of that sentence.
3 Likes
I hope you don’t mean eating MEAT! I am vegan and slaughtering animal is murder.
Only saying…stay frosty
2 Likes