[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement:
Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor
of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users'
privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your
privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket
to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we
also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.
Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct: 
Feedback: 
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
| [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, [9], 10 ] |
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 07:03:21 11/14/16 Mon
Author: Anonymous
Subject: So this is what gets me
In reply to: Guest 's message, "WHY" on 15:05:16 11/13/16 Sun
About the 2nd Amendment, (""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.")...
Well folks, the definition of "militia" is as follows:
-"a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
-a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
-all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service."
So...if these folks are a military organization, who's the Commandong Officer? Where's the headquarters? Or are they going with the 2nd definition and declaring themselves to be terrorist and traitors? If "militia" applies only to those people able to aamble to serve in the military, that narrows the eligibility requirements considerably. Senior citizens are out. Anyone not able-bodied is out. Back when this was written, of course it would have excluded women and anyone who wasn't white. And of course, anyone with a mental disability is automatically disqualified by the language right there in the Amendment, no matter what the NRA would like people to believe.
AND, "well-regulated" means that...wait for it...REGULATIONS APPLY. Yet these folks blubber at any new laws made by their very own US government. Suddenly they're yapping at protestors about "not respecting our democratic process", but they better look in the mirror.
Now I'm actually NOT one who thinks guns should all be outlawed. People DO use them to hunt food in many places, gangbangers don't give a rat's ass about legalities anyway, and of course prohibition worked SO well with alcohol and drugs...@@ But I seriously believe that an IQ test should have to be passed before gun ownership is allowed because boy oh boy we know what happens when stupid people are allowed to own guns. (Sandyhook anyone?)
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Replies:
- IQ, common sense and emotional stability test all needed -- Anonymous, 15:40:49 11/14/16 Mon
- Good point (NT) -- Anonymous, 19:30:23 11/14/16 Mon