Category: Militia

Green Mountain Boys Need Not Apply

‘Calling forth the Militia’ [More]

Not if the government has anything to say about it.

A lot fewer of us would die if the damned elected traitors and their functionaries hadn’t undermined our ability to organize and approach something resembling “well regulated.” And our “gun groups” with their legal efforts focused exclusively on “self-defense” own their portion of the mass uncoordinated unpreparedness.

[Via CP]

A False Argument

Acosta repeatedly asked Norman how Republicans planned to secure the border if there is a government shutdown and said, “I guess I don’t understand that.” [More]

HOW DO YOU EXPECT THE GOVERNMENT TO WORK IF IT’S RESTRAINED BY THE CONSTITUTION…???

Disregarding for a moment that there’s such a thing as priorities and it’s not like the powers that be are just going to tell the military to go home, there’s a whole ‘nother deliberately unused resource that those same powers have a vested interest in ignoring…

Tales Out of School

Washington hijinks aside, Wyoming’s Cowboy State Daily reported on Monday that “despite the Biden administration’s efforts to defund school hunter education and archery programs as ‘dangerous weapons training’ for students, Wyoming will go ahead with expanding those programs in public schools throughout the state.” [More]

And yes, Cornyn and Tillis are tools.

That said, where in the Constitution is this even a thing?

And what’s with ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ for “sporting purposes“?

Let me know when they replace Fudd Funding with “Introduction to Your Militia Duties” classes.

[Via Michael G]

His Heart’s in the Right Place

“We’re patrolling the neighborhood. But we have guns because the Second Amendment says that if you have a license, you are allowed to carry one,” he said. [More]

That’s not what it says at all.

While it’s encouraging to see this, you can’t very well claim rights if you don’t understand them.

Still, I wouldn’t mind seeing the racist implications of Connecticut’s asinine “duty to retreat” exposed.

[Via Jess]

A Considered Opinion

“We remind the court that the Second Amendment refers to a right ‘of the people’ without mentioning age, and certainly young adults fall within the definition of ‘the people’ ever since they’ve been allowed to vote, and generations before that when they were considered part of the militia, and have been accepted into the military.” [More]

They’re not just “considered.” They’re recognized by law.

More Holes Than Swiss Cheese

Switzerland is a country that has a high rate of gun ownership but doesn’t have a high level of gun violence. It’s because they actually have a well regulated militia with high levels of mental and legal vetting AND training to own a gun. [More]

And nothing else factors in?

If so, he should have no problem showing commensurate higher rates of “gun violence” among people of Swiss ancestry here.

Except challenge him with facts and he runs away…

And we shouldn’t lose sight they have their own totalitarian wannabes trying to destroy their historic security and sovereignty by mandating global citizen disarmament edicts.

Nothing in Common

[Watch]

That the antis have glommed onto “self-defense” as an exclusionary qualifier was inevitable since that’s all the “common possessors” on our side ever talk about.

If we keep limiting ourselves that way, arms needed for the core purpose and all new technological developments restricted to military/police use will be forever denied to the people the Second Amendment was meant to apply to, and not just for “self-defense.”

I’m waiting for one of our legal influencers with a reach longer than mine to admit this and start using it.

Alternatively, I’m waiting for one of them to have the guts to challenge me on this and prove me wrong.

[Via Jess]

Monster Makers Chaining Their Creations

The US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral arguments about whether a Pennsylvania law banning 18-20 year olds from having firearms in public when a government declares an emergency violates the 2nd Amendment. [Watch]

At the very least, it violates U.S. Code.

You have to wonder what kind of treasonous, mad Democrat would demand and defend this, and the answer is the same kind whose policies have made the type of 18 -20-year-olds making daily headlines in Philadelphia inevitable.

[Via Jess]

Warrior Ants

Once the breaking point is reached, deplorable ants will make the picnic a living hell. [More]

What’s kept it from happening so far is people still have so much to lose. Take that away by destroying the system that delivers essentials and things will quickly change.

The wild card is the role foreign enemies will play.

[Via Keith B]

Unclear on the Concept

If you want to have a gun, you need to join the militia. [More]

Inigo would like to have a word about “well regulated.”

Marsha hasn’t read Heller, has she?

Or found anything from the Framers to support her ignorance?

Still, we ignore those first 13 words at our peril. Just understand that the “well regulated” part applies to when on duty and your rights go back home with you intact.

Does this mean we get new M16s?

[Via Jess]

Two from Gunpowder Magazine

Colleague José Niño examines the varied and in-your-face ways states are getting away with undermining the right to keep and bear arms and gets some quotes from one of my favorite people along the way…

How Do You Get From Here to There?

“We have already recognized in Heller at least one way in which the Second Amendment’s historically fixed meaning applies to new circumstances. Its reference to arms does not apply only to those arms in existence in the 18th Century… just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends prima facie to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. Thus even though the Second Amendment’s definition of arms is fixed according to the historical understanding that that general definition covers modern…modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. [Watch]

Exactly right. What I’m having trouble connecting the dots on is this:

What is that burden that the government has to bear? The government has to come forth to prove that the arms that they want to ban are not in common use.

Ignoring the first 13 words and focusing exclusively on self-defense leaves the door open to saying post-’86 machine guns are not in common use. It also means that new technological developments that the government reserves for itself will never be.

That is what I’d like to see Mr. Smith elaborate on. I believe he’s one of the few who could.

As an aside, I think the first Republican presidential candidate who promised to nominate him if any Supreme Court openings happen would gain a huge advantage with gun owners.

[Via Stephen I]

An Age-Old Question

Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a federal lawsuit challenging the prohibition of handgun sales to young adults have filed a reply to the federal government’s arguments supporting the ban. The case is known as Reese v. ATF. [More]

What must the grabbers think of those they think old enough to vote Democrat?