GSDlady Posted July 12, 2019 at 05:23 PM Share Posted July 12, 2019 at 05:23 PM NRA Institute for Legislative Action In a Twitter exchange between Iowa state Sen. Claire Celsi and a gun owner, the dictatorial senator threatened to take guns by force if the gun owner wasn't "nice" to her. After being called out, the "public servant" made her account private. Claire: This is not how America works – you will never take our guns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geo.ulrich Posted July 12, 2019 at 06:10 PM Share Posted July 12, 2019 at 06:10 PM wouldn't making her account private be the same as blocking someone, didn't the Supreme Court just rule on this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted July 12, 2019 at 08:18 PM Share Posted July 12, 2019 at 08:18 PM · Hidden by mauserme, July 13, 2019 at 12:46 PM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, July 13, 2019 at 12:46 PM - No reason given Wouldn't it be "nice" if she found herself looking at the "business end" of what she wants to confiscate? Link to comment
WitchDoctor Posted July 12, 2019 at 10:23 PM Share Posted July 12, 2019 at 10:23 PM · Hidden by mauserme, July 13, 2019 at 12:46 PM - No reason given Hidden by mauserme, July 13, 2019 at 12:46 PM - No reason given Wouldn't it be "nice" if she found herself looking at the "business end" of what she wants to confiscate? It would be nice if she spoke from her mouth... Link to comment
RECarry Posted July 12, 2019 at 10:37 PM Share Posted July 12, 2019 at 10:37 PM Another "smug" bureaucrat a la Julie Morrison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobPistol Posted July 13, 2019 at 01:19 AM Share Posted July 13, 2019 at 01:19 AM Sociopaths will sociopath. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mab22 Posted July 13, 2019 at 01:34 AM Share Posted July 13, 2019 at 01:34 AM Is she making a threat? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Euler Posted July 13, 2019 at 04:12 AM Share Posted July 13, 2019 at 04:12 AM "Well regulated" refers to a regular militia vs. an irregular militia. It is Sen. Celsi that doesn't understand "well regulated." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted July 13, 2019 at 05:31 AM Share Posted July 13, 2019 at 05:31 AM The Constitution and the 2nd Amendment do not differentiate between regular and irregular militias. As far as I'm aware, there wasn't a differentiation until 1903, and that's federal laws. Federal law is inferior to constitutional law, per the supremacy clause. Therefore, "well regulated" applies to all militias. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymous too Posted July 13, 2019 at 12:07 PM Share Posted July 13, 2019 at 12:07 PM Therefore, "well regulated" applies to all militias. Yes, the militia is to be well regulated, not the private citizen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domin8 Posted July 13, 2019 at 02:31 PM Share Posted July 13, 2019 at 02:31 PM Therefore, "well regulated" applies to all militias. Yes, the militia is to be well regulated, not the private citizen.The private citizen is the irregular militia, therefore they are to be "well regulated". Dictionary.com defines regulate as, "to put in good order". How is an irregular militia put in good order without the right to keep and bear arms? Furthermore, SCOTUS has already ruled, twice, that an individual has a right to keep and bear arms. The cases are historic, and came from 2 of the strictest gun control cities in America at that time -- DC and Chicago. DC's court case was Heller v DC, 2008. Chicago's court case was McDonald v Chicago, 2010. Feel free to read up on these facts. Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinnyb82 Posted July 13, 2019 at 04:11 PM Share Posted July 13, 2019 at 04:11 PM wouldn't making her account private be the same as blocking someone, didn't the Supreme Court just rule on this...No but the Second and Fourth Circuits have. And they've said that's an infringement. Iowa is in Eighth Circuit, but they'd adopt CA2 and CA4 rationale. Locked her entire account. Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anonymous too Posted July 13, 2019 at 10:12 PM Share Posted July 13, 2019 at 10:12 PM Furthermore, SCOTUS has already ruled, twice, that an individual has a right to keep and bear arms. i agree, the individual's right should not be "infringed" upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted July 13, 2019 at 11:52 PM Share Posted July 13, 2019 at 11:52 PM Furthermore, SCOTUS has already ruled, twice, that an individual has a right to keep and bear arms. i agree, the individual's right should not be "infringed" upon. Not that it need repeating here, the SCOTUS clearly stated the prefatory clause "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," announces one purpose of the right, while the acutal operative clause "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is the actual right protected in the 2nd. It's amazing that after Heller laid the second out in simple gramirical terms that the anti-gunner still push their incorrect false interpretive narrative and believe that to be the correct interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steveTA84 Posted July 14, 2019 at 04:32 AM Share Posted July 14, 2019 at 04:32 AM Is she making a threat?That was a threat (be nice to me, or else) Just Democrats being Democrats I guess. Seems to be a pattern recently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted July 15, 2019 at 09:12 PM Share Posted July 15, 2019 at 09:12 PM Therefore, "well regulated" applies to all militias. Yes, the militia is to be well regulated, not the private citizen. And yet, as originally intended, the "militia" WAS the "private citizen" - ALL of the able-bodied ones !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RECarry Posted July 15, 2019 at 09:22 PM Share Posted July 15, 2019 at 09:22 PM The left wants the phrase "well-regulated" to mean "suppressed". If so, why do they want to ban suppressors? Perhaps because the left extols its demands with shouting, a quiet countenance disturbs them. But since the 2nd Amendment is about avoiding suppression and oppression, well-regulated should mean "able to respond to threats of tyranny in an organized purposeful fashion". It has nothing to do with a standing army or relying on a municipal police force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flynn Posted July 15, 2019 at 09:24 PM Share Posted July 15, 2019 at 09:24 PM And yet, as originally intended, the "militia" WAS the "private citizen" - ALL of the able-bodied ones !! You want to see gun-grabbers heads explode? Ask them to remove race, sex, age, physical and other discriminations from the definition of militia, not that,that matters as Heller clearly stated the 2nd was an individual right unconnected to the militia service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MSD Posted July 15, 2019 at 11:42 PM Share Posted July 15, 2019 at 11:42 PM And in the greatest Scalia tradition (using the vocabulary of the day to interpret the constitution): https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JTHunter Posted July 19, 2019 at 01:47 AM Share Posted July 19, 2019 at 01:47 AM And in the greatest Scalia tradition (using the vocabulary of the day to interpret the constitution): https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm Interesting definition. Good post. Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.