Jump to content

Iowa state Sen. Claire Celsi is taking a page from Morrison's book


GSDlady

Recommended Posts

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.

 

66438980_10157732801616833_2102473211076
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

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

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.

 

7273e7e933128fa46efc6b1a1b772d1d.jpg

 

Sent from my VS987 using Tapatalk

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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

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

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

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...