Massive Militia 2nd Amendment Rally To Take Place At Virginia Capitol On January 20th 2020

Right. We are going to call anyone unwilling to comply with the law exactly what they are, criminals. I am reasonably certain that the majority of these criminals will have links to right-wing extremism and white nationalism, both of which need to be eradicated from this country as quickly as possible.

While all of you are expecting the second Civil War, I’m expecting all of these gun nuts to participate in mandatory buybacks and turn their guns into the state. I’ll enjoy the come and take it crowd whimpering as the state comes and takes it lol

You sound like a bitter , hateful man. I hope you find contentment in your own life and stop relying on others misery for it.

Thus far all that is being proposed are protests and airing of grievances . There you are waiting with bated breath to do what exactly ? Celebrate a victory of statist tyranny ?

If the law requires a “buyback” and there are those that opt not participate, then calling them criminals is appropriate in the same way those that broke the Fugitive Slave Act and aided runaway slaves were criminal.

Most will more than likely comply for now and wage the political and legal battle through elections and the courts . That has my full support.

Others and perhaps myself will just move to a state less tyrannical and crazy about disarming people.

Crazy is thinking that turning law abiding citizens into criminals by banning certain weapons is going to stop mass shootings. It won’t.

1 Like

I get contentment by dunking on conservatives. It’s so easy and I probably shouldn’t derive joy from it, but I do.

For years conservatives have been talking about how if the government tries to take away their guns…they will have to be pried from their cold dead hands. The Tea Party was demanding 1776 all over again because a black man got elected. Every time there’s been a mass shooting it’s always thoughts and prayers and no solutions. I’m tired of the “no solutions” part.

The fact is weapons of war do not belong in our homes or on our streets. No one is denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms, just certain arms shouldn’t be allowed. No person needs the same type of weapon that would be used on the battlefield in their home. If the argument is that those weapons are supposed to be used against the government, then what you are doing is trying to start an armed rebellion - which is literally treason.

Umm…no.

Not turning in a banned weapon is not the same as helping to free the slaves. That has got to be one of the most ridiculous comparisons I’ve ever heard. A gun is a piece of equipment designed to kill other people. A fugitive slave was a human being in need of refuge (I know that’s a difficult concept for conservatives nowadays).

I completely agree with you here; however, the legal battles won’t be won… but gun nut groups are free to waste their money fighting them.

I like hearing this because pretty soon there won’t be any states for all of you to run away to. These laws are sweeping the nation, and for good reason. I think it would be best to concentrate conservatives in a few states that don’t matter for electoral college purposes. Please do move.

I guess we won’t know until we try it.

And here you are like a good little apparatchik, with delusions of “dunking” on conservatives ? This isn’t a game and it isn’t basketball your comparison to basketball and civil liberties falls short.

See I can play intellectually dishonest ego driven troll games too.

There’s nothing wrong with people wanting to keep their civil liberties and have the tools necessary to defend themselves and their families in the event of societal collapse.

But knowing your leftist leanings at this point I can see why you disagree. Leftists like lies, false accusations and defenseless people .

Enjoy your holidays and like you said , we will have to wait and see.

2 Likes

I’m not trolling. The argument that conservatives make all the time is that they need their guns to protect themselves from the government. They argue that’s what the founders intended (which invalidates your societal collapse argument).

Ok, so if the people vote to elect politicians to disarm the population, is this also not in line with what the founders intended? Or, is this the dog whistle that conservatives will use to start fighting with the government?

I’d love to get a straight answer on this from a conservative. I see a lot of whining and complaining in this thread from conservative snowflakes but I haven’t seen an actual defense of the Second Amendment and why citizens need weapons of war.

1 Like

The Second Amendment wasn’t written for anything but for when our government oversteps its constitutional boundaries and becomes despotic and tyrannical.

Also - according to U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes: (a)

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32 under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the
National Guard or the Naval Militia.

The second amendment states: “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”.

One may forget that each state has its own separate constitution. A constitution that enumerates the power that state has ( see: 10th Amendment ). The federal government can absolutely say “no guns for all”! or “only firearms we approve”!. But the 10th amendment gives each state the power of nullification . Without the state’s consent, the Federal government would have no power to enforce any law.

So…Congress can amend the Second Amendment to limit or ban the owning of weapons. But the states have final say whether or not they will follow that new law. There is also a convention of the states and a constitutional convention that can adjust things as well.

This is very similar to what is happening right now in Virginia with the counties refusing to give consent to the state regarding this new law.

The Virginia Constitution states the following:

Section 3. Government instituted for common benefit.

That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation, or community; of all the various modes and forms of government, that is best which is capable of producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety, and is most effectually secured against the danger of maladministration; and, whenever any government shall be found inadequate or contrary to these purposes, a majority of the community hath an indubitable, inalienable, and indefeasible right to reform, alter, or abolish it, in such manner as shall be judged most conducive to the public weal.

Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power.

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Right now since the majority of the counties in the Commonwealth of Virginia have stated that they will not recognize if such a law is passed, you can refer yourself to Section 3 above.

3 Likes

Sir, it’s tyranny. Tyranny comes in many forms, from my opinion the least of which is the state - at this time. The conservatives I know and read speak of breakdowns in the state and the services they provide, even now - currently - the state can only draw chalk outlines around the dead bodies and investigate the murder. It doesn’t do the dead any good.

You raise a very good point. If fair, honest, and reasonable elections are held and the legislatures all pass laws to disarm the population AND the Supreme Court decides those laws are Constitutional, I would have to acquiesce that is the form of self government the founders intended. I don’t foresee that happening though without false propaganda, “collusion” with outside interests, and high dollar donations.

I would be forced to comply. I’d rather take my chances with the state than what would ensue during a civil war.

That brings to mind. Let’s not pretend the calls for violence are only coming from the minority factions on the right. The left - for a very long time - have been and continue to talk about it. Up to the point of killing police officers NOW for enforcing current laws (laws I find lack common sense - like the drug laws) based on statistical data, experience, and profiling. All three factors will be behind “red flags” at well.

You don’t seem the sort. You may not be a troll, and I respect your humanity and your desire to be a sunbeam for the state. I can understand your bluster and guarded defensive posture when you attempt to sincerely see things from the other side.

We probably agree the people of this country might need to exhibit a little bit more common sense before we start taking rights away under the name of “common sense”.

My good will towards you and yours remains.

1 Like

Commies love sending the government to disarm the population. Tell you what, if you love communism so much why don’t you pack your bags and head down to Venezuela. It’s a socialist paradise down there.

1 Like

You are mistakenly conflating white-nationalism with the political right. Racism and antisemitism is almost exclusively on the political left.

2 Likes

What is your solution for the gangs and criminals who won’t participate in mandatory buy backs?

I’ve asked this question multiple times and … crickets…

1 Like

image

2 Likes

I just recently watched this.

Socialist/Communist genocides and mass murder outweigh “right wing” by a ton. Perhaps our bombing led to the breakdown and the ultimate shared disdain for America and the regime that cooperated with it but once all those factions revolted and “won”, the dis-assembly of the “Revolutionary” forces began. At that point the best armed and most ruthless won out and began the process of inventing crimes and arresting former allies and sending them to their death.

Why we think things like this aren’t possible “here” is beyond me. Are those suggesting it won’t racist ? Do they think our founders whose intellectual genetics were steeped in European interpretations of Judeo-Christian values were superior ? Are we … genetically incapable of doing such things here ?

It is the the founders deep mistrust of human nature and government that inspired much of the Constitution. An acknowledgement that yes, such a thing could happen here.

Are we to ignore human history and current events and believe in the fairy tale that it would NOT happen here ?

I don’t believe considering it could and wanting to avoid that and if it’s unavoidable to “fight back” is really all that insane.

Rather the opposite. To think something of a complete breakdown in society WON’T happen and like we saw in Syria, Libya, Egypt, Liberia, etc… I think it the most sane thought. We can avoid that.

That being said, it can also be avoided with sincere, honest, respectful discourse too. Through political elections, court and legal battles, and I don’t believe we’ve exhausted all those efforts.

Not the least of which the honest, sincere, and respectful discourse. I read social media and it just seems as if we are all too willing to be the fronds / blades of fans that the “elite” are operating. To cause just such a squabble among us “rabble” to further their power grab and control.

I heard once that men who don’t government themselves, are governed by tyrants. I think “governing ourselves” starts at the individual level and how we interact and communicate with each other online.

1 Like

Yes, it was an awesome video, thank you for posting it.

He is correct: look at the map and how the populated counties, democrat controlled, can overtake the entire state. This is what we see in many states.

I have been very much an advocate of an Electoral College on a state level for election of Governor and it needs to happen for the same reason it happens on a national level.

1 Like

Repealing the 17th Amendment should be a priority to reestablish the state’s power within the federal government. IMHO

You are always trolling :laughing:

Except in Virginia.

1 Like

Thank God for militants

1 Like

Once again, so easy to dunk on conservatives. You should try cracking open some books once in a while. It might help you to build stronger arguments.

Since so many of you only can understand communicating via pictures, here ya go:

Technically he said Communists not Marxists. I think your “dunk” bounced off the back of the rim and left you hanging there looking silly.

All in good fun :wink:

2 Likes

Getting things back on track:

Relevant SCOTUS 2A precedents that predate Heller and Mcdonald

  • US v Cruikshank (1876) - State level limits on militia and firearms are allowable as the US Constitution only limits the congress

  • Presser v Illinois (1886) - Further reinforced Cruikshank while adding that states couldn’t pass such laws as the formation of a viable militia composed of the people was impossible

Some important ones that point out that current firearms licensing schemes are actually unconstitutional

  • Murdock v Pennsylvania (1943) - No state shall convert a liberty into a license and charge a fee therefore - ultimate decision

  • Shuttleseorth v City of Birmingham (1968) - Further building on Murdock, If a state converts a liberty to a license, the citizen may ignore the license and engage in the liberty with impunity

Get these decisions into the public consciousness.

2 Likes