Comments by "MrEkzotic" (@MrEkzotic) on "Sean Hannity: Dems want you to focus on these 3 distractions" video.

@DJT2024Winner Good ol' John Balless, he never fails to provide some comedic relief.
10
@DJT2024Winner Very true. LOL
4
@bipslone8880 No, that's a separate clause. The people AND the militia. You need to read the Federalist Papers.
2
Only for a rock concert.
1
No
1
@Luvarby Ok. Thanks.
1
@markwilliams5606 *bear
1
@bipslone8880 Ok. So, since a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, then the right of the people to bear arms should not be infringed. Either way, the Constitution affirms the right of citizens to own firearms.
1
@bipslone8880 And why would the state regulate the militia, since the militia would only be used to fight against a rogue state?
1
@bipslone8880 "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" is plain language, and it is the operative clause. "A well regulated militia" is not an operative clause. The well regulated militia is not a prerequisite to own firearms, it's a justification, and it can be formed anytime using the armed populace. So, I think you are actually correct in one sense, but incorrect in your interpretation. I had always thought the militia and the people were separate, but it seems I was wrong about that. I haven't even read Scalia's opinion, I will have to do so.
1
@bipslone8880 Do the people have a right to protect themselves from a tyrannical federal or state government? Why would any free people give up control of the only mode of defense they have against a rogue government? History should have taught us to never surrender our firearms.
1
@bipslone8880 Ok, and that civil population can be armed. The militia part is just the primary purpose for private citizens to own firearms, it's not a requirement. If it was a requirement, it would have been worded differently. If the militia was raised up to supplement a regular army, that's fine, but then you wouldn't even need that amendment, because the state would then issue to them weapons.
1
@bipslone8880 No, it is complicated. Because there can be many correct interpretations, but only one is was intended by the founders. And then you have the differences in English grammar and usage between the time periods, subtle differences in definitions, etc...it is complicated.
1
@bipslone8880 Hey, although we disagree, I enjoyed our debate, and I learned something. I will read both the majority opinion and the dissent. Thanks for being cordial. Have a good night.
1
You know where Build Back Better comes from, right? It's not Biden's plan, it's a World Economic Forum con job for control over the people and the world's natural resources.
1