Comments by "J Nagarya" (@jnagarya519) on "Moorish Science Temple Of America Says Rise Of The Moors 'Created A Great Confusion'" video.

"Rise of the Moorons" DELIBERATELY create confusion by asserting all sorts of nonsensical gibberish based on the "sovereign citizen" rejection of the rule of law.
19
@sirbey9608 JACKASS: there was no "Moorish" EMPIRE outside Africa.
6
Yep: that's why all the heavy weapons.
5
@TheSacredGrove So you oppose anyone expressing views you don't like? Isn't that the same as Fascist?
4
Another law-illiterate heard from. Constitutional provisions are implements by STATUTES. And the subject of the Second Amendment is WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. Neither "Rise of the Moorons" nor you are a militia, or in a militia, which is UNDER BOTH Federal and state constitutions and laws. . LICENSING is for the protection of public health and safety -- which is larger and more important than your individual willingness to endanger them.
4
"Rise of the Moorons" REJECT United States law -- which is the Constitution, AND the Second Amendment, AND treaties, AND the laws IMPLEMENTING the Constitution. Basic LOGIC: one cannot claim BOTH to be EXEMPT from the rule of law, AND that the rule of law is the basis for that exemption. Law -- not law-illiterate criminal gibberish.
3
They don't have to ADMIT being "sovereign citizen" dupes; they assert the basics of it: that they are outside and above the law; that they don't need licensing for anything; that the courts have no jurisdiction over them. And added a few more layers of nonsensical gibberish on top of that. Anyone who has researched their gibberish recognize it for the "sovereign citizen" criminal rationale it is. They violated a slew of FEDERAL and state gun control laws -- SERIOUS FELONIES. "Rise of the Moorons".
2
As a citizen in the United States, one is a sitizen of the United States, and a citizen of the state in which one resides. Ever hear of "states rights"? -- separate set of laws. The subject of the Second Amendment is well-regulated militia. A militia is not an individual. And to make the point conclusively: the first three wrods of the Constitution are, "We the people," not, "We the individual". In short: you are a law-illiterate asserting a false slogan.
2
@hebel9963 So those doing the licensing, which means gov't, shouldn't be funded, and those doing the training shouldn't be paid? What happened to "there are no free lunches"?
1
AGAIN: 1. Constitutions are deliberately general in order to accommodate the unforeseen. 2. Constitutional provisions are implemented by means of STATUTES, which are specific and detailed. 3. The Founders engaged in every kind of gun control, including prohibition and confiscation. 4. And _Presser v. Illinois_, which upheld Illinois state law, noted that private military organizations -- paramilitaries -- are prohibited, AND that any such organization could only be legal if authorized by the state's governor, who is the commander-in-chief of the state's military forces. In sum, gun control has existed, in all its forms, since the advent of firearms.
1