Comments by "MrMJmusicLover" (@MrMJmusicLover) on "See Tennessee House Democrat's reaction after GOP fails to expel her" video.

  1. ​ @landkruiser1095  2nd amendment was originally created for the milita, not civilians owning guns. If you're not a militia member, you shouldn't have guns in the house.
    78
  2. Democrats Strong!! ✌🏾🙂
    3
  3.  @paladro  Yeah, but does that good ol boy have any urban warfare training? Well regulated also means well trained and well disciplined.
    2
  4.  @HitmannDDD  Well Armed doesn't constitute WELL TRAINED, WELL ORGANIZED AND WELL DISCIPLED. There are milita groups out there and they fall in line with the original meaning of the 2nd amendment. They are the "people" . They represent the American people. They are well armed, well organized and well disciplined. And they are ready for urban warfare. The average citizen with guns won't be able to get off accurate shots on target in the heat of battle, because they aren't well trained, well organized or well disciplined. Most wil get gun down trying to be a hero and think they are Rambo saving the world. Owning a gun doesn't count as being a milita, you have to join one. Otherwise, you'll just be a civilian with a gun taking shots at the enemy and hoping you'll get lucky.
    2
  5. This isn't about black and white. It's about Republicans and Democrats. This country is tearing itself apart and is heading to a second civil war.
    1
  6.  @HitmannDDD  Yes, but those "people" are referring to those Armed MILITIA MEMBERS. You can't have a bunch of untrained, undisciplined group of guys running around thinking they are the next Rambo. And no one in this country, unless you're ex military would know how to properly fight an urban warfare. So unless you're a milita member, you shouldn't have guns in the house.
    1
  7.  @billyyank5807  I'm not going by the supreme court. I'm going by the original document containing the second amendment when it FIRST WRITTEN.
    1
  8.  @Aw-ns1qx  Or YouTube removed them. 🤔
    1
  9.  @PonyBoy1776  From an article about the true meaning of the 2 nd in the Bill of Rights.
    1
  10.  @MattiasTheMerc  No, it's not.
    1