Operation Lone Star v2

Ken g6

Programming Moderator, Elite Member
Moderator
Dec 11, 1999
16,701
4,661
75
I saw this headline once:

S. FLORIDA ILLEGAL ALIENS CUT IN HALF BY NEW LAW

It was in a humor book of accidental meanings. It's not quite as funny as it used to be. :(
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
4,446
3,869
136
Wait, sir! The radar, sir! It appears to be... jammed!

Jammed.. There's only one man... ...who would dare give me the raspberry! Lone Star!
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
8,183
9,177
136
As long as we restrict firearm possession to "regulated" militias, everything will be just fine, I'm sure.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,764
6,770
126
I would guess that a well regulated militia is one the purpose of which is to defend a society against the external threat of oppression. But whatever it is it is dependent for its formation not on arms supplied by the potential source of abuse, the government itself, but on weapons privately owned. So no mater how you define a well regulated militia, it can't happen without the right of the people to bear arms. It does not mean you have to be a member of any such militia to have gun ownership rights because those are the guns that a militia would require in my opinion.
 

ch33zw1z

Lifer
Nov 4, 2004
39,781
20,370
146
I would guess that a well regulated militia is one the purpose of which is to defend a society against the external threat of oppression. But whatever it is it is dependent for its formation not on arms supplied by the potential source of abuse, the government itself, but on weapons privately owned. So no mater how you define a well regulated militia, it can't happen without the right of the people to bear arms. It does not mean you have to be a member of any such militia to have gun ownership rights because those are the guns that a militia would require in my opinion.

Not really applicable to the OP, as this is the government sponsoring another "militia" with the intent to operate outside of federal laws and enjoy immunity as well. It's a recipe for human rights violations, bad behavior, rape and murder. But as long as it's inflicted on the "right" groups, conservatives won't only NOT care....they'll celebrate it.

It does not mean you have to be a member of any such militia to have gun ownership rights because those are the guns that a militia would require in my opinion.

Hot take, considering the 2A doesn't say that.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
8,183
9,177
136
The "regulated militia" referenced by the Founding Fathers is now what we call the "US National Guard"
It literally nullifies the 2A
So local police, city police, and the US military are prohibited from carrying firearms?
 

Dave_5k

Platinum Member
May 23, 2017
2,007
3,820
136
So local police, city police, and the US military are prohibited from carrying firearms?
Not prohibited, but nothing in the US Constitution guarantees them the individual right to carry firearms (as actually written, and as interpreted for the first 200 years of the country's existence, until the NRA and "Conservative" justices re-wrote it)
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
26,146
12,351
136
So local police, city police, and the US military are prohibited from carrying firearms?
Well, in the military, if you aren't on watch, the guns are locked in a small arms safe. They've got sense.
 

nickqt

Diamond Member
Jan 15, 2015
8,183
9,177
136
Im one of those guys who think we should make America better and then disarm the cops.
Disarming everyday Americans is never going to happen, never mind disarming local/city/state police.

I'm one of those guys who wants non-fascists to start arming themselves because I think it's a bad idea to only allow fascists and fascist-adjacent people to be armed. The entire point of this thread and my comment here and elsewhere are about that. Texas might have a "regulated militia" that actually has the intent of murdering undesirables - or as they will put it, to defend themselves from illegal immigrants and Trans people. That is where a "strict" reading of the 2A won't do what you hope it will do. In fact, most genocides occur under color of law.
Not prohibited, but nothing in the US Constitution guarantees them the individual right to carry firearms (as actually written, and as interpreted for the first 200 years of the country's existence, until the NRA and "Conservative" justices re-wrote it)
For the first 150 years of the Constitution, there were almost zero federal laws regarding gun control. Certain localities might have had laws prohibiting individuals from carrying inside certain jurisdictions, or prohibiting non-whites from owning guns, but like above, that's how fascists get you. Not by individually carrying an AR-15 into COSTCO. It's by limiting the rights of minority groups from defending themselves, and then when the time is right, murdering those people under color of law.

Well, in the military, if you aren't on watch, the guns are locked in a small arms safe. They've got sense.
Sure. And a responsible gun owner isn't walking around with an AR-15 when they go to COSTCO. Just owning a firearm doesn't make you a right-wing authoritarian. In fact, if you go far enough left, you get your guns back.

If someone had some magical way to go back 200 years, uninvent the modern firearm, and then fast-forward to today and make modern firearms illegal, you might win me over. But here in objective, observable reality, there are hundreds of millions of firearms in this country and no, they are never going to be rounded up and turned into ploughshares. MAD isn't just for nuclear weapons anymore, and hoping that limiting firearms to only fascists and their military wing is an ongoing own-goal I believe "liberals" need to stop trying to score.

Or, as other people have said tongue-in-cheek, arm enough minorities and maybe you'll see Republicans actually advocating for some kind of gun control laws.