Trump Rally and Possible Shooting or Explosions?

[old salt]

Secret Service training flick :

[old salt]

Ah, the time worn Militia McMuffin is back on the menu. Over a million served by activist academics engaged in policy based evidence making which bolsters a desired narrative. Please, let's definitely hold to the letter of the Constitution.

It ain't time worn. It's right there, in the very Constitution that you point to when you want to tell us owning a gun is a right.

You're all like this.....you want 'the good parts' of the Constitution, and want to ignore the parts you don't like.

And for the 1,000th time, you're getting what you want, and none of us here get why you're on here complaining about winning.

Make an effort to learn how a militia was defined when the 2nd Amendment was drafted & how it is now defined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)
The militia of the United States, as defined by the U.S. Congress, has changed over time.[1] During colonial America, all able-bodied men of a certain age range were members of the militia, depending on each colony's rule.[2] Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense.[3] The year before the U.S. Constitution was ratified, The Federalist Papers detailed the Founding Fathers' paramount vision of the militia in 1787.[4][5] The new Constitution empowered Congress to "organize, arm, and discipline" this national military force, leaving significant control in the hands of each state government.[6][7]

Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is used to describe two classes within the United States:[8][non-primary source needed]

Organized militia – consisting of the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9][10][non-primary source needed]
Unorganized militia – comprising the reserve militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.[11][non-primary source needed][needs context]
Since 1933,[citation needed] Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"

[Kismet]

Ah, the time worn Militia McMuffin is back on the menu. Over a million served by activist academics engaged in policy based evidence making which bolsters a desired narrative. Please, let's definitely hold to the letter of the Constitution.

It ain't time worn. It's right there, in the very Constitution that you point to when you want to tell us owning a gun is a right.

You're all like this.....you want 'the good parts' of the Constitution, and want to ignore the parts you don't like.

And for the 1,000th time, you're getting what you want, and none of us here get why you're on here complaining about winning.

Make an effort to learn how a militia was defined when the 2nd Amendment was drafted & how it is now defined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)
The militia of the United States, as defined by the U.S. Congress, has changed over time.[1] During colonial America, all able-bodied men of a certain age range were members of the militia, depending on each colony's rule.[2] Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense.[3] The year before the U.S. Constitution was ratified, The Federalist Papers detailed the Founding Fathers' paramount vision of the militia in 1787.[4][5] The new Constitution empowered Congress to "organize, arm, and discipline" this national military force, leaving significant control in the hands of each state government.[6][7]

Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is used to describe two classes within the United States:[8][non-primary source needed]

Organized militia – consisting of the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9][10][non-primary source needed]
Unorganized militia – comprising the reserve militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.[11][non-primary source needed][needs context]
Since 1933,[citation needed] Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"

So What the heck is your point, Saltine sailor?
The text links firearms rights to militias. For nearly 100 years nobody disputed it until some whack job decided to make it an issue by twisting the text into describing an individual right.

[MDlaxfan76]

Ah, the time worn Militia McMuffin is back on the menu. Over a million served by activist academics engaged in policy based evidence making which bolsters a desired narrative. Please, let's definitely hold to the letter of the Constitution.

It ain't time worn. It's right there, in the very Constitution that you point to when you want to tell us owning a gun is a right.

You're all like this.....you want 'the good parts' of the Constitution, and want to ignore the parts you don't like.

And for the 1,000th time, you're getting what you want, and none of us here get why you're on here complaining about winning.

Make an effort to learn how a militia was defined when the 2nd Amendment was drafted & how it is now defined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)
The militia of the United States, as defined by the U.S. Congress, has changed over time.[1] During colonial America, all able-bodied men of a certain age range were members of the militia, depending on each colony's rule.[2] Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense.[3] The year before the U.S. Constitution was ratified, The Federalist Papers detailed the Founding Fathers' paramount vision of the militia in 1787.[4][5] The new Constitution empowered Congress to "organize, arm, and discipline" this national military force, leaving significant control in the hands of each state government.[6][7]

Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is used to describe two classes within the United States:[8][non-primary source needed]

Organized militia – consisting of the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9][10][non-primary source needed]
Unorganized militia – comprising the reserve militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.[11][non-primary source needed][needs context]
Since 1933,[citation needed] Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"

So What the heck is your point, Saltine sailor?
The text links firearms rights to militias. For nearly 100 years nobody disputed it until some whack job decided to make it an issue by twisting the text into describing an individual right.

Not only “militia”, but rather specifically “a well regulated militia”. Regulated is a critical aspect.

Salty, you are correct that today our well regulated militia is indeed the “organized” forces you mention. There are no other well regulated militias. The country was not as organized then as it is now, nor were we the by far dominant military force in the world.

That said, I think that the tradition of gun ownership is a privilege that should be extended to those willing to abide by sensible safety regulations. The vast majority of gun owners would be happy to do so and relieved if others were required to do so.

Criminal possession, much less usage, should be punished heavily.

[cradleandshoot]

Ah, the time worn Militia McMuffin is back on the menu. Over a million served by activist academics engaged in policy based evidence making which bolsters a desired narrative. Please, let's definitely hold to the letter of the Constitution.

It ain't time worn. It's right there, in the very Constitution that you point to when you want to tell us owning a gun is a right.

You're all like this.....you want 'the good parts' of the Constitution, and want to ignore the parts you don't like.

And for the 1,000th time, you're getting what you want, and none of us here get why you're on here complaining about winning.

Make an effort to learn how a militia was defined when the 2nd Amendment was drafted & how it is now defined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)
The militia of the United States, as defined by the U.S. Congress, has changed over time.[1] During colonial America, all able-bodied men of a certain age range were members of the militia, depending on each colony's rule.[2] Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense.[3] The year before the U.S. Constitution was ratified, The Federalist Papers detailed the Founding Fathers' paramount vision of the militia in 1787.[4][5] The new Constitution empowered Congress to "organize, arm, and discipline" this national military force, leaving significant control in the hands of each state government.[6][7]

Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is used to describe two classes within the United States:[8][non-primary source needed]

Organized militia – consisting of the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9][10][non-primary source needed]
Unorganized militia – comprising the reserve militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.[11][non-primary source needed][needs context]
Since 1933,[citation needed] Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"

So What the heck is your point, Saltine sailor?
The text links firearms rights to militias. For nearly 100 years nobody disputed it until some whack job decided to make it an issue by twisting the text into describing an individual right.

Not only “militia”, but rather specifically “a well regulated militia”. Regulated is a critical aspect.

Salty, you are correct that today our well regulated militia is indeed the “organized” forces you mention. There are no other well regulated militias. The country was not as organized then as it is now, nor were we the by far dominant military force in the world.

That said, I think that the tradition of gun ownership is a privilege that should be extended to those willing to abide by sensible safety regulations. The vast majority of gun owners would be happy to do so and relieved if others were required to do so.

Criminal possession, much less usage, should be punished heavily.

A well regulated but ill defined concept by our founding fathers. They did clarify very succinctly that the RIGHT of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. That means that the MD lax types of America can't dictate to Americans what type of weapons they choose to defend themselves with. That just ticks you off to no end doesn't it MD? 20 million AR-15 owners would be glad to tell you to shove off and stay out of their business. I'm certain most would reciprocate towards you as well. They will be willing to stay out of your business too.

[MDlaxfan76]

Ah, the time worn Militia McMuffin is back on the menu. Over a million served by activist academics engaged in policy based evidence making which bolsters a desired narrative. Please, let's definitely hold to the letter of the Constitution.

It ain't time worn. It's right there, in the very Constitution that you point to when you want to tell us owning a gun is a right.

You're all like this.....you want 'the good parts' of the Constitution, and want to ignore the parts you don't like.

And for the 1,000th time, you're getting what you want, and none of us here get why you're on here complaining about winning.

Make an effort to learn how a militia was defined when the 2nd Amendment was drafted & how it is now defined.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)
The militia of the United States, as defined by the U.S. Congress, has changed over time.[1] During colonial America, all able-bodied men of a certain age range were members of the militia, depending on each colony's rule.[2] Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense.[3] The year before the U.S. Constitution was ratified, The Federalist Papers detailed the Founding Fathers' paramount vision of the militia in 1787.[4][5] The new Constitution empowered Congress to "organize, arm, and discipline" this national military force, leaving significant control in the hands of each state government.[6][7]

Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is used to describe two classes within the United States:[8][non-primary source needed]

Organized militia – consisting of the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9][10][non-primary source needed]
Unorganized militia – comprising the reserve militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.[11][non-primary source needed][needs context]
Since 1933,[citation needed] Congress has organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies" and not its power to "Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia"

So What the heck is your point, Saltine sailor?
The text links firearms rights to militias. For nearly 100 years nobody disputed it until some whack job decided to make it an issue by twisting the text into describing an individual right.

Not only “militia”, but rather specifically “a well regulated militia”. Regulated is a critical aspect.

Salty, you are correct that today our well regulated militia is indeed the “organized” forces you mention. There are no other well regulated militias. The country was not as organized then as it is now, nor were we the by far dominant military force in the world.

That said, I think that the tradition of gun ownership is a privilege that should be extended to those willing to abide by sensible safety regulations. The vast majority of gun owners would be happy to do so and relieved if others were required to do so.

Criminal possession, much less usage, should be punished heavily.

A well regulated but ill defined concept by our founding fathers. They did clarify very succinctly that the RIGHT of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. That means that the MD lax types of America can't dictate to Americans what type of weapons they choose to defend themselves with. That just ticks you off to no end doesn't it MD? 20 million AR-15 owners would be glad to tell you to shove off and stay out of their business. I'm certain most would reciprocate towards you as well. They will be willing to stay out of your business too.

Sorry, but that’s a very weak response to the actual words and their meaning. One cannot simply choose to ignore the well regulated militia.

So, no tanks, no bazookas, no machine guns…and who, how, where, and when are all currently regulated. I don’t know why you have such a problem with that. I own 9 guns and I want guns well regulated.

[a fan]

Make an effort to learn how a militia was defined when the 2nd Amendment was drafted & how it is now defined.

Right. That ain't originalism. Which is what Waffle and the hardcore gun crowd tells us they want.

You can't move the goalposts to any point in US history where the phrase "well regulated militia"= the same thing as an ordinary citizen with zero responsibilities for defense, sorry.

That word/phrase means SOMETHING, or they would never have dropped the word/phrase in the Constitution. Waffle is saying: I get my guns with no more responsibilities to US defense than someone who doesn't own one.

Yeah, no. Sorry, that's not what the Constitution reads, no matter how badly some folks want that phrase to disappear.

And again, I don't want to take his guns....simply pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say what he claims it says.

[Kismet]

Make an effort to learn how a militia was defined when the 2nd Amendment was drafted & how it is now defined.

Right. That ain't originalism. Which is what Waffle and the hardcore gun crowd tells us they want.

You can't move the goalposts to any point in US history where the phrase "well regulated militia"= the same thing as an ordinary citizen with zero responsibilities for defense, sorry.

That word/phrase means SOMETHING, or they would never have dropped the word/phrase in the Constitution. Waffle is saying: I get my guns with no more responsibilities to US defense than someone who doesn't own one.

Yeah, no. Sorry, that's not what the Constitution reads, no matter how badly some folks want that phrase to disappear.

And again, I don't want to take his guns....simply pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say what he claims it says.

Yup - try this analysis on the language and syntax used at the time

https://daily.jstor.org/revisiting-mess ... amendment/

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/th ... -amendment

Picky. Picky. Picky.

[cradleandshoot]

Make an effort to learn how a militia was defined when the 2nd Amendment was drafted & how it is now defined.

Right. That ain't originalism. Which is what Waffle and the hardcore gun crowd tells us they want.

You can't move the goalposts to any point in US history where the phrase "well regulated militia"= the same thing as an ordinary citizen with zero responsibilities for defense, sorry.

That word/phrase means SOMETHING, or they would never have dropped the word/phrase in the Constitution. Waffle is saying: I get my guns with no more responsibilities to US defense than someone who doesn't own one.

Yeah, no. Sorry, that's not what the Constitution reads, no matter how badly some folks want that phrase to disappear.

And again, I don't want to take his guns....simply pointing out that the Constitution doesn't say what he claims it says.

The well regulated militia of 1790 was eventually delegated to the individual states. NYS probably has some of the strictest gun control laws in America. Unfortunately bad actors with no morals and no conscience dont give a rats ass about obeying the law. I wonder why that is so?

[Kismet]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/17/politics ... index.html

Independent panel issues scathing report on Secret Service and recommends leadership overhaul after Trump shooting.

"The panel – led by Mark Filip, deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush; Janet Napolitano, the secretary of Homeland Security under President Barack Obama; and others – recommended leadership in the agency be replaced with outside individuals who could change the culture of the Secret Service, including the “present sense of complacency within the Service.”

[youthathletics]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/17/politics ... index.html

Independent panel issues scathing report on Secret Service and recommends leadership overhaul after Trump shooting.

"The panel – led by Mark Filip, deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush; Janet Napolitano, the secretary of Homeland Security under President Barack Obama; and others – recommended leadership in the agency be replaced with outside individuals who could change the culture of the Secret Service, including the “present sense of complacency within the Service.”

Another win for DEI.

[Kismet]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/17/politics ... index.html

Independent panel issues scathing report on Secret Service and recommends leadership overhaul after Trump shooting.

"The panel – led by Mark Filip, deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush; Janet Napolitano, the secretary of Homeland Security under President Barack Obama; and others – recommended leadership in the agency be replaced with outside individuals who could change the culture of the Secret Service, including the “present sense of complacency within the Service.”

Another win for DEI.

You'll NEVER be happy.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/17/politics ... index.html

Independent panel issues scathing report on Secret Service and recommends leadership overhaul after Trump shooting.

"The panel – led by Mark Filip, deputy attorney general under President George W. Bush; Janet Napolitano, the secretary of Homeland Security under President Barack Obama; and others – recommended leadership in the agency be replaced with outside individuals who could change the culture of the Secret Service, including the “present sense of complacency within the Service.”

Another win for DEI.

You'll NEVER be happy.

Another win for a minority.