The gobblement just wanted to avoid a blood bath and if a Bundy had fired one shot it would have ended in an awful mess leaving only a greasey spot where the Bundys once stood.
Bundy doesn't graze his cattle for free on gobblement land anymore, does he.
The Bundys were chicken and that is why they are alive today.
No YOU are trying to intimidate the courts with the promise of an armed violent insurgency if they bring sanity to the gun laws.
Good luck with that.
Maybe you want to die trying to preserve you weekend fun of plinking paper targets down at the range. For most all gun enthusiasts that's all owning a gun means to them. A vast majority of them will not risk their lives for the sport of making holes in paper.
so you make a couple of assumptions....
1. that no civilian would have fired back at all
2. that the government would have killed everybody.
both are false, by the way. maybe you didn't watch enough coverage, but not only was the government outnumbered and outgunned, there were several civilian snipers ready to shoot as well.......provided your own projection of cowardice/fear of firing upon government isn't in play.
You lost. And you will continue to stay a loser.By one vote.
And people still have the guns you say they shouldn't own. Doesn't your refusal to try and take them make you a pussy?
"Bearing arms" is a period euphemism for forming a militia, not for wearing your AR to the mall.
The time is ripe for this error to be seen and ruled on appropriately.
Even judges who you see as republican ideologues are reasonable people who will recognize a mistake when it is forcefully argued by a competent attorney.
Once the shooting started, it would not end until the gobblement prevailed.
"Bearing arms" is a period euphemism for joining or forming a militia.
It did not mean carrying your AR to church or the dentists.
The atmosphere is ripe to correct this misunderstanding now. The Parkland /national demonstrations have shown that.
When the courts agree that your toys need to be taken away, your confrontation will be with your local sheriff and National Guard Will your defense be to call them pussies too? Do you think that ll really work, racist?
That is not a decision the courts get to make.
Yeah , it is.
Well, first off, the fact that the right to arms does not in any manner depend on the words of the 2nd for its existence dispenses with your "interpretation".
In addition, you (and Justice Stevens) are wrong on militia law.
There is no claimable right for citizens to join a militia or to form a militia.
Militias can only be formed under the authority of Art I, § 8, cl's 15 & 16.
Presser v Illinois was very clear on the "rights" of citizens as it relates to militia.
"The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."
PRESSER v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, 116 U.S. 252, (1886)
Sorry, wrong again. It just doesn't work that way.
SCOTUS has said that the very purpose of the Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as permanent legal principles to be applied by the courts. Even further, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is held among the fundamental, individual rights whose nature demands that they may not be submitted to any vote nor do they depend on the outcome of any election.
.
You are using modern definitions to interpret sixteenth century writings. SCOTUS judges are smarter than you.
they had no backup, or would they be like video game cops and bounce back up after being killed? I think your government worship borders on delusional.
Once the shooting started, it would not end until the gobblement prevailed.
You think the gobblement would call it quits and leave the Bundys alone if they won the first volley?
Are you sure you served in the Marines?
BTW
the mere fact that Stevens says we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment indicates he even knows that it is an individual right
I don’t deny that there may be some commie left wing court that will twist itself in knots to claim it doesn’t say what it says but that is a long way off.
You are high if you think it will happen with this current court.
you think the government would have won the first volley? that alone brings me to question your intelligence. do you know how many FORMER MILITARY were among the civilians? or are you of the idiot belief that we go through some sort of deprogramming that reduces our ability to use firearms after we're discharged?