Biden prepping for civil war? (legal, activist, soldier, stats)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Only 'right wingers' believe in a 2nd amendment? Or was this a threat of some sort? Geeze, somebody put him back to bed.
i
I listened to a expert in the constitution, it’s origin, the notes and reasons some articles were written. We have twisted it.
The forefathers wanted guns because there was no real military. The money was limited and they needed the states militia.
Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.
Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.
At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers.
The first version of the Army worked with “state militias “ on the fight for independence.
Second Amendment. It guarantees, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The need for a State militia was the predicate of the "right" guarantee, so as to protect the security of the State. Today, of course, the State militia serves a different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has assumed the role of the militia of 200 years ago.
I suspect the national guard is what they had in mind. Will they stand with those opposing the present establishment? Doubt it.
Anyhow never did the forefathers sign anything for citizens to have weapons to over throw the government if it did not agree with it. Check your history.
If the military was going to back you guys they would have done it in 2020. Jan 6 would have been it. Much has changed against you in that 2.5 years. Someone is jerking your chain.
Don’t pretend like you just lost your brain.
The vast majority of people in the armed forces are not soybean Starbucks coffee drinkers from Pacific Northwest or California or northeast.
The vast majority of them are conservatives and moderates.
Biden fears the military except for the corrupt upper echelon. That’s why they’re trying to reprogram the rank and file into useless CRT brainwashed soy boys. The administration is afraid. Sorry Joey. Rank and file military aren’t going to turn on American citizens like you think. You’re not in charge anymore if a civil war breaks out, which you seem to encourage.
Military I know walk out of the BS “equity/inclusion” sessions and laugh their a$$es off.
Sorry, but don't see burning, fighting and looting in your pic. Try again. Stop lying and denying.
Notice that poster didn't include any of the things done by his ilk: burning buildings to the ground (lots of them), overturning cars and setting them afire, assaulting individuals, threatening individuals, destroying individuals' property and homes, taking over city centers, throwing dangerous objects at individuals, looting businesses, burning government buildings, murdering people, etc...
I listened to a expert in the constitution, it’s origin, the notes and reasons some articles were written. We have twisted it.
The forefathers wanted guns because there was no real military. The money was limited and they needed the states militia.
Congress had the power to do this under Article I, Section 8, Clause 12, known as the Army Clause. “The Congress shall have Power To . . . raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years,” the Clause read.
Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.
At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers.
The first version of the Army worked with “state militias “ on the fight for independence.
Second Amendment. It guarantees, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The need for a State militia was the predicate of the "right" guarantee, so as to protect the security of the State. Today, of course, the State militia serves a different purpose. A huge national defense establishment has assumed the role of the militia of 200 years ago.
I suspect the national guard is what they had in mind. Will they stand with those opposing the present establishment? Doubt it.
Anyhow never did the forefathers sign anything for citizens to have weapons to over throw the government if it did not agree with it. Check your history.
This so called expert you listened to was wrong. The founding fathers clearly intended for the general public to be armed. Many quotes from them clearly state this. Was this “expert” on CNN? They clearly had an anti gun agenda if what you describe was his/her line.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
