2nd Amendment Only Applies To Militias

LOL screw this guy:

Troll-FaceJP Stevens, get back in your buggy and point your horse in the direction you came from.  I bet this guy has Scrooge McDuck money though for real.

Thoughts?  Rewrite the 1st Amendment too while were at it?  Too much freedom is so icky. *smh*

Hat tip: Weerd



Dan May 5, 2014 at 03:46 am

I think the best way is to say all citizens are potentially a part of a Militia, therefore all citizens should be armed and trained in the usage of a weapon so as to be ready for a recall of the Militia.


Seb May 5, 2014 at 03:57 am

Fuck this guy and everyone like him.


Dan May 5, 2014 at 04:22 am



Seb May 5, 2014 at 04:50 am

No Dan.
Just gets my blood up when I see guys like JPS talking this schmack. He wants to change the Constitution. And of course it’s a, “living document” too right? So he’ll change shall not be infringed. And unalienable doesn’t REALLY mean unalienable…and whatever else he feels like dictating to the little people under his boot. And apparently he has no real concept of what a militia is. Militia is comprised of THE PEOPLE…so the fact that he proposes the change he proposes tells me that he has no solid comprehension of what the militia is. Now I understand that there is variance from state to state but this is still of relevance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HQTHnjfHSI 9:00-10:30

But none of that matters to JPS, Feinstein, Obama, Holder, Bloomberg, MomsAgainstEverything, etc., etc., etc. …they want to keep pushing their Anti-American rights-stripping agenda. They keep pushing the same old tired bullshit and expect to somehow lull those awake back to sleep so they can move on the people. It seems they keep doubling down on dumb…and prefer to regurgitate tired crap incessently.

Coincidentally (of course) DHS just happens to be ramping up with VIPER teams, expansions, no hesitation targets, MRAP’s, militarization of LEO’s, then you got E-Orr Bloomberg trying to renew his efforts by pumping in 50 million dollars while he plots and schemes…and whatever happened to his last little anti-crew? Ohh, that’s right many abandoned him after they realized that it WASN’T mayors against ILLEGAL guns…no no no. It was a group trying to ultimately ban all or a vast majority of firearms. And on and on and on. Round and round we go.

And once again they will fail. And the harder they push for this the more blatant it is to all what a fall our once great nation has taken at the hands of lunatics. How many millions will they throw at the problem? How many biased stories will the people hear? How many times will they try to reinvent themselves as the good guy? How much more will people put up with? I don’t think they are doing themselves any good truly…this shit keeps blowing up in their faces (as it should). There are also states going the opposite way as these clowns…passing laws specifically negating this bullshit. And they know it. They are desperate and it is showing. It shows every time they refuse to address inconsistencies and issues pertaining to their slimey rhetoric.

Meh…grumble grumble…I’m ranting…grumble…need coffee.


tool719 May 5, 2014 at 04:53 am

I think he was talking about the Judge and the little liberal that’s interviewing him..


Dan May 5, 2014 at 05:31 am

That is what I thought but I just wanted clarification. There’s a article in the “Western Journalist” about the Mexican Army frequently crossing our borders in Arizona. These Army folks look well armed and have ” practicing ” or “chasing” drug trafficking/people trafficking etc. at night, they have even had a teem come over the border via Attack helicopters. Yet I have not seen anything in the mass media.
These “accidentally” crossing over the border has been becoming more frequent. Here is a prime example of the need to have a well trained, localized citizen run militia. I don’t know how to tag the article but those in Southern Arizona are complaining more and more. Their requests for assistance has fallen on deaf ears. Also please correct me if I’m wrong, isn’t a militia supposed to be given basic weapons and ammunition along with good training?


Seb May 5, 2014 at 05:44 am

I recall hearing something about what you reference in regards to armed groups crossing the border. Admittedly I am not up to date on it but I thought there was talk of some shenanigans afoot. If you have a link to something relevant just copy/paste the link for us if you could.

As for standards in a militia…standards for weapons/gear/food/etc. are primarily dependent on whatever are adopted by the militia they originate from. I do recall watching videos where some of this was talked about previously but that was in regards to Nevada, not the border.


Doc May 5, 2014 at 01:46 pm

I’ve never seen substantiated sources for anything like this. Forgive me if I ask for sauce?


David May 5, 2014 at 07:56 am

This asshat can’t understand English. The 2nd Amendment has a comma in it separating two clauses. For example, the sentence:

Fearing he would frequent a store that wouldn’t take credit cards, Tom brought plenty of cash.

Would have similar qualities. Who owns the cash? Tom, not the store. Tom might not even go into such a store, it’s merely a precaution. Even if he enters such a store the cash is still his. The 2nd clearly states the right belongs to the people. That’s why the clauses are separated.

“Regulated” in a historical context (before any gun, drug, building material, or traveling speed were restricted) means to be put to good or proper use. So to dumb it down for politicians, they essentially said, “If we want a functional militia (made up of the people), the people need arms.

“Arms” doesn’t mean guns. Arms (armaments) are defined as things that could cause harm. As such you are protected in your right to buy any arms you want, from a slingshot to a battleship. This was important, especially in an era where privateers could be given letters of marque (still legal but not done).

“Bearing” a gun is not carrying it. Bringing a gun “to bear” is using it. The 2nd protects your right to use guns. This means any ammo ban is illegal. Banning ranges is illegal.

“Infringed” is a strong word. It means you can’t get to the fringe of a cloth, let alone the cloth itself. Anything that comes close to violating arms rights is illegal. It means Congress can’t even come close to touching this right.

I’m sorry to rant but I’m sick of this debate. The founders were far from saints, but their command of English seems to dwarf modern America. The language is plain as day.


jim bob May 5, 2014 at 11:35 am

“I’m sorry to rant but I’m sick of this debate. The founders were far from saints, but their command of English seems to dwarf modern America. The language is plain as day.”

and still “the government” does what it wants.

NYC, almost 400 dollars American, every three years, just to have a pistol in your home. Not enough gun owners there seem to care to band together and change that.


Null May 5, 2014 at 03:14 pm

So, he’s a horses behind. But aside from that I think he’s forgotten the legal definition of militia as described in 10 U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes


So basically this would restrict things to everyone that is able to be drafted. I guess old people get screwed then? As well as women. Something tells me if this ever did change a legal sh*t storm would ensue and that code would be changed quick.


That Creepy Guy May 6, 2014 at 12:07 am

Can some one make this into a “Hail Hydra” Meme please?


dgdimick May 10, 2014 at 10:19 am

He’s old, out of date, and has a sad face, because they didn’t consult him when they wrote the original documents.



Older post:

Newer post: