Nadler Freaks out .. Jerry Nadler Literally "SHOCKED" When Chip Roy Explains What 2nd Amendment Is For

[Acer-m14]

 

[Carlos Hathcock]

Commander poopy pants can go fuck himself.

 

[Drinkthekoolaid]

I'm not shocked that he's shocked.

I've long known most of our douchenozzles who get to decide what laws to make to tell us how to live don't even have a basic understanding on the constitution.

 

[Cooolone]

I'm shocked and horrified to learn a member of the GOVERNMENT is shocked that the very document that empowers him and his position, also has checks and balances to give power to the PEOPLE to well, keep that very GOVERNMENT in check!

And the PEOPLE are not subjects! They are not and shall never be, subjected to the benevolence and dispensations of their RULERS... We are not anything but a REPUBLIC! And these morons "elected" politicians should learn the simple differences!

For the PEOPLE, by the PEOPLE... Doesn't say anywhere for the PEOPLE by their GOVERNMENT!

Fuck you very much!

 

[spat]

Someone should tell him about that band of farmers, silversmiths, merchants, and brewers that overthrew the government when the governor sent troops to confiscate their cannons in Massachusetts...

 

[Phazer]

And the PEOPLE are not subjects! They are not and shall never be, subjected to the benevolence and dispensations of their RULERS... We are not anything but a REPUBLIC! And these morons "elected" politicians should learn the simple differences!

Ahhh...but to them we are the servant class. We are allowed to elect them to be our betters. In their minds, we ourselves are allowed nothing that they do not deign to give us.

To the elected self-important elites everywhere in our country, I provide the sage words....GET BENT!

 

[kev74]

Someone should tell him about that band of farmers, silversmiths, merchants, and brewers that overthrew the government when the governor sent troops to confiscate their cannons in Massachusetts...

We don't want to take your guns...just your powder and ball.

 

[nortatoga]

From Heller v DC.

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

 

[Phazer]

From Heller v DC.

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

The NFA banned firearms that did not have a legitimate military application since such weapons were not protected by the 2nd amendment.

Present day Liberal Progressives want to ban weapons that have military application.

So....that would leave us with what?

 

[nortatoga]

The NFA banned firearms that did not have a legitimate military application since such weapons were not protected by the 2nd amendment.

Present day Liberal Progressives want to ban weapons that have military application.

So....that would leave us with what?

Yes but the NFA has not been challenged before the SCOTUS, Jack Miller was a no-show for Miller v US. And his case was about crossing State line with a sawed-off shotgun with no tax stamp.

Also from Heller v DC..

We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordinary military equipment" could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms "in common use at the time" for lawful purposes like self-defense. "In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same." State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6-15, 252-254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment's operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.25

 

[Defilade]

The reason this Country exists is because of a gun.

 

[tirwin1]

Citizens will only shoot at the troops that get in the way when they go after politicians like Nadler.

In re-reading the declaration of independence I am struck by how many statements are relevant to our current situation.

But, when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

The history of the present King of Great Britain (Federal Government) is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. (CIA, FBI, EPA, CDC, etc...)

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation. (WHO)

For protecting them, by a mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states. (Sussman, Clinesmith)

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. (Govt approved riots in 2020).

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us (2020 riots; Leaking of roe v wade; Kavanaugh and Scalise incidents)

I could go on, but you get the idea.

Can't wait for the next visit from the FBI for this post.