Posted on 10/11/2017 9:09:44 AM PDT by rktman
On Tuesday’s episode of MSNBC’s Deadline White House host Nicolle Wallace said the Second Amendment was intended to help fight against “foreign militias,” not to create an “armed population” while interviewing gun-control activists.
Wallace used New York Times columnist Bret Stephens recent op-ed calling for the repeal of the Second Amendment as a jumping-off point while interviewing John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, and actress Julianne Moore. “A conservative wrote a piece last week that got a lot of attention about maybe opening up the conversation about the Second Amendment,” Wallace said. “His name is Bret Stephens, and he said the intellectually honest way to have this debate is to say that this isn’t what was intended, that we’re an armed population. This was a right to bear arms against foreign militias.”
(Excerpt) Read more at bluntforcetruth.com ...
Uh no its the right to bear arms in defense against a tyrannical domestic govt.
The British government sent its own army columns against American forces to seize government arsenals at Williamsburg (just across the street from the first Continental Congress meeting hall!), Lexington-Concord, Vermont, upstate NY, and elsewhere. Armed, official, government armies sent specifically numerous times to American towns to seize arsenals!
And each time, they were opposed BY the local Americans armed with their own weapons.
Now, it so happens that the British army backed down each time when confronted by the local armed militia, only shooting back the final time at Lexington-Concord to start the actual war.
THAT is the background of the Second Amendment - FIGHTING AGAINST government troops to protect local sovereignty of the national government (arsenal) Army-weapons, cannons, ammo, and powder.
It NEVER was about protecting hunters.
MSNBC is the Looney Left.
Here is the original source:
Nicolle Wallace: Second Amendment Intended to Fight ‘Foreign Militias,’ Not Create ‘Armed Population’
by Stephen Gutowski | October 10, 2017 8:11 pm
Another half-baked leftist who knows nothing about the extensive documented founding of this country and the basis of the 2nd Amendment. Either that or she is flat-out lying for propaganda purposes to an ignorant and easily emotionally manipulated group of leftists.
foreign and domestic,, you twit..
And the First Amendment was only to criticize the King of England. < /facepalm >
Next statue they will want torn down.
Nicolle, it’s bad enough to show your ignorance to your friends and family, but to do it on TV is much worse. Now people you don’t even know will point at you and laugh.
5.56mm
I thought Mark Twain said that.
SCOTUS won’t turn commie for a while at least.
Meanwhile, liberal blather doesn’t readily transform into police banging on doors and demanding surrender of guns. That’s left to the Australians.
To paraphrase Stalin, “How many battalions has Diane Feinstein?
Well, since you leftist nowits keep importing Islam and also you contain numerable ultra-left wingers adhering to an inherently hostile doctrine of society and governance (not just AntiFa) it sure seems like we need to be concerned about hostile militias and armed to face them!
A couple hundred million brutally oppressed and murdered victims of genocide in the last century left its mark
More correctly, their policies propagated the Deep State.
[For the spelling Nazis: “them-there policies propagated the Deep State.” and “they’re policies that propagated the Deep State.” [although there is grammatical subject/verb correlation in that use].
If not an individual right... why than was it enumerated as one of our individual rights in the Constitution?
Those rights listed are individual in nature... not societal...
The very.
Sarah Palin could drop her like a bad transmission....
> intended to help fight against “foreign militias,”
La Raza?
MS-13?
antifa?
If the California government gives any support or protection to groups like these, we may not be as far from needing a “2nd amendment solution” as liberals argue. It may be against an unofficial arm or ally of a state government rather than the government itself, but if the state won’t protect citizens from violent groups, then citizens are allowed to protect themselves.
What if Calafornia’s government decided to use their national guard against ICE? (not unbelievable) And then expand the guard use to crackdown on residents acting within the US Constitution but against California laws in a variety of area (1st, 2nd amendment, etc). Could conservatives and Christians in California be right to consider them a “foreign militia” . The state seems to ignore the US Constitution and want to operate outside of federal law (much like any “foreign” government) and would be sending military force against US citizens following US law.
And, “foreign” is not part of the 2nd amendment, while “Security of a free State” is.
mouth breathing airhead ...
Aside from US v Miller, DC v Heller, all known information about the founding fathers, and any working knowledge of English grammar saying that the 2nd guarantees an individual right, she brings in this new “foreign militia” construct? When the Bill of Rights was written the US had only ever fought French regulars, British regulars, Native Americans and Tory militias. Given our geography what “foreign militia” could they be expecting to attack? She has take “full retard” to a new level.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.