re: Hot Take: There is no 2nd Amendment

246 years of precedence of individuals being able to purchase what gun and quantity they choose doesn't matter?

quote:

---

I never said you wouldn't be "good", just not a "well regulated militia".

---

A well regulated militia is any group who are organized and armed.

In 1775, 20 guys gathering on a Green to drill and practice maneuvers in defense of their homes was a militia. They certainly weren't part of the state government controlled by the British.



Here's the bottom line, and it is pretty cut and dry.


“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

It doesn't say right of the State Militia or Government troops, it says the right of the People.

The Constitution starts with

quote:

---

We the People,

---

In very bold Letters, not we the Government of the People.

These attempts to rewrite or assign skewed reasoning is flawed. Looking at the writings of those who wrote the constitution makes it very clear what they meant. An armed population is necessary to keep a tyrannical government from forming and gaining power. People have rights that are

quote:

---

You have been presented several substantial arguments that support the fact that the Federal Government would be infringing on the rights of U.S. citizens if it were to limit gun ownership to the guns it is willing to issue to said citizens. All backed substantially by the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

---

Not really, not very compelling "arguments" anyway, mostly just opinions, which is really only to be expected.

quote:

---

You argue against every one of these with no support from either the Constitution or State or Local law.

---

I'm mostly just saying that the counter arguments just aren't compelling. We really still don't have any idea what is meant by the term "infringed".

quote:

---

You try to subvert the meaning/intent of the 2nd Amendment with "hypotheticals". You obfuscate in every post.

---

Uh, oh, now you're veering off the track. I'm not subverting any meaning, I'm trying to explore meaning. How can the government restrict what guns I can keep and where I can bear them and not be considered infringing on my 2A rights?

quote:

---

You have exposed yourself sufficiently - you are an idiot.

---

Now you're just unhinged. People can question things and not actually be idiots.

I was on the CMP website thinking I had waited too long to get a Springfield and thought, "The government should just issue these rifles!" Which got me thinking, what if the government did issue rifles? What would that mean in terms of the 2nd Amendment and the infringement language? So I asked.

...and then you came along and just freaked the frick out.








The thing is, I sure would like one of those old Springfields to keep and bear on occasion.

You are cool with 1st graders going to school with ak-47s?

Prisoners having a right to "keep and bear arms" IN PRISON?

You clearly haven't thought this through.

quote:

---

You Sir are an idiot. That is the worst constitutional analysis that I have ever seen. Luckily for you, you have just been qualified to be nominated for the next Supreme Court vacancy. Let's go BRANDON

---

Wow. You read the OP and thought this was a pro-leftist thread? How the hell is that possible???

quote:

---

Huh? Nothing in his post said anything about their discipline for drilling and formation.
------------------
wut?

Neither did I.

---

Yeah. You did. Here. I will bold it for you.

quote:

---

just not a "well regulated militia".

---

The hypothetical 1,000 Coonass army could be well tactically trained or not Or are you saying coonasses are untrainable? Civil authority has nothing to do with it.

quote:

---

Wrong. The militia generally answers to the governor of a state, or the president. Sometimes to local law enforcement. Well regulated militias never act independently from the government.

---

You funny. Might want to read up on the militias who fought the King’s government during the revolution.

quote:

---

We dont have a 2nd Amendment.

---

ehhh

I think we still have it, but it's under threat

quote:

---

Have the rights of the citizens to bear arms been infringed at all?

---

Of course, just like pretty much all of the rights in the Bill of Rights.

quote:

---

Then tell me what the 2nd amendment does?

---

You mean besides ensuring millions of Americans had the means to defend themselves? Or maybe besides ensuring generations of Americans had the means to feed their families? Or perhaps ensuring that American soldiers were well prepared to unleash hell on those who would declare war on the US? Or maybe the massive part that civilian possession of arms has played in making enemies think twice before invading or making war on the US? Then maybe we can get into our founding fathers stated purpose, as a check and balance on government run amok.

The very fact that usurpations and violations have been institutionalized by what our founding fathers would immediately recognize as a grossly oversized, over-powered, and tyrannical federal government is all the more reason to prevent at all costs further violations. So if nothing else, the 2A is a great gauge for the people to plainly see just how tyrannical their federal government is.

If you’ll pardon the pun, in the end the 2A may well provide the trigger for the next revolution. I know there are millions in this country that would rather die than give up their guns. There may be millions more who will capitulate to the will of the all powerful government, but there will be millions who would rather die a citizen than become a subject. If they make us criminals, a criminal I will be.