The REAL purpose of 2nd Amendment; The no B.S. truth

[martybegan]

Stalkers and Shooters: A History of Snipers: Kevin Dockery: 9780425215425: Amazon.com: Books

Read this book last weekend, "Stalkers and Shooters: History of Snipers"; it was fantastic. Documents the history of snipers, from the early 1300's with arrows, up to the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, all the way to modern day military and swat snipers fighting terrorism. More of a detailed history than techincal teaching book.

Anyway, it spoke about the 2nd Amendment. And the real meaning of it within context of what was going on in the country at the time. This is not a political book. Its for no-B.S. military and police people. And here is basically how it lays it out:

The Revolutionary War depended a lot on volunteer militia to fight alongside official military. The problem was, the militia were being provided ammo by the regular troops, and they had to make 7 different types of ammo due to the militia all having different rifles.

The Revolutionary War was turned in large part due to American snipers and their marksmanship and guerilla tactics. They fought ALONGSIDE their government's official troops to fight off the British.

So, to put it bluntly, as the book lays it out, the CONTEXT of the idea behind the 2nd Amendment immediately after the Revolutionary War was a "well regulated" militia, MEANING that the standing government could provide ammunition in times of emergency to the citizens, and with "well regulated" militia, they'd all have a standard caliber ammo so the government could focus on mass producing one type of ammo, and thus, supply as much ammo as possible to it's people.

And that would allow the people to fight ALONG SIDE the regular troops in times of national defense.

THAT, in my opinion, is the true, no bullshit meaning, with historical context and purpose. To have armed citizens, in a common caliber of ammo, that the government can open up the hordes of ammo to should a national emergency or invasion happen.

Its not to allow the citizens to fight against their own government, its to allow them to fight WITH their government. The Revolutionary War showed this, when the Americans tried to supply 7 different types of ammo to the militia, and it was hard, so they determined that a "well regulated" (aka, common caliber) amongst the militia would be a good idea.

And it is. The standard ammo of choice seems to be 5.56/.223, 12 guage, and .45 or 9mm, all very common rounds that the federal, state and local governments use. And they are very popular among citizens.

It seems the 2nd Amendment works, accidentally or on purpose, in that if America were subjected to a mass invasion, the governments could distribute ammo to the people, most of whom would have guns that could fire the most common calibers government uses.



But much to the disappointment of right wing fanatics, the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

At the time of the revolution the british WERE the government, and both the continental army and the milita were traitors to the government that was in effect. The continental government was initally not recognized as such, and was thus little more than a more organized group of traitors to the British crown.

The fact that the 2nd amendment didnt even exist at the time of the revolution is also a glaring hole in the books premise.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

If that were true, they would have written it that way.

But they didn't.

It simply says that the right of the people cannot be taken away or restricted. And it provides an explanation why... but makes no conditions on its mandate.

Even if somebody managed to prove that a well-regulated militia were NOT necessary for the security of a free states, the 2nd would still be a command that the right shall not be infringed. Period.

Much to the disappointment of left-wing fanatics.

The right of the people as a group, not as individuals, is what is guaranteed not to be infringed.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

Stalkers and Shooters: A History of Snipers: Kevin Dockery: 9780425215425: Amazon.com: Books

Read this book last weekend, "Stalkers and Shooters: History of Snipers"; it was fantastic. Documents the history of snipers, from the early 1300's with arrows, up to the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, all the way to modern day military and swat snipers fighting terrorism. More of a detailed history than techincal teaching book.

Anyway, it spoke about the 2nd Amendment. And the real meaning of it within context of what was going on in the country at the time. This is not a political book. Its for no-B.S. military and police people. And here is basically how it lays it out:

The Revolutionary War depended a lot on volunteer militia to fight alongside official military. The problem was, the militia were being provided ammo by the regular troops, and they had to make 7 different types of ammo due to the militia all having different rifles.

The Revolutionary War was turned in large part due to American snipers and their marksmanship and guerilla tactics. They fought ALONGSIDE their government's official troops to fight off the British.

So, to put it bluntly, as the book lays it out, the CONTEXT of the idea behind the 2nd Amendment immediately after the Revolutionary War was a "well regulated" militia, MEANING that the standing government could provide ammunition in times of emergency to the citizens, and with "well regulated" militia, they'd all have a standard caliber ammo so the government could focus on mass producing one type of ammo, and thus, supply as much ammo as possible to it's people.

And that would allow the people to fight ALONG SIDE the regular troops in times of national defense.

THAT, in my opinion, is the true, no bullshit meaning, with historical context and purpose. To have armed citizens, in a common caliber of ammo, that the government can open up the hordes of ammo to should a national emergency or invasion happen.

Its not to allow the citizens to fight against their own government, its to allow them to fight WITH their government. The Revolutionary War showed this, when the Americans tried to supply 7 different types of ammo to the militia, and it was hard, so they determined that a "well regulated" (aka, common caliber) amongst the militia would be a good idea.

And it is. The standard ammo of choice seems to be 5.56/.223, 12 guage, and .45 or 9mm, all very common rounds that the federal, state and local governments use. And they are very popular among citizens.

It seems the 2nd Amendment works, accidentally or on purpose, in that if America were subjected to a mass invasion, the governments could distribute ammo to the people, most of whom would have guns that could fire the most common calibers government uses.



But much to the disappointment of right wing fanatics, the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

At the time of the revolution the british WERE the government, and both the continental army and the milita were traitors to the government that was in effect. The continental government was initally not recognized as such, and was thus little more than a more organized group of traitors to the British crown.

The fact that the 2nd amendment didnt even exist at the time of the revolution is also a glaring hole in the books premise.

How is it a hole in the book's premise?

The constitution of the U.S. was written to set up a new government. They founders mistakenly thought they would need state militias to defend the new government. They didn't foresee how powerful the federal army would become. They modern standing army renders the 2nd amendment obsolete.

 

[martybegan]

the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

If that were true, they would have written it that way.

But they didn't.

It simply says that the right of the people cannot be taken away or restricted. And it provides an explanation why... but makes no conditions on its mandate.

Even if somebody managed to prove that a well-regulated militia were NOT necessary for the security of a free states, the 2nd would still be a command that the right shall not be infringed. Period.

Much to the disappointment of left-wing fanatics.

The right of the people as a group, not as individuals, is what is guaranteed not to be infringed.

Wrong. All the other amendments grant rights to invididuals, not people in general. Why should the 2nd be any different?

 

[martybegan]

Stalkers and Shooters: A History of Snipers: Kevin Dockery: 9780425215425: Amazon.com: Books

Read this book last weekend, "Stalkers and Shooters: History of Snipers"; it was fantastic. Documents the history of snipers, from the early 1300's with arrows, up to the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, all the way to modern day military and swat snipers fighting terrorism. More of a detailed history than techincal teaching book.

Anyway, it spoke about the 2nd Amendment. And the real meaning of it within context of what was going on in the country at the time. This is not a political book. Its for no-B.S. military and police people. And here is basically how it lays it out:

The Revolutionary War depended a lot on volunteer militia to fight alongside official military. The problem was, the militia were being provided ammo by the regular troops, and they had to make 7 different types of ammo due to the militia all having different rifles.

The Revolutionary War was turned in large part due to American snipers and their marksmanship and guerilla tactics. They fought ALONGSIDE their government's official troops to fight off the British.

So, to put it bluntly, as the book lays it out, the CONTEXT of the idea behind the 2nd Amendment immediately after the Revolutionary War was a "well regulated" militia, MEANING that the standing government could provide ammunition in times of emergency to the citizens, and with "well regulated" militia, they'd all have a standard caliber ammo so the government could focus on mass producing one type of ammo, and thus, supply as much ammo as possible to it's people.

And that would allow the people to fight ALONG SIDE the regular troops in times of national defense.

THAT, in my opinion, is the true, no bullshit meaning, with historical context and purpose. To have armed citizens, in a common caliber of ammo, that the government can open up the hordes of ammo to should a national emergency or invasion happen.

Its not to allow the citizens to fight against their own government, its to allow them to fight WITH their government. The Revolutionary War showed this, when the Americans tried to supply 7 different types of ammo to the militia, and it was hard, so they determined that a "well regulated" (aka, common caliber) amongst the militia would be a good idea.

And it is. The standard ammo of choice seems to be 5.56/.223, 12 guage, and .45 or 9mm, all very common rounds that the federal, state and local governments use. And they are very popular among citizens.

It seems the 2nd Amendment works, accidentally or on purpose, in that if America were subjected to a mass invasion, the governments could distribute ammo to the people, most of whom would have guns that could fire the most common calibers government uses.



But much to the disappointment of right wing fanatics, the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

At the time of the revolution the british WERE the government, and both the continental army and the milita were traitors to the government that was in effect. The continental government was initally not recognized as such, and was thus little more than a more organized group of traitors to the British crown.

The fact that the 2nd amendment didnt even exist at the time of the revolution is also a glaring hole in the books premise.

How is it a hole in the book's premise?

The constitution of the U.S. was written to set up a new government. They founders mistakenly thought they would need state militias to defend the new government. They didn't foresee how powerful the federal army would become. They modern standing army renders the 2nd amendment obsolete.

Then overturn the amendment. Until then i have a right to an AR-15, as a law abiding non felonious citizen.

 

[DiamondDave]

I think the thinking of people 230 years ago is kind of irrelevent.

DOes it make sense in the here and now for Joker Holmes to be able to walk into a gun store and buy military grade weapons and 100 ammo clips?

Amendment process is there.. go for it... you'll need all the luck you can get

But no.. you and your prog ilk would rather have government step over its bounds to get the result you want.. cheering all the way as the law of the land is thwarted and the limits on government laid out in the constitution are ignored...

Yeah, pretty much.

230 years ago, they though bleeding was a legitamate medical treatment and slavery was nifty.

The Constitution isn't written in stone, and they gave us a judiciary to make interpretations that reflect real life.

So can you give me a good reason why Joker Holmes should be able to buy an AR-15 and a 100 round clip?

There was also a lot of thoughts and beliefs that were spot on 230 years ago.. and don't be so arrogant to think that all ideas today are better

And you are right.. it is not written in stone.. THERE IS AN AMENDMENT PROCESS... and it is the ONLY way to add or subtract power to the federal government... unlike what you and your ilk think

Good reason?? Because it is the right of the people... Because government is not there to protect you from you... because like many other TOOLS, it has a purpose... because you don't want the person in whatever bad situation having less ammo right at hand than they need.... You do not want the burden on the victim... you do not want the advantage to the criminal who is not going to obey the law anyway.. the list goes on

 

[Antares]

Stalkers and Shooters: A History of Snipers: Kevin Dockery: 9780425215425: Amazon.com: Books

Read this book last weekend, "Stalkers and Shooters: History of Snipers"; it was fantastic. Documents the history of snipers, from the early 1300's with arrows, up to the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, all the way to modern day military and swat snipers fighting terrorism. More of a detailed history than techincal teaching book.

Anyway, it spoke about the 2nd Amendment. And the real meaning of it within context of what was going on in the country at the time. This is not a political book. Its for no-B.S. military and police people. And here is basically how it lays it out:

The Revolutionary War depended a lot on volunteer militia to fight alongside official military. The problem was, the militia were being provided ammo by the regular troops, and they had to make 7 different types of ammo due to the militia all having different rifles.

The Revolutionary War was turned in large part due to American snipers and their marksmanship and guerilla tactics. They fought ALONGSIDE their government's official troops to fight off the British.

So, to put it bluntly, as the book lays it out, the CONTEXT of the idea behind the 2nd Amendment immediately after the Revolutionary War was a "well regulated" militia, MEANING that the standing government could provide ammunition in times of emergency to the citizens, and with "well regulated" militia, they'd all have a standard caliber ammo so the government could focus on mass producing one type of ammo, and thus, supply as much ammo as possible to it's people.

And that would allow the people to fight ALONG SIDE the regular troops in times of national defense.

THAT, in my opinion, is the true, no bullshit meaning, with historical context and purpose. To have armed citizens, in a common caliber of ammo, that the government can open up the hordes of ammo to should a national emergency or invasion happen.

Its not to allow the citizens to fight against their own government, its to allow them to fight WITH their government. The Revolutionary War showed this, when the Americans tried to supply 7 different types of ammo to the militia, and it was hard, so they determined that a "well regulated" (aka, common caliber) amongst the militia would be a good idea.

And it is. The standard ammo of choice seems to be 5.56/.223, 12 guage, and .45 or 9mm, all very common rounds that the federal, state and local governments use. And they are very popular among citizens.

It seems the 2nd Amendment works, accidentally or on purpose, in that if America were subjected to a mass invasion, the governments could distribute ammo to the people, most of whom would have guns that could fire the most common calibers government uses.



But much to the disappointment of right wing fanatics, the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

The problem with this, and most people right or left...is that we/they have a tendency to cherry pick what we/they will latch onto in order to "prove" our own personal views.

Now.....who were they fighting in the Revolutionary War Buc?

(The Government)

 

[Wildman]

Stalkers and Shooters: A History of Snipers: Kevin Dockery: 9780425215425: Amazon.com: Books

Read this book last weekend, "Stalkers and Shooters: History of Snipers"; it was fantastic. Documents the history of snipers, from the early 1300's with arrows, up to the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, all the way to modern day military and swat snipers fighting terrorism. More of a detailed history than techincal teaching book.

Anyway, it spoke about the 2nd Amendment. And the real meaning of it within context of what was going on in the country at the time. This is not a political book. Its for no-B.S. military and police people. And here is basically how it lays it out:

The Revolutionary War depended a lot on volunteer militia to fight alongside official military. The problem was, the militia were being provided ammo by the regular troops, and they had to make 7 different types of ammo due to the militia all having different rifles.

The Revolutionary War was turned in large part due to American snipers and their marksmanship and guerilla tactics. They fought ALONGSIDE their government's official troops to fight off the British.

So, to put it bluntly, as the book lays it out, the CONTEXT of the idea behind the 2nd Amendment immediately after the Revolutionary War was a "well regulated" militia, MEANING that the standing government could provide ammunition in times of emergency to the citizens, and with "well regulated" militia, they'd all have a standard caliber ammo so the government could focus on mass producing one type of ammo, and thus, supply as much ammo as possible to it's people.

And that would allow the people to fight ALONG SIDE the regular troops in times of national defense.

THAT, in my opinion, is the true, no bullshit meaning, with historical context and purpose. To have armed citizens, in a common caliber of ammo, that the government can open up the hordes of ammo to should a national emergency or invasion happen.

Its not to allow the citizens to fight against their own government, its to allow them to fight WITH their government. The Revolutionary War showed this, when the Americans tried to supply 7 different types of ammo to the militia, and it was hard, so they determined that a "well regulated" (aka, common caliber) amongst the militia would be a good idea.

And it is. The standard ammo of choice seems to be 5.56/.223, 12 guage, and .45 or 9mm, all very common rounds that the federal, state and local governments use. And they are very popular among citizens.

It seems the 2nd Amendment works, accidentally or on purpose, in that if America were subjected to a mass invasion, the governments could distribute ammo to the people, most of whom would have guns that could fire the most common calibers government uses.



But much to the disappointment of right wing fanatics, the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

i was with you right up till you typed this bullshit, now you need to read the Declaration of Independence where it states that citizens must throw off a repressive government here is the exact wording, just in case you never read the DOI.., which i believe you have not since typing that last line....,

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

thank you for showing your true COLORS

 

[Stephanie]

Stalkers and Shooters: A History of Snipers: Kevin Dockery: 9780425215425: Amazon.com: Books

Read this book last weekend, "Stalkers and Shooters: History of Snipers"; it was fantastic. Documents the history of snipers, from the early 1300's with arrows, up to the Revolutionary and Civil Wars, all the way to modern day military and swat snipers fighting terrorism. More of a detailed history than techincal teaching book.

Anyway, it spoke about the 2nd Amendment. And the real meaning of it within context of what was going on in the country at the time. This is not a political book. Its for no-B.S. military and police people. And here is basically how it lays it out:

The Revolutionary War depended a lot on volunteer militia to fight alongside official military. The problem was, the militia were being provided ammo by the regular troops, and they had to make 7 different types of ammo due to the militia all having different rifles.

The Revolutionary War was turned in large part due to American snipers and their marksmanship and guerilla tactics. They fought ALONGSIDE their government's official troops to fight off the British.

So, to put it bluntly, as the book lays it out, the CONTEXT of the idea behind the 2nd Amendment immediately after the Revolutionary War was a "well regulated" militia, MEANING that the standing government could provide ammunition in times of emergency to the citizens, and with "well regulated" militia, they'd all have a standard caliber ammo so the government could focus on mass producing one type of ammo, and thus, supply as much ammo as possible to it's people.

And that would allow the people to fight ALONG SIDE the regular troops in times of national defense.

THAT, in my opinion, is the true, no bullshit meaning, with historical context and purpose. To have armed citizens, in a common caliber of ammo, that the government can open up the hordes of ammo to should a national emergency or invasion happen.

Its not to allow the citizens to fight against their own government, its to allow them to fight WITH their government. The Revolutionary War showed this, when the Americans tried to supply 7 different types of ammo to the militia, and it was hard, so they determined that a "well regulated" (aka, common caliber) amongst the militia would be a good idea.

And it is. The standard ammo of choice seems to be 5.56/.223, 12 guage, and .45 or 9mm, all very common rounds that the federal, state and local governments use. And they are very popular among citizens.

It seems the 2nd Amendment works, accidentally or on purpose, in that if America were subjected to a mass invasion, the governments could distribute ammo to the people, most of whom would have guns that could fire the most common calibers government uses.



But much to the disappointment of right wing fanatics, the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

i was with you right up till you typed this bullshit, now you need to read the Declaration of Independence where it states that citizens must throw off a repressive government here is the exact wording, just in case you never read the DOI.., which i believe you have not since typing that last line....,

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,

thank you for showing your true COLORS

with people like them we see why these politicians in this government think they are there to be OUR MASTERS...unfortunately we are being overrun with these types of people and soon these people IN GOVERNMENT will have won and we will ALL LOSE

 

[Wildman]

Having read the Federalist Papers, written by the framers of the Constitution, it is clear that the the government was not intending to encourage citizens to arm themselves against a tyranical government. If anything, they were assuming that no standing army would ever be needed in this country, and that the defense of the nation, against domestic and foreign threats, rested permenantly with the militia, and NOT with a standing army. Consequently, the militia must be allowed to be armed, and the government was not going to pay for stocking arsanals for them.

Do you agree that, with the explosion of technology, that proper national defense now MUST have a standing, full time Army that trains in peace time?

If we did not, and Russia or China invaded with their full time military that trains for years and years...........you dont think our citizens could all of a sudden pick up a rifle, learn to fly jets, etc, and fight them off?

We hear all the time about our military reservists not getting enough training. "Militia" in today's world, with all the technology, wouldnt stand a chance.

in your scenario, there would be no "jets" to fly, (how did airplanes turn into "JETS" ??) outside of that, we did it in 1776AD thru 1783AD we true patriots can do it once more if needed it may take us a few years or the 7 years it took our forefathers, but we will prevail

unless you traitors join up with the insurgents, who will then chop off your traitorous head ha ha ha

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

If that were true, they would have written it that way.

But they didn't.

It simply says that the right of the people cannot be taken away or restricted. And it provides an explanation why... but makes no conditions on its mandate.

Even if somebody managed to prove that a well-regulated militia were NOT necessary for the security of a free states, the 2nd would still be a command that the right shall not be infringed. Period.

Much to the disappointment of left-wing fanatics.

The right of the people as a group, not as individuals, is what is guaranteed not to be infringed.

Wrong. All the other amendments grant rights to invididuals, not people in general. Why should the 2nd be any different?

Because the 2nd amendment itself uses the word "militia." Never heard of a militia that included just 1 person.

 

[Smilodonfatalis]

At the time of the revolution the british WERE the government, and both the continental army and the milita were traitors to the government that was in effect. The continental government was initally not recognized as such, and was thus little more than a more organized group of traitors to the British crown.

The fact that the 2nd amendment didnt even exist at the time of the revolution is also a glaring hole in the books premise.

How is it a hole in the book's premise?

The constitution of the U.S. was written to set up a new government. They founders mistakenly thought they would need state militias to defend the new government. They didn't foresee how powerful the federal army would become. They modern standing army renders the 2nd amendment obsolete.

Then overturn the amendment. Until then i have a right to an AR-15, as a law abiding non felonious citizen.

You completely failed to answer my question. How is it a hole in the book's premise?

 

[peach174]

the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

If that were true, they would have written it that way.

But they didn't.

It simply says that the right of the people cannot be taken away or restricted. And it provides an explanation why... but makes no conditions on its mandate.

Even if somebody managed to prove that a well-regulated militia were NOT necessary for the security of a free states, the 2nd would still be a command that the right shall not be infringed. Period.

Much to the disappointment of left-wing fanatics.

The right of the people as a group, not as individuals, is what is guaranteed not to be infringed.

If that were right, then only Politicians would have freedom of speech as a group, not the rest of Americans as individuals.

This is socialist and communists way of thinking, aka - collectivism.
Group thinking is what causes loss of freedom and eventual death by the thousands and millions.
"collectivist ethical principle: man is not an end to himself, but is only a tool to serve the ends of others. Whether those 'others' are a dictator's gang, the nation, society, the race, (the) god(s), the majority, the community, the tribe, etc., is irrelevant -- the point is that man in principle must be sacrificed to others." -- Mark Da Cunha

We are not Socialists or Communists.
We are America where each and every citizen has individual rights, given to each and every one of us by our Amendments.
The Amendments are for each and every one of us. Not just certain groups as a whole.

 

[martybegan]

The right of the people as a group, not as individuals, is what is guaranteed not to be infringed.

Wrong. All the other amendments grant rights to invididuals, not people in general. Why should the 2nd be any different?

Because the 2nd amendment itself uses the word "militia." Never heard of a militia that included just 1 person.

The State has the right to call a regulated milita. However the PEOPLE are the ones who maintain the right to keep and bear arms. Its not my fault, and in no way removes MY right to keep and bear arms if the States have decided to not call up and organize the unorganized milita.

 

[martybegan]

How is it a hole in the book's premise?

The constitution of the U.S. was written to set up a new government. They founders mistakenly thought they would need state militias to defend the new government. They didn't foresee how powerful the federal army would become. They modern standing army renders the 2nd amendment obsolete.

Then overturn the amendment. Until then i have a right to an AR-15, as a law abiding non felonious citizen.

You completely failed to answer my question. How is it a hole in the book's premise?

The very fact that the rebel government and rebel individuals were actually rebelling against the established government. The consitution was not even a thought at the time, this was even before the articles of confederation. The best document you have from the period is the Declaration of Independance, and that document is against any form of tyrannical government, not just the one that was existing at the time.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

the 2nd was, and is, meant to allow citizens to fight WITH their government, NOT against it.

If that were true, they would have written it that way.

But they didn't.

It simply says that the right of the people cannot be taken away or restricted. And it provides an explanation why... but makes no conditions on its mandate.

Even if somebody managed to prove that a well-regulated militia were NOT necessary for the security of a free states, the 2nd would still be a command that the right shall not be infringed. Period.

Much to the disappointment of left-wing fanatics.

Thats probably because back then, in this new nation, they couldnt forsee a time when people hated the United States government so much. That they could only imagine supporting it and showing patriotism towards it.

They probably couldn't forsee people wanting to fight against the very government that partly makes this country so great.

A "poorly" or non-regulated militia would just be everybody having guns. And thats it.

The "well regulated" part, meaning it has some standards, referred to a common caliber of ammo, so in times of crisis, the government could arm the people with that standard caliber. The sources used in the book explain that. About how the Revolutionary War showed trouble by the American military trying to supply the citizens 7 different calibers of ammo to fight the British, when one.....or a "well regulated" militia.....would have been far more efficient.

If the Founders had wanted to be sure the citizens had the power to overthrow the government, they would've said "The people shall have the right to own weapons far superior to that of the government; And the government shall not own any weapons that are equal or greater than that of common citizens."

But thats not what they said.

This is beyond stupid.. even for you.

 

[Wildman]

I think the thinking of people 230 years ago is kind of irrelevent.

DOes it make sense in the here and now for Joker Holmes to be able to walk into a gun store and buy military grade weapons and 100 ammo clips?

Amendment process is there.. go for it... you'll need all the luck you can get

But no.. you and your prog ilk would rather have government step over its bounds to get the result you want.. cheering all the way as the law of the land is thwarted and the limits on government laid out in the constitution are ignored...

Yeah, pretty much.

230 years ago, they though bleeding was a legitamate medical treatment and slavery was nifty.

The Constitution isn't written in stone, and they gave us a judiciary to make interpretations that reflect real life.

So can you give me a good reason why Joker Holmes should be able to buy an AR-15 and a 100 round clip?

there ain't no such thing as a "100 round clip" for an AR-15.., trust me, i know, i have had AR-15's since the day they were available to the general public.., also, did you know we civilians had AR-15's before the military had their version, the M16 ........ ???

 

[DiamondDave]

The right of the people as a group, not as individuals, is what is guaranteed not to be infringed.

Wrong. All the other amendments grant rights to invididuals, not people in general. Why should the 2nd be any different?

Because the 2nd amendment itself uses the word "militia." Never heard of a militia that included just 1 person.

Punctuation has a purpose and a meaning.... notice punctuation in the amendment...

 

[DiamondDave]

Amendment process is there.. go for it... you'll need all the luck you can get

But no.. you and your prog ilk would rather have government step over its bounds to get the result you want.. cheering all the way as the law of the land is thwarted and the limits on government laid out in the constitution are ignored...

Yeah, pretty much.

230 years ago, they though bleeding was a legitamate medical treatment and slavery was nifty.

The Constitution isn't written in stone, and they gave us a judiciary to make interpretations that reflect real life.

So can you give me a good reason why Joker Holmes should be able to buy an AR-15 and a 100 round clip?

there ain't no such thing as a "100 round clip" for an AR-15.., trust me, i know, i have had AR-15's since the day they were available to the general public.., also, did you know we civilians had AR-15's before the military had their version, the M16 ........ ???

Actually.. you can get a 100 round drum for the AR... never used one so I don't know about its reliability... but that is neither here nor there....

 

[JoeB131]

[

There was also a lot of thoughts and beliefs that were spot on 230 years ago.. and don't be so arrogant to think that all ideas today are better

I think not bleeding people and not owning other people are pretty nifty ideas. So is not letting Joker Holmes buy a gun.

And you are right.. it is not written in stone.. THERE IS AN AMENDMENT PROCESS... and it is the ONLY way to add or subtract power to the federal government... unlike what you and your ilk think

There is also a JUDICIARY that has been given discretion as to how to apply the laws. For instance, most of the common sense gun laws- gun laws that even the NRA supported before Wayne LaFoamy took over - were drafted under the Auspices of US. v. Miller, when after gangsters started mowing down people with Tommy Guns, they realized there were valid needs to limit how much firepower civilians had.

Good reason?? Because it is the right of the people...

Not a good reason for Joker Holmes to buy a gun. Next.

[
Because government is not there to protect you from you... because like many other TOOLS, it has a purpose...

Yes, it has a PURPOSE in the hands of trained, specialized personnel who have been prepared to show discretion on when to use them. WHich is not George Zimmerman shooting an "asshole" or Joker Holmes shooting up a theatre.

[because you don't want the person in whatever bad situation having less ammo right at hand than they need.... You do not want the burden on the victim... you do not want the advantage to the criminal who is not going to obey the law anyway.. the list goes on

But it's a pretty retarded list. Here's the problem, when you are out there clinging to your gun and your bible.

Most gun deaths are suicides or accidents- about two thirds of them. Of the rest, most are cases of domestic violence. 80% of murder victims are killed by someone they know.

Very, very, very few are legitimate acts of self-defense against a deadly opponent.