CDZ This is As Clear As A Bell.

[WillowTree]

What interpretation do you think it needs?

 

[aaronleland]

 

[gipper]

The Bill of Rights has been under assault for years. When all Americans are spied on by their government, essentially the Fourth Amendment is meaningless. When Americans can be held by their government indefinitely without charges, the Fifth and Sixth Amendment are meaningless.

It is just a matter of time before the Second Amendment becomes limited or eliminated altogether....if we continue down this path to tyranny.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

It is frockers like you , who are willing to give up your rights for the pittance of welfare that the government is going to give you. What is worse is that you are such a loser, that the only way you can compete is to have that government take from the rest of US who are law abiding citizens our way to defend ourselves from the frockers like you, who want what we have and would take it if we didn't have a 2nd amendment, which is why you hate US so much.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We actually have people marching in the streets begging the government to take away rights

I feel like I'm in Bizarro World

 

[WillowTree]

Non answer. The NRA did not write the constitution or any Amendments!

 

[Toronado3800]

View attachment 185286



What interpretation do you think it needs?

The intent is clear. People have the right to own guns. We can look at 1801 and see how it was applied to figure it out

The writing is a vague and confusing combination of a couple thoughts.

One is something about militia's being necessary (to kill Indians? kill the French?).

Another is something about well regulated (good Captains in charge of the militia? regulations on what gun does what? should we sign up our guns so they are regulated like cars)?

A third is about defending the free state... state is a terrible word. I suspect the meaning has been replaced by "country" in modern English. But it says these guns are necessary to defend the state....of Virginia against the Feds? Defend the U.S. so if you have a gun you are in the National Guard?

Honestly we can look at how the 2nd was implemented while the writers were alive to see what they meant it to mean.

But man if you read it I wonder if they either:

A. sucked at writing a clear and concise thought.

B. left it as a living amendment with flexible meanings for the future.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

View attachment 185286



What interpretation do you think it needs?

The intent is clear. People have the right to own guns. We can look at 1801 and see how it was applied to figure it out

The writing is a vague and confusing combination of a couple thoughts.

One is something about militia's being necessary (to kill Indians? kill the French?).

Another is something about well regulated (good Captains in charge of the militia? regulations on what gun does what? should we sign up our guns so they are regulated like cars)?

A third is about defending the free state... state is a terrible word. I suspect the meaning has been replaced by "country" in modern English. But it says these guns are necessary to defend the state....of Virginia against the Feds? Defend the U.S. so if you have a gun you are in the National Guard?

Honestly we can look at how the 2nd was implemented while the writers were alive to see what they meant it to mean.

But man if you read it I wonder if they either:

A. sucked at writing a clear and concise thought.

B. left it as a living amendment with flexible meanings for the future.

The 2nd amendment was created with certainty that the United States would face tyrannical governments, that the very people fought against. Each election of liberals who get in power, they(liberals) test the waters to see how far they can get with destroying the fabric of this country. Just look at the past 40 years where immorality is constantly FORCED upon US, and luckily with the 2nd amendment protecting US, we can push back from the tyranny. If ever the 2nd amendment is repealed, then the United States will end up like every other FAILED Socialist experiment. That is what Marxism wants, but We the People of the United States wont allow it. This is why the lunatic lefties hate US so much.

 

[Toronado3800]

View attachment 185286



What interpretation do you think it needs?

The intent is clear. People have the right to own guns. We can look at 1801 and see how it was applied to figure it out

The writing is a vague and confusing combination of a couple thoughts.

One is something about militia's being necessary (to kill Indians? kill the French?).

Another is something about well regulated (good Captains in charge of the militia? regulations on what gun does what? should we sign up our guns so they are regulated like cars)?

A third is about defending the free state... state is a terrible word. I suspect the meaning has been replaced by "country" in modern English. But it says these guns are necessary to defend the state....of Virginia against the Feds? Defend the U.S. so if you have a gun you are in the National Guard?

Honestly we can look at how the 2nd was implemented while the writers were alive to see what they meant it to mean.

But man if you read it I wonder if they either:

A. sucked at writing a clear and concise thought.

B. left it as a living amendment with flexible meanings for the future.

The 2nd amendment was created with certainty that the United States would face tyrannical governments, that the very people fought against. Each election of liberals who get in power, they(liberals) test the waters to see how far they can get with destroying the fabric of this country. Just look at the past 40 years where immorality is constantly FORCED upon US, and luckily with the 2nd amendment protecting US, we can push back from the tyranny. If ever the 2nd amendment is repealed, then the United States will end up like every other FAILED Socialist experiment. That is what Marxism wants, but We the People of the United States wont allow it. This is why the lunatic lefties hate US so much.

View attachment 185314

I don't understand where the ridiculing and name calling pictures and GIF come from. Are you here to taunt of debate? We can do either but there are different areas on the site for each.

Once again, looking at 1801 it is pretty easy to see what the Rules as Intended were.

Just reading the darned 2nd it seems vague and confusing to me. The talk about regulated, defending the state, its just random thoughts.

So my thoughts are:

-It was written poorly. Hey, we all have bad days.

-It was written with the future in mind to be flexible. (I dunno, MAYBE they saw automatic weapons coming or bigger cannons? I doubt it, I just think they were having a bad day.)

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

View attachment 185286



What interpretation do you think it needs?

The intent is clear. People have the right to own guns. We can look at 1801 and see how it was applied to figure it out

The writing is a vague and confusing combination of a couple thoughts.

One is something about militia's being necessary (to kill Indians? kill the French?).

Another is something about well regulated (good Captains in charge of the militia? regulations on what gun does what? should we sign up our guns so they are regulated like cars)?

A third is about defending the free state... state is a terrible word. I suspect the meaning has been replaced by "country" in modern English. But it says these guns are necessary to defend the state....of Virginia against the Feds? Defend the U.S. so if you have a gun you are in the National Guard?

Honestly we can look at how the 2nd was implemented while the writers were alive to see what they meant it to mean.

But man if you read it I wonder if they either:

A. sucked at writing a clear and concise thought.

B. left it as a living amendment with flexible meanings for the future.

The 2nd amendment was created with certainty that the United States would face tyrannical governments, that the very people fought against. Each election of liberals who get in power, they(liberals) test the waters to see how far they can get with destroying the fabric of this country. Just look at the past 40 years where immorality is constantly FORCED upon US, and luckily with the 2nd amendment protecting US, we can push back from the tyranny. If ever the 2nd amendment is repealed, then the United States will end up like every other FAILED Socialist experiment. That is what Marxism wants, but We the People of the United States wont allow it. This is why the lunatic lefties hate US so much.

View attachment 185314

I don't understand where the ridiculing and name calling pictures and GIF come from. Are you here to taunt of debate? We can do either but there are different areas on the site for each.

Once again, looking at 1801 it is pretty easy to see what the Rules as Intended were.

Just reading the darned 2nd it seems vague and confusing to me. The talk about regulated, defending the state, its just random thoughts.

So my thoughts are:

-It was written poorly. Hey, we all have bad days.

-It was written with the future in mind to be flexible. (I dunno, MAYBE they saw automatic weapons coming or bigger cannons? I doubt it, I just think they were having a bad day.)

Maybe they saw that in the future weapons were going to evolve, into bigger and better weapons that the government develops so the People of the United States should be able to defend themselves from the government with like weapons? Real good if the government has M-16s and the United States Citizens only have muskets? You must be a graduate of public education of late. At least back when I graduated, the school system still taught American History and what the constitution protected.

 

[Toronado3800]

View attachment 185286



What interpretation do you think it needs?

The intent is clear. People have the right to own guns. We can look at 1801 and see how it was applied to figure it out

The writing is a vague and confusing combination of a couple thoughts.

One is something about militia's being necessary (to kill Indians? kill the French?).

Another is something about well regulated (good Captains in charge of the militia? regulations on what gun does what? should we sign up our guns so they are regulated like cars)?

A third is about defending the free state... state is a terrible word. I suspect the meaning has been replaced by "country" in modern English. But it says these guns are necessary to defend the state....of Virginia against the Feds? Defend the U.S. so if you have a gun you are in the National Guard?

Honestly we can look at how the 2nd was implemented while the writers were alive to see what they meant it to mean.

But man if you read it I wonder if they either:

A. sucked at writing a clear and concise thought.

B. left it as a living amendment with flexible meanings for the future.

The 2nd amendment was created with certainty that the United States would face tyrannical governments, that the very people fought against. Each election of liberals who get in power, they(liberals) test the waters to see how far they can get with destroying the fabric of this country. Just look at the past 40 years where immorality is constantly FORCED upon US, and luckily with the 2nd amendment protecting US, we can push back from the tyranny. If ever the 2nd amendment is repealed, then the United States will end up like every other FAILED Socialist experiment. That is what Marxism wants, but We the People of the United States wont allow it. This is why the lunatic lefties hate US so much.

View attachment 185314

I don't understand where the ridiculing and name calling pictures and GIF come from. Are you here to taunt of debate? We can do either but there are different areas on the site for each.

Once again, looking at 1801 it is pretty easy to see what the Rules as Intended were.

Just reading the darned 2nd it seems vague and confusing to me. The talk about regulated, defending the state, its just random thoughts.

So my thoughts are:

-It was written poorly. Hey, we all have bad days.

-It was written with the future in mind to be flexible. (I dunno, MAYBE they saw automatic weapons coming or bigger cannons? I doubt it, I just think they were having a bad day.)

Maybe they saw that in the future weapons were going to evolve, into bigger and better weapons that the government develops so the People of the United States should be able to defend themselves from the government with like weapons? Real good if the government has M-16s and the United States Citizens only have muskets? You must be a graduate of public education of late. At least back when I graduated, the school system still taught American History and what the constitution protected.

Cool. ridicule my education. Maybe you are trying to make me angry for some reason?

The current situation is the government has atomic weapons and I have a really nice shotgun. Are you in favor of leveling the field, giving me the same weapons as Donald Trump has?

 

[TheOldSchool]

Well regulated. Crystal clear.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

View attachment 185286



What interpretation do you think it needs?

The intent is clear. People have the right to own guns. We can look at 1801 and see how it was applied to figure it out

The writing is a vague and confusing combination of a couple thoughts.

One is something about militia's being necessary (to kill Indians? kill the French?).

Another is something about well regulated (good Captains in charge of the militia? regulations on what gun does what? should we sign up our guns so they are regulated like cars)?

A third is about defending the free state... state is a terrible word. I suspect the meaning has been replaced by "country" in modern English. But it says these guns are necessary to defend the state....of Virginia against the Feds? Defend the U.S. so if you have a gun you are in the National Guard?

Honestly we can look at how the 2nd was implemented while the writers were alive to see what they meant it to mean.

But man if you read it I wonder if they either:

A. sucked at writing a clear and concise thought.

B. left it as a living amendment with flexible meanings for the future.

The 2nd amendment was created with certainty that the United States would face tyrannical governments, that the very people fought against. Each election of liberals who get in power, they(liberals) test the waters to see how far they can get with destroying the fabric of this country. Just look at the past 40 years where immorality is constantly FORCED upon US, and luckily with the 2nd amendment protecting US, we can push back from the tyranny. If ever the 2nd amendment is repealed, then the United States will end up like every other FAILED Socialist experiment. That is what Marxism wants, but We the People of the United States wont allow it. This is why the lunatic lefties hate US so much.

View attachment 185314

I don't understand where the ridiculing and name calling pictures and GIF come from. Are you here to taunt of debate? We can do either but there are different areas on the site for each.

Once again, looking at 1801 it is pretty easy to see what the Rules as Intended were.

Just reading the darned 2nd it seems vague and confusing to me. The talk about regulated, defending the state, its just random thoughts.

So my thoughts are:

-It was written poorly. Hey, we all have bad days.

-It was written with the future in mind to be flexible. (I dunno, MAYBE they saw automatic weapons coming or bigger cannons? I doubt it, I just think they were having a bad day.)

Maybe they saw that in the future weapons were going to evolve, into bigger and better weapons that the government develops so the People of the United States should be able to defend themselves from the government with like weapons? Real good if the government has M-16s and the United States Citizens only have muskets? You must be a graduate of public education of late. At least back when I graduated, the school system still taught American History and what the constitution protected.

Cool. ridicule my education. Maybe you are trying to make me angry for some reason?

The current situation is the government has atomic weapons and I have a really nice shotgun. Are you in favor of leveling the field, giving me the same weapons as Donald Trump has?

Dude, up to the late 1970s people didn't have a problem understanding the way the founding fathers wrote(they were ex British you know). Why is it hard for you to understand it today?

 

[Toronado3800]

The intent is clear. People have the right to own guns. We can look at 1801 and see how it was applied to figure it out

The writing is a vague and confusing combination of a couple thoughts.

One is something about militia's being necessary (to kill Indians? kill the French?).

Another is something about well regulated (good Captains in charge of the militia? regulations on what gun does what? should we sign up our guns so they are regulated like cars)?

A third is about defending the free state... state is a terrible word. I suspect the meaning has been replaced by "country" in modern English. But it says these guns are necessary to defend the state....of Virginia against the Feds? Defend the U.S. so if you have a gun you are in the National Guard?

Honestly we can look at how the 2nd was implemented while the writers were alive to see what they meant it to mean.

But man if you read it I wonder if they either:

A. sucked at writing a clear and concise thought.

B. left it as a living amendment with flexible meanings for the future.

The 2nd amendment was created with certainty that the United States would face tyrannical governments, that the very people fought against. Each election of liberals who get in power, they(liberals) test the waters to see how far they can get with destroying the fabric of this country. Just look at the past 40 years where immorality is constantly FORCED upon US, and luckily with the 2nd amendment protecting US, we can push back from the tyranny. If ever the 2nd amendment is repealed, then the United States will end up like every other FAILED Socialist experiment. That is what Marxism wants, but We the People of the United States wont allow it. This is why the lunatic lefties hate US so much.

View attachment 185314

I don't understand where the ridiculing and name calling pictures and GIF come from. Are you here to taunt of debate? We can do either but there are different areas on the site for each.

Once again, looking at 1801 it is pretty easy to see what the Rules as Intended were.

Just reading the darned 2nd it seems vague and confusing to me. The talk about regulated, defending the state, its just random thoughts.

So my thoughts are:

-It was written poorly. Hey, we all have bad days.

-It was written with the future in mind to be flexible. (I dunno, MAYBE they saw automatic weapons coming or bigger cannons? I doubt it, I just think they were having a bad day.)

Maybe they saw that in the future weapons were going to evolve, into bigger and better weapons that the government develops so the People of the United States should be able to defend themselves from the government with like weapons? Real good if the government has M-16s and the United States Citizens only have muskets? You must be a graduate of public education of late. At least back when I graduated, the school system still taught American History and what the constitution protected.

Cool. ridicule my education. Maybe you are trying to make me angry for some reason?

The current situation is the government has atomic weapons and I have a really nice shotgun. Are you in favor of leveling the field, giving me the same weapons as Donald Trump has?

Dude, up to the late 1970s people didn't have a problem understanding the way the founding fathers wrote(they were ex British you know). Why is it hard for you to understand it today?

Ok. Skip my question if you don't have an opinion on private citizens owning atomic bombs if they can afford them. Do you have an opinion on this. Personally I'm against it. It is ok to have an opinion different than mine if you are consistent.

in the 70's were automatic weapons less regulated than today?

I suspect the problem today is white kids are getting killed in middle class schools if you would like to change the topic to difference in gun control, 2010's vs 1970's.

 

[OldLady]

View attachment 185286



What interpretation do you think it needs?

View attachment 185286



What interpretation do you think it needs?

The intent is clear. People have the right to own guns. We can look at 1801 and see how it was applied to figure it out

The writing is a vague and confusing combination of a couple thoughts.

One is something about militia's being necessary (to kill Indians? kill the French?).

Another is something about well regulated (good Captains in charge of the militia? regulations on what gun does what? should we sign up our guns so they are regulated like cars)?

A third is about defending the free state... state is a terrible word. I suspect the meaning has been replaced by "country" in modern English. But it says these guns are necessary to defend the state....of Virginia against the Feds? Defend the U.S. so if you have a gun you are in the National Guard?

Honestly we can look at how the 2nd was implemented while the writers were alive to see what they meant it to mean.

But man if you read it I wonder if they either:

A. sucked at writing a clear and concise thought.

B. left it as a living amendment with flexible meanings for the future.

The 2nd amendment was created with certainty that the United States would face tyrannical governments, that the very people fought against. Each election of liberals who get in power, they(liberals) test the waters to see how far they can get with destroying the fabric of this country. Just look at the past 40 years where immorality is constantly FORCED upon US, and luckily with the 2nd amendment protecting US, we can push back from the tyranny. If ever the 2nd amendment is repealed, then the United States will end up like every other FAILED Socialist experiment. That is what Marxism wants, but We the People of the United States wont allow it. This is why the lunatic lefties hate US so much.

View attachment 185314

I don't understand where the ridiculing and name calling pictures and GIF come from. Are you here to taunt of debate? We can do either but there are different areas on the site for each.

Once again, looking at 1801 it is pretty easy to see what the Rules as Intended were.

Just reading the darned 2nd it seems vague and confusing to me. The talk about regulated, defending the state, its just random thoughts.

So my thoughts are:

-It was written poorly. Hey, we all have bad days.

-It was written with the future in mind to be flexible. (I dunno, MAYBE they saw automatic weapons coming or bigger cannons? I doubt it, I just think they were having a bad day.)

They had to get it ratified and they made it hazy on purpose because everyone could read into it what they wanted. They kicked the can down the road, same as they did on slavery.

 

[Toronado3800]

View attachment 185286



What interpretation do you think it needs?

View attachment 185286



What interpretation do you think it needs?

The intent is clear. People have the right to own guns. We can look at 1801 and see how it was applied to figure it out

The writing is a vague and confusing combination of a couple thoughts.

One is something about militia's being necessary (to kill Indians? kill the French?).

Another is something about well regulated (good Captains in charge of the militia? regulations on what gun does what? should we sign up our guns so they are regulated like cars)?

A third is about defending the free state... state is a terrible word. I suspect the meaning has been replaced by "country" in modern English. But it says these guns are necessary to defend the state....of Virginia against the Feds? Defend the U.S. so if you have a gun you are in the National Guard?

Honestly we can look at how the 2nd was implemented while the writers were alive to see what they meant it to mean.

But man if you read it I wonder if they either:

A. sucked at writing a clear and concise thought.

B. left it as a living amendment with flexible meanings for the future.

The 2nd amendment was created with certainty that the United States would face tyrannical governments, that the very people fought against. Each election of liberals who get in power, they(liberals) test the waters to see how far they can get with destroying the fabric of this country. Just look at the past 40 years where immorality is constantly FORCED upon US, and luckily with the 2nd amendment protecting US, we can push back from the tyranny. If ever the 2nd amendment is repealed, then the United States will end up like every other FAILED Socialist experiment. That is what Marxism wants, but We the People of the United States wont allow it. This is why the lunatic lefties hate US so much.

View attachment 185314

I don't understand where the ridiculing and name calling pictures and GIF come from. Are you here to taunt of debate? We can do either but there are different areas on the site for each.

Once again, looking at 1801 it is pretty easy to see what the Rules as Intended were.

Just reading the darned 2nd it seems vague and confusing to me. The talk about regulated, defending the state, its just random thoughts.

So my thoughts are:

-It was written poorly. Hey, we all have bad days.

-It was written with the future in mind to be flexible. (I dunno, MAYBE they saw automatic weapons coming or bigger cannons? I doubt it, I just think they were having a bad day.)

They had to get it ratified and they made it hazy on purpose because everyone could read into it what they wanted. They kicked the can down the road, same as they did on slavery.

Interesting and good historical parallel.

 

[WillowTree]

Well regulated. Crystal clear.

It says well regulated militia. Crystal clear!

 

[IsaacNewton]

View attachment 185286



What interpretation do you think it needs?

A militia in 1780, 'well regulated', 'disciplined'. Gun owners today are anything except disciplined and well regulated. And a militia in 1780 isn't a militia today.

Lastly the note from George Washington, 'sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any including their own government'. Sufficient arms and ammunition today would mean aircraft carriers, thousands of jets, thousands of helicopters, tank divisions, thousands of artillery pieces, nuclear weapons. The quaint idea of 'the people armed with muskets, or today with AK47s', being able to defend themselves against their own government read military, ended over 100 years ago. There is zero chance the American people could defeat our own military in a real war. ZERO.

It is childish fantasy to cling to this idea of fighting our own military with nothing but rifles. Only an adult that harbors delusions of grandeur and lives in unreality would believe we the people could defeat our own army in a real fight. They'd roll over us in a few days, if that. The US population should have access to a level of firearms for self protection but all the rest is nostalgic feel good delusion. When 100,000 Americans armed with nothing more than kitted fully auto rifles sees an armored division rolling towards them backed by hundreds of helicopters, bombers, and A-10s, they'll know what the Iraqi army saw in both Gulf Wars. Who then lost in a few days even though the Iraqis had thousands of tanks and artillery pieces, as well as 700 jet aircraft.

So keep shotguns and pistols legal for self defense. All guns should be well regulated as the 2nd Amendment calls for.

 

[WillowTree]

View attachment 185286



What interpretation do you think it needs?

A militia in 1780, 'well regulated', 'disciplined'. Gun owners today are anything except disciplined and well regulated. And a militia in 1780 isn't a militia today.

Lastly the note from George Washington, 'sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any including their own government'. Sufficient arms and ammunition today would mean aircraft carriers, thousands of jets, thousands of helicopters, tank divisions, thousands of artillery pieces, nuclear weapons. The quaint idea of 'the people armed with muskets, or today with AK47s', being able to defend themselves against their own government read military, ended over 100 years ago. There is zero chance the American people could defeat our own military in a real war. ZERO.

It is childish fantasy to cling to this idea of fighting our own military with nothing but rifles. Only an adult that harbors delusions of grandeur and lives in unreality would believe we the people could defeat our own army in a real fight. They'd roll over us in a few days, if that. The US population should have access to a level of firearms for self protection but all the rest is nostalgic feel good delusion. When 100,000 Americans armed with nothing more than kitted fully auto rifles sees an armored division rolling towards them backed by hundreds of helicopters, bombers, and A-10s, they'll know what the Iraqi army saw in both Gulf Wars. Who then lost in a few days even though the Iraqis had thousands of tanks and artillery pieces, as well as 700 jet aircraft.

So keep shotguns and pistols legal for self defense. All guns should be well regulated as the 2nd Amendment calls for.

It dosen’t say All guns!

 

[oldsoul]

View attachment 185286



What interpretation do you think it needs?

For those who speak/read English, none. It's the most clear of the first 10 Amendments. Also, I believe, the shortest.