What would you do with the second amendment?

[Daryl Hunt]

Cool. Now answer the question, "So where does the Constitution give the Feds the power from stopping a State from leaving the Union?"

Precedence was set in 1861. Care to debate if that was wrong or right? A Civil War was fought to decide that.

So you don't see it in the constitution either. What does the 10th amendment say about that?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You can read anything into you wish including the States should issue all citizens hot beef sandwiches if it wishes.

But if you look at a couple of other Amendments you will see where it may be covered.

1st amendment: Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation

Article IV: All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. I suggest you read the Articles of Confederation that specifically covered the subject. Because of Article IV, the US is still bound by the Articles of Confederation. And in the Articles of the Confederation it is clearly covered.

Before the 1850s, if a State felt it was unduly mistreated by the Federal Government, it would go into discussions of Seceding. Oftentimes, this would being change at the Federal Level. Until 1860, no State had ever felt it serious enough to go ahead with secession so it was a whole new world for everyone. Laws specifically weren't written to cover that. But hidden under all that gobbly gook they are there. What's not there is the repercussion of such an action. I believe the South took all choices of action away from the North at the point of attacking Ft. Sumpter. Before the Attack, things were negotiable like it always was in the past. It would have been a given and take from both sides.

Today, precedence has been set that if you want to secede from the nation, military force can be used by the Federal Government. That was set in 1861. It's such a dire method, I don't think any sane person even wishes to conceive of it except for our 3 Wanna Be Traitors. And that is why it's like that. I don't know why it isn't used more than it has been. We laugh at California for voting for Secession yet that was the way that the States got positive changes in the Federal Government prior to 1850. Can you imagine if a majority of the States were to put the secession on their voting ballots? It doesn't have to succeed, it just has to be presented. Today, the People we have in Congress and in the Presidency are so complacent that they believe that states will never do that. But it can be done successfully without war. If 36 states elect to do this then it's done. Not secession but a drastic change in the Federal Government and the Constitution making a completely different Nation.

So can Secession actually happen, I would say yes. Remember, it wasn't Lincoln that attacked the South. It was the South that took up military action against the United States of America. In affect, a criminal action. Yah, I know, I just went on the Jeb Stuart most likely to get beaten to a pulp list. But there are many, many steps that can be taken prior to secession actually happening. And I am surprised that the States haven't been doing those steps all along like it was done prior to 1850. I believe the Federal Government is even worse off in Complacency than it was in 1859 and needs to be taught a few lessons.

Yes, Lucille, I am a staunch States Rights Believer.

Nonsense.

‘Secession’ is un-Constitutional, having nothing to do with “states’ rights.” (Texas v. White (1869))

A state may leave the Union only with the consent of all the other states.

And beyond that is the unresolved issue of American citizens who reside in a state wishing to ‘leave’ who intend to remain American citizens.

Begging the question.

Constitution 101 for Clayton the Blow Hard. The Constitution lists Federal Powers. Just for morons like you who didn't grasp the concept that not granting the Federal government a power means the government doesn't have that power, they put in the 10th amendment saying that.

Then they bolstered it with the 9th amendment saying that not specifically enumerating the right withheld from the Federal government does not make it less of a right than the power in the Bill of rights and other amendments specifically withholding a power.

Clayton still doesn't grasp it.

Have you ever had an IQ test to see if you have one?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Could also translate that the States have a right to a Ham Sandwich and the Federal Government doesn't. This is just too vague.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Again, too vague. It can mean that EVERYONE except the Federal Government (when the 10th is applied) must have the right to that Ham Sandwich.

it all depends on whom is doing the interpreting as to the meaning. While it was well written for 1790, it isn't today. It needs to be clarified. And since Congress won't or is incapable, then the Supreme Court has that job.

 

[kaz]

Precedence was set in 1861. Care to debate if that was wrong or right? A Civil War was fought to decide that.

So you don't see it in the constitution either. What does the 10th amendment say about that?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You can read anything into you wish including the States should issue all citizens hot beef sandwiches if it wishes.

But if you look at a couple of other Amendments you will see where it may be covered.

1st amendment: Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation

Article IV: All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. I suggest you read the Articles of Confederation that specifically covered the subject. Because of Article IV, the US is still bound by the Articles of Confederation. And in the Articles of the Confederation it is clearly covered.

Before the 1850s, if a State felt it was unduly mistreated by the Federal Government, it would go into discussions of Seceding. Oftentimes, this would being change at the Federal Level. Until 1860, no State had ever felt it serious enough to go ahead with secession so it was a whole new world for everyone. Laws specifically weren't written to cover that. But hidden under all that gobbly gook they are there. What's not there is the repercussion of such an action. I believe the South took all choices of action away from the North at the point of attacking Ft. Sumpter. Before the Attack, things were negotiable like it always was in the past. It would have been a given and take from both sides.

Today, precedence has been set that if you want to secede from the nation, military force can be used by the Federal Government. That was set in 1861. It's such a dire method, I don't think any sane person even wishes to conceive of it except for our 3 Wanna Be Traitors. And that is why it's like that. I don't know why it isn't used more than it has been. We laugh at California for voting for Secession yet that was the way that the States got positive changes in the Federal Government prior to 1850. Can you imagine if a majority of the States were to put the secession on their voting ballots? It doesn't have to succeed, it just has to be presented. Today, the People we have in Congress and in the Presidency are so complacent that they believe that states will never do that. But it can be done successfully without war. If 36 states elect to do this then it's done. Not secession but a drastic change in the Federal Government and the Constitution making a completely different Nation.

So can Secession actually happen, I would say yes. Remember, it wasn't Lincoln that attacked the South. It was the South that took up military action against the United States of America. In affect, a criminal action. Yah, I know, I just went on the Jeb Stuart most likely to get beaten to a pulp list. But there are many, many steps that can be taken prior to secession actually happening. And I am surprised that the States haven't been doing those steps all along like it was done prior to 1850. I believe the Federal Government is even worse off in Complacency than it was in 1859 and needs to be taught a few lessons.

Yes, Lucille, I am a staunch States Rights Believer.

Nonsense.

‘Secession’ is un-Constitutional, having nothing to do with “states’ rights.” (Texas v. White (1869))

A state may leave the Union only with the consent of all the other states.

And beyond that is the unresolved issue of American citizens who reside in a state wishing to ‘leave’ who intend to remain American citizens.

Begging the question.

Constitution 101 for Clayton the Blow Hard. The Constitution lists Federal Powers. Just for morons like you who didn't grasp the concept that not granting the Federal government a power means the government doesn't have that power, they put in the 10th amendment saying that.

Then they bolstered it with the 9th amendment saying that not specifically enumerating the right withheld from the Federal government does not make it less of a right than the power in the Bill of rights and other amendments specifically withholding a power.

Clayton still doesn't grasp it.

Have you ever had an IQ test to see if you have one?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Could also translate that the States have a right to a Ham Sandwich and the Federal Government doesn't. This is just too vague.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Again, too vague. It can mean that EVERYONE except the Federal Government (when the 10th is applied) must have the right to that Ham Sandwich.

it all depends on whom is doing the interpreting as to the meaning. While it was well written for 1790, it isn't today. It needs to be clarified. And since Congress won't or is incapable, then the Supreme Court has that job.

Actually they are crystal clear to people with higher literacy levels than you evidently possess

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Arming the Teachers is a bust. Most won't accept being armed. It's against their grain

No one is going to force anyone to be armed. Grow up and cut the stupid shit. Plenty of teachers have CC permits. Many of them have military and law enforcement experience. You don't need most people to be armed. You just need shooters not to know which ones are armed

I see you are using another generic term "Plenty of". Is that a seudonym for "Many" or how about "Few" or "Lots". Is there an exact number you can come up with with a governmental backup? It's like saying that MOST homes are armed when in reality only 37% of the households in the US have at least one gun. If you look at the number of guns out there you can make the determination that MOST or ALL have guns until you add in the factor that some of the households have multiple guns. And I doubt the over 300 million guns are in the hands of small children. Well, at least I hope not.

In reality, MOST Teachers are NOT armed nor will they elect to be armed. It goes against their very fiber. This is not an answer to the problem. Try again. But before you do, also present on who is going to pay to resolve the problem.

If the teachers/administrators in Parkland had CCs as the same rate as the general population, there would have been half a dozen to a dozen armed people in the school. The shooter would have had no idea what direction they were coming from

You really don't understand the culture of the Teaching Profession at all. Most of them are Pacifists. You can't force a Pacifist to be armed. And even if you could, you couldn't force them to use the weapon.

Asked and answered. I wouldn't force any of them to be armed.

And didn't you just lecture me about not speaking for other people like Clayton did?

And you obviously only know blue inner city teachers

I live in a sold RED area. This has already been addressed here. And it's legal for our teachers to be armed. But they have voted it down at the teachers level. I don't speak for them. They have spoken for themselves.

Your strawman argument is just that.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So you don't see it in the constitution either. What does the 10th amendment say about that?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You can read anything into you wish including the States should issue all citizens hot beef sandwiches if it wishes.

But if you look at a couple of other Amendments you will see where it may be covered.

1st amendment: Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation

Article IV: All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. I suggest you read the Articles of Confederation that specifically covered the subject. Because of Article IV, the US is still bound by the Articles of Confederation. And in the Articles of the Confederation it is clearly covered.

Before the 1850s, if a State felt it was unduly mistreated by the Federal Government, it would go into discussions of Seceding. Oftentimes, this would being change at the Federal Level. Until 1860, no State had ever felt it serious enough to go ahead with secession so it was a whole new world for everyone. Laws specifically weren't written to cover that. But hidden under all that gobbly gook they are there. What's not there is the repercussion of such an action. I believe the South took all choices of action away from the North at the point of attacking Ft. Sumpter. Before the Attack, things were negotiable like it always was in the past. It would have been a given and take from both sides.

Today, precedence has been set that if you want to secede from the nation, military force can be used by the Federal Government. That was set in 1861. It's such a dire method, I don't think any sane person even wishes to conceive of it except for our 3 Wanna Be Traitors. And that is why it's like that. I don't know why it isn't used more than it has been. We laugh at California for voting for Secession yet that was the way that the States got positive changes in the Federal Government prior to 1850. Can you imagine if a majority of the States were to put the secession on their voting ballots? It doesn't have to succeed, it just has to be presented. Today, the People we have in Congress and in the Presidency are so complacent that they believe that states will never do that. But it can be done successfully without war. If 36 states elect to do this then it's done. Not secession but a drastic change in the Federal Government and the Constitution making a completely different Nation.

So can Secession actually happen, I would say yes. Remember, it wasn't Lincoln that attacked the South. It was the South that took up military action against the United States of America. In affect, a criminal action. Yah, I know, I just went on the Jeb Stuart most likely to get beaten to a pulp list. But there are many, many steps that can be taken prior to secession actually happening. And I am surprised that the States haven't been doing those steps all along like it was done prior to 1850. I believe the Federal Government is even worse off in Complacency than it was in 1859 and needs to be taught a few lessons.

Yes, Lucille, I am a staunch States Rights Believer.

Nonsense.

‘Secession’ is un-Constitutional, having nothing to do with “states’ rights.” (Texas v. White (1869))

A state may leave the Union only with the consent of all the other states.

And beyond that is the unresolved issue of American citizens who reside in a state wishing to ‘leave’ who intend to remain American citizens.

Begging the question.

Constitution 101 for Clayton the Blow Hard. The Constitution lists Federal Powers. Just for morons like you who didn't grasp the concept that not granting the Federal government a power means the government doesn't have that power, they put in the 10th amendment saying that.

Then they bolstered it with the 9th amendment saying that not specifically enumerating the right withheld from the Federal government does not make it less of a right than the power in the Bill of rights and other amendments specifically withholding a power.

Clayton still doesn't grasp it.

Have you ever had an IQ test to see if you have one?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Could also translate that the States have a right to a Ham Sandwich and the Federal Government doesn't. This is just too vague.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Again, too vague. It can mean that EVERYONE except the Federal Government (when the 10th is applied) must have the right to that Ham Sandwich.

it all depends on whom is doing the interpreting as to the meaning. While it was well written for 1790, it isn't today. It needs to be clarified. And since Congress won't or is incapable, then the Supreme Court has that job.

Actually they are crystal clear to people with higher literacy levels than you evidently possess

Is that the best you can do? Are you telling me that you are about to put an entire industry of Legal Scholars out of work? If only you could.

 

[BlackSand]

You really don't understand the culture of the Teaching Profession at all. Most of them are Pacifists. You can't force a Pacifist to be armed. And even if you could, you couldn't force them to use the weapon.

Most people in general are pacifists ... Until you threaten their life and provide them the means to defend themselves.
Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to be Rambo.

.​

 

[Daryl Hunt]

There are several school districts that already have a VOLUNTARY program that arms school employees, including teachers. It requires extensive training. Please point out where one of these school employees shot someone by mistake. If this had happen the media would be talking about it 24/7 with yet more calls to take guns from the law abiding.

Teacher’s Gun Is Accidentally Fired During Public Safety Class, Injuring 3

2 "good guys with guns" accidentally fired them in schools on Tuesday

Three Guns Accidentally Fired In Schools In One Week; At Least 29 Killed & 51 Injured at Schools in 2018

Even with training (hence the Deputy shooting himself in the leg responding to a false alarm at a school) accidents happen if firearms are on school grounds. Last year, alone, there were 57 accidental firearm deaths across the nation in our schools that weren't reported heavily in the major news reports. That is more than all the Mass shootings in the Schools last year alone. In fact, you can add last year and this years running total as well and still not be equal to the accidental firearms school shootings.

If you want to have armed people in the schools hire trained security types that are well trained and experienced. But you will have to increase the school's budget to pay for them. Don't expect the Teachers to do it. They are friggin dangerous with firearms.

 

[Pilot1]

So where did a teacher shoot somebody by accident in a school? Yes we saw a POLICE OFFICER shoot himself in the leg, and some training incidents which happen all the time with COPS.

I was responding the that stupid cartoon. Again, when did a teacher shoot the wrong person on a defensive situation in school like the cartoon indicates?

 

[rightwinger]

The US Government needs a list of all gun owners and the weapons they have.

It is the only way we can form well regulated militias

Yes, well we on the right believe that we need to have positive identification of everybody voting, and you on the left insist it's government intrusion, racism and voter oppression.

We do have identification

A signature

View attachment 194587

It is easier to fake a photo ID than a signature

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You really don't understand the culture of the Teaching Profession at all. Most of them are Pacifists. You can't force a Pacifist to be armed. And even if you could, you couldn't force them to use the weapon.

Most people in general are pacifists ... Until you threaten their life and provide them the means to defend themselves.
Contrary to popular belief, you don't have to be Rambo.

.​

 

[Daryl Hunt]

So where did a teacher shoot somebody by accident in a school? Yes we saw a POLICE OFFICER shoot himself in the leg, and some training incidents which happen all the time with COPS.

I was responding the that stupid cartoon. Again, when did a teacher shoot the wrong person on a defensive situation in school like the cartoon indicates?

If you clicked on the links you would see that teachers did cause harm from accidental discharges of firearms in school. Do I have to do everything for you?

 

[kaz]

No one is going to force anyone to be armed. Grow up and cut the stupid shit. Plenty of teachers have CC permits. Many of them have military and law enforcement experience. You don't need most people to be armed. You just need shooters not to know which ones are armed

I see you are using another generic term "Plenty of". Is that a seudonym for "Many" or how about "Few" or "Lots". Is there an exact number you can come up with with a governmental backup? It's like saying that MOST homes are armed when in reality only 37% of the households in the US have at least one gun. If you look at the number of guns out there you can make the determination that MOST or ALL have guns until you add in the factor that some of the households have multiple guns. And I doubt the over 300 million guns are in the hands of small children. Well, at least I hope not.

In reality, MOST Teachers are NOT armed nor will they elect to be armed. It goes against their very fiber. This is not an answer to the problem. Try again. But before you do, also present on who is going to pay to resolve the problem.

If the teachers/administrators in Parkland had CCs as the same rate as the general population, there would have been half a dozen to a dozen armed people in the school. The shooter would have had no idea what direction they were coming from

You really don't understand the culture of the Teaching Profession at all. Most of them are Pacifists. You can't force a Pacifist to be armed. And even if you could, you couldn't force them to use the weapon.

Asked and answered. I wouldn't force any of them to be armed.

And didn't you just lecture me about not speaking for other people like Clayton did?

And you obviously only know blue inner city teachers

I live in a sold RED area. This has already been addressed here. And it's legal for our teachers to be armed. But they have voted it down at the teachers level. I don't speak for them. They have spoken for themselves.

Your strawman argument is just that.

You moved the goalposts. You kept arguing that none of the teachers want to carry guns. Now it's majority vote. We don't need anywhere near a majority to carry guns. 5-10% is plenty. Again, not everyone needs to be armed. Just the shooter can't know which ones

 

[Bob Blaylock]

My kids and lot of other kids will repeal it hopefully in our time. Gun ownership is for the 1700s you don't need it now.

So when did we eradicate evil in the world? Oh that's right, we haven't. Murder still exists, assault still exists. Rape still exists, as does theft. Yeah, we still need weapons to protect ourselves...

Why do you think it is that those on the side of evil are so determined to remove the right of good people to have the means to protect themselves from them?

 

[Pilot1]

So, yet again, Daryl, you ignore my question. When did a teacher shoot, and kill someone according to the scenario presented in the cartoon? Do you understand English?

 

[kaz]

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

You can read anything into you wish including the States should issue all citizens hot beef sandwiches if it wishes.

But if you look at a couple of other Amendments you will see where it may be covered.

1st amendment: Article I, Section 10, which declares that “No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation

Article IV: All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation. I suggest you read the Articles of Confederation that specifically covered the subject. Because of Article IV, the US is still bound by the Articles of Confederation. And in the Articles of the Confederation it is clearly covered.

Before the 1850s, if a State felt it was unduly mistreated by the Federal Government, it would go into discussions of Seceding. Oftentimes, this would being change at the Federal Level. Until 1860, no State had ever felt it serious enough to go ahead with secession so it was a whole new world for everyone. Laws specifically weren't written to cover that. But hidden under all that gobbly gook they are there. What's not there is the repercussion of such an action. I believe the South took all choices of action away from the North at the point of attacking Ft. Sumpter. Before the Attack, things were negotiable like it always was in the past. It would have been a given and take from both sides.

Today, precedence has been set that if you want to secede from the nation, military force can be used by the Federal Government. That was set in 1861. It's such a dire method, I don't think any sane person even wishes to conceive of it except for our 3 Wanna Be Traitors. And that is why it's like that. I don't know why it isn't used more than it has been. We laugh at California for voting for Secession yet that was the way that the States got positive changes in the Federal Government prior to 1850. Can you imagine if a majority of the States were to put the secession on their voting ballots? It doesn't have to succeed, it just has to be presented. Today, the People we have in Congress and in the Presidency are so complacent that they believe that states will never do that. But it can be done successfully without war. If 36 states elect to do this then it's done. Not secession but a drastic change in the Federal Government and the Constitution making a completely different Nation.

So can Secession actually happen, I would say yes. Remember, it wasn't Lincoln that attacked the South. It was the South that took up military action against the United States of America. In affect, a criminal action. Yah, I know, I just went on the Jeb Stuart most likely to get beaten to a pulp list. But there are many, many steps that can be taken prior to secession actually happening. And I am surprised that the States haven't been doing those steps all along like it was done prior to 1850. I believe the Federal Government is even worse off in Complacency than it was in 1859 and needs to be taught a few lessons.

Yes, Lucille, I am a staunch States Rights Believer.

Nonsense.

‘Secession’ is un-Constitutional, having nothing to do with “states’ rights.” (Texas v. White (1869))

A state may leave the Union only with the consent of all the other states.

And beyond that is the unresolved issue of American citizens who reside in a state wishing to ‘leave’ who intend to remain American citizens.

Begging the question.

Constitution 101 for Clayton the Blow Hard. The Constitution lists Federal Powers. Just for morons like you who didn't grasp the concept that not granting the Federal government a power means the government doesn't have that power, they put in the 10th amendment saying that.

Then they bolstered it with the 9th amendment saying that not specifically enumerating the right withheld from the Federal government does not make it less of a right than the power in the Bill of rights and other amendments specifically withholding a power.

Clayton still doesn't grasp it.

Have you ever had an IQ test to see if you have one?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Could also translate that the States have a right to a Ham Sandwich and the Federal Government doesn't. This is just too vague.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Again, too vague. It can mean that EVERYONE except the Federal Government (when the 10th is applied) must have the right to that Ham Sandwich.

it all depends on whom is doing the interpreting as to the meaning. While it was well written for 1790, it isn't today. It needs to be clarified. And since Congress won't or is incapable, then the Supreme Court has that job.

Actually they are crystal clear to people with higher literacy levels than you evidently possess

Is that the best you can do? Are you telling me that you are about to put an entire industry of Legal Scholars out of work? If only you could.

Yes, they are incompetent, leftist idiots. The 10th says that if the power is not ENUMERATED (a vocabulary word for you to look up) in the Constitution, than it is specifically a power denied the Federal government.

What about that is unclear to you?

And the 9th says that makes them no less of rights than powers specifically withheld from the Federal government in the Bill of Rights and other amendments.

What about that is unclear to you?

Most of what the Federal government does now is Unconstitutional

 

[PredFan]

What would I do with the 2nd A?

Enforce it.

 

[candycorn]

Nothing (first choice). Second choice, let’s have an exercise between the first Army and gun owners. Hopefully the owners will see the silliness of the “we have to defend ourselves against the gubberment” when they are rolled up in about 10 mins; this rendering the 2nd Amendment null and void

I'm pretty sure the majority of the Military will refuse to follow an unlawful order to disarm US citizens exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. I know I would have when i served,

Its just an exercise.

The point being and the end result being that the entire "We need to protect ourselves from the government" argument is bullshit.

 

[Pilot1]

Its just an exercise.

The point being and the end result being that the entire "We need to protect ourselves from the government" argument is bullshit.

Yes, because governments, throughout history have always been benign, benevolent, and never over step their bounds, nor authority.

 

[candycorn]

Its just an exercise.

The point being and the end result being that the entire "We need to protect ourselves from the government" argument is bullshit.

Yes, because governments, throughout history have always been benign, benevolent, and never over step their bounds, nor authority.

Well, we spend 500B on defense every year; not every decade, since creation, or every century...EVERY YEAR!!!! A bunch of guys with guns bought at Academy are not going to stand up.

Again, the point is missed intentionally by the right wing; it isn't that we should turn the 1st army on the public; it's that the argument that "we need guns to stop the government" is nonsense.

 

[pismoe]

Nothing (first choice). Second choice, let’s have an exercise between the first Army and gun owners. Hopefully the owners will see the silliness of the “we have to defend ourselves against the gubberment” when they are rolled up in about 10 mins; this rendering the 2nd Amendment null and void

I'm pretty sure the majority of the Military will refuse to follow an unlawful order to disarm US citizens exercising their constitutional right to bear arms. I know I would have when i served,

Its just an exercise.

The point being and the end result being that the entire "We need to protect ourselves from the government" argument is bullshit.

------------------------------------------- so says that Government employee that has government guns all over the place protecting her .

 

[CHAZBUKOWSKI]

Seems pretty straightforward. Let's follow that, to the letter. Thus, every U.S. citizen (man, woman, child), should have unfettered access to every and all arms, including fully automatic weapons of all calibers, R.P.G.'s, etc.. This also means that things such as being a released felon with a history of violent crimes does not disqualify you from owning whatever arm you desire. Same goes for U.S. citizens who are Muslim and have expressed sympathy and understanding for jihadists. Also, the mentally ill must have full access.