With gun violence down, is America arming against an imagined threat?

[Spoonman]

So the 2nd is stuck in time with arms meaning pea shooters, as the rest of the world amps up their weapons? Somehow I fucking seriously doubt that that's what the framers had in mind, that as time went on their militia would be seriously out-gunned. That's fucking laughable.

no, they expected technology to evolve. infact, the framers, a decade before the 2nd amendment had an order out to a philadelphia gunmaker for a new technology weapon he had designed. it was capable of firing 20 rounds in 5 seconds utilizing a high capacity magazine. thats about what an AR 15 is capable of today. they never expected the musket was going to be the the final advancement of weapons

So if the US army attacks you with tanks, the 2nd prohibits you from using tanks back? FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!!!

according to madison, the 2nd doesn't prevent us from owning tanks. he put no restrictions on ownership. the restrictions are a modern infringement on our rights.

 

[Mom]

no, they expected technology to evolve. infact, the framers, a decade before the 2nd amendment had an order out to a philadelphia gunmaker for a new technology weapon he had designed. it was capable of firing 20 rounds in 5 seconds utilizing a high capacity magazine. thats about what an AR 15 is capable of today. they never expected the musket was going to be the the final advancement of weapons

So if the US army attacks you with tanks, the 2nd prohibits you from using tanks back? FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!!!

according to madison, the 2nd doesn't prevent us from owning tanks. he put no restrictions on ownership. the restrictions are a modern infringement on our rights.

So you think that you should be able to buy tanks, subs and nukes. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

 

[PaulS1950]

Tanks can already be privately owned and are. There are also privately owned subs. The license to own "class three" weapons only costs $200 in the USA.

 

[Spoonman]

So if the US army attacks you with tanks, the 2nd prohibits you from using tanks back? FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!!!

according to madison, the 2nd doesn't prevent us from owning tanks. he put no restrictions on ownership. the restrictions are a modern infringement on our rights.

So you think that you should be able to buy tanks, subs and nukes. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!

i can buy a tank or a sub. jokes on you. well at least you can laugh at yourself

 

[legaleagle_45]

So the 2nd is stuck in time with arms meaning pea shooters, as the rest of the world amps up their weapons?

Modern arms are quite nicely protected by the 2nd all of them single man portable and use items of offense or defense... such as them awful assault weapons of mass destruction complete with "assault clips" and sholder thingies which go up.. OH MY!! . But if you consider them "pea shooters" why do you wish to have them banned?

Somehow I fucking seriously doubt that that's what the framers had in mind, that as time went on their militia would be seriously out-gunned. That's fucking laughable.

No problem, they have substantial advantages which you are too slow to understand. In military parlance they are called "force multipliers" and it is was allowed the Viet Cong to prevail in Vietnam and the afghan and iraqi resistance to give us fits. With respect to the US Army versus an insurgency supported by a substantial majority of the US population? The US Army would be defeated in a matter of weeks. You just are not smart enough to figure out why. Perhaps if you actually read Madison's Federalist #46, you might understand? Nope, not enough intellectual horsepower under your hood, never mind.

 

[Saigon]

no, they expected technology to evolve. infact, the framers, a decade before the 2nd amendment had an order out to a philadelphia gunmaker for a new technology weapon he had designed. it was capable of firing 20 rounds in 5 seconds utilizing a high capacity magazine. thats about what an AR 15 is capable of today. they never expected the musket was going to be the the final advancement of weapons

So if the US army attacks you with tanks, the 2nd prohibits you from using tanks back? FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!!!

according to madison, the 2nd doesn't prevent us from owning tanks. he put no restrictions on ownership. the restrictions are a modern infringement on our rights.

It is only common sense that the world would be a safer place if everyone had a tank at home.

There is no evidence to suggest that this would breach the civil rights of anyone else.

 

[FA_Q2]

So if the US army attacks you with tanks, the 2nd prohibits you from using tanks back? FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!!!

according to madison, the 2nd doesn't prevent us from owning tanks. he put no restrictions on ownership. the restrictions are a modern infringement on our rights.

It is only common sense that the world would be a safer place if everyone had a tank at home.

There is no evidence to suggest that this would breach the civil rights of anyone else.

As it is perfectly legal to do so, you would be right though I believe that you are being smarmy at this time. I guess you didn’t bother to read the last pages were it has already been pointed out that people own tanks and can buy them if they want. There even has been some incidents BTW, though no one has dies. Beside disrupting things for a day, crushing some shit and providing many with some hilarity, nothing has come of those times.

So if the US army attacks you with tanks, the 2nd prohibits you from using tanks back? FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!!!

Please point to where the second prohibits anything to be purchased or owned. You might be taken more seriously if you were not planting traps and then springing them on yourself with idiocy.

The second merely protects a right to a certain extent. Beyond that protection lays the ability for the government to effect some controls. That is the point.

So the 2nd is stuck in time with arms meaning pea shooters, as the rest of the world amps up their weapons? Somehow I fucking seriously doubt that that's what the framers had in mind, that as time went on their militia would be seriously out-gunned. That's fucking laughable.

An armed and determined populous cannot be cowed or controlled. You fail to realize that the end goal of a military operation is not to simply destroy everything. That makes the conquest a negative. You want to remove the resistance and then come in and take over the remaining infrastructure and people. If you cannot manage that, you leave.

You cannot take over an area where everything represents that resistance. With an armed population, that is exactly what you end up with.

 

[Saigon]

FA Q2 -

The fact that it may be legal to build a bonfire in tor bathroom does not mean doing so is either a good thing, nor a hallmark of a sane society.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

no, they expected technology to evolve. infact, the framers, a decade before the 2nd amendment had an order out to a philadelphia gunmaker for a new technology weapon he had designed. it was capable of firing 20 rounds in 5 seconds utilizing a high capacity magazine. thats about what an AR 15 is capable of today. they never expected the musket was going to be the the final advancement of weapons

So if the US army attacks you with tanks, the 2nd prohibits you from using tanks back? FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!!!

according to madison, the 2nd doesn't prevent us from owning tanks. he put no restrictions on ownership. the restrictions are a modern infringement on our rights.

Nonsense.

No right is absolute, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment. And as with the rest of the Constitution, the Second Amendment exists only in the context of its case law. Current Second Amendment case law acknowledges that weapons determined to be dangerous and unusual may be subject to regulation. See: DC v. Heller (2008).

Moreover, the Framers did not speak with one voice, nor were they of one mind. Consequently, the opinions of a particular Framer must be viewed only in the context of other Framers’ opinions and with the facts, evidence, and case law associated with the regulatory policy under review.

 

[jon_berzerk]

So the 2nd is stuck in time with arms meaning pea shooters, as the rest of the world amps up their weapons?

Modern arms are quite nicely protected by the 2nd all of them single man portable and use items of offense or defense... such as them awful assault weapons of mass destruction complete with "assault clips" and sholder thingies which go up.. OH MY!! . But if you consider them "pea shooters" why do you wish to have them banned?

Somehow I fucking seriously doubt that that's what the framers had in mind, that as time went on their militia would be seriously out-gunned. That's fucking laughable.

No problem, they have substantial advantages which you are too slow to understand. In military parlance they are called "force multipliers" and it is was allowed the Viet Cong to prevail in Vietnam and the afghan and iraqi resistance to give us fits. With respect to the US Army versus an insurgency supported by a substantial majority of the US population? The US Army would be defeated in a matter of weeks. You just are not smart enough to figure out why. Perhaps if you actually read Madison's Federalist #46, you might understand? Nope, not enough intellectual horsepower under your hood, never mind.

that is assuming the army would be against the civilians in the first place

 

[jon_berzerk]

according to madison, the 2nd doesn't prevent us from owning tanks. he put no restrictions on ownership. the restrictions are a modern infringement on our rights.

It is only common sense that the world would be a safer place if everyone had a tank at home.

There is no evidence to suggest that this would breach the civil rights of anyone else.

As it is perfectly legal to do so, you would be right though I believe that you are being smarmy at this time. I guess you didn’t bother to read the last pages were it has already been pointed out that people own tanks and can buy them if they want. There even has been some incidents BTW, though no one has dies. Beside disrupting things for a day, crushing some shit and providing many with some hilarity, nothing has come of those times.

So if the US army attacks you with tanks, the 2nd prohibits you from using tanks back? FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!!!

Please point to where the second prohibits anything to be purchased or owned. You might be taken more seriously if you were not planting traps and then springing them on yourself with idiocy.

The second merely protects a right to a certain extent. Beyond that protection lays the ability for the government to effect some controls. That is the point.

So the 2nd is stuck in time with arms meaning pea shooters, as the rest of the world amps up their weapons? Somehow I fucking seriously doubt that that's what the framers had in mind, that as time went on their militia would be seriously out-gunned. That's fucking laughable.

An armed and determined populous cannot be cowed or controlled. You fail to realize that the end goal of a military operation is not to simply destroy everything. That makes the conquest a negative. You want to remove the resistance and then come in and take over the remaining infrastructure and people. If you cannot manage that, you leave.

You cannot take over an area where everything represents that resistance. With an armed population, that is exactly what you end up with.

during the revolution

only 3 percent of the population actively fought in the war

another 10 percent supported the effort

another 20 percent favored it but did little to support it

 

[Mom]

according to madison, the 2nd doesn't prevent us from owning tanks. he put no restrictions on ownership. the restrictions are a modern infringement on our rights.

It is only common sense that the world would be a safer place if everyone had a tank at home.

There is no evidence to suggest that this would breach the civil rights of anyone else.

As it is perfectly legal to do so, you would be right though I believe that you are being smarmy at this time. I guess you didn’t bother to read the last pages were it has already been pointed out that people own tanks and can buy them if they want. There even has been some incidents BTW, though no one has dies. Beside disrupting things for a day, crushing some shit and providing many with some hilarity, nothing has come of those times.

So if the US army attacks you with tanks, the 2nd prohibits you from using tanks back? FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!!!

Please point to where the second prohibits anything to be purchased or owned. You might be taken more seriously if you were not planting traps and then springing them on yourself with idiocy.

The second merely protects a right to a certain extent. Beyond that protection lays the ability for the government to effect some controls. That is the point.

So the 2nd is stuck in time with arms meaning pea shooters, as the rest of the world amps up their weapons? Somehow I fucking seriously doubt that that's what the framers had in mind, that as time went on their militia would be seriously out-gunned. That's fucking laughable.

An armed and determined populous cannot be cowed or controlled. You fail to realize that the end goal of a military operation is not to simply destroy everything. That makes the conquest a negative. You want to remove the resistance and then come in and take over the remaining infrastructure and people. If you cannot manage that, you leave.

You cannot take over an area where everything represents that resistance. With an armed population, that is exactly what you end up with.

So owning a tank with all the appropriate munitions to protect your property is ok to you?

So our conquest of Iraq, Afghanistan are negatives? And we should leave because we can't control the populace? Now THERE, I agree.
Btw, Israel should probably leave too then?

If "You cannot take over an area where everything represents that resistance", then why did you let yourself be taken over by that African muslim, Barrack Obama, who protects muslims and their oil, instead of just taking it, like GW Bush in Iraq? Because you know deep down that your simple weapons can't take on the US army and you'd be likely killed early on?

 

[Mom]

So the 2nd is stuck in time with arms meaning pea shooters, as the rest of the world amps up their weapons?

Modern arms are quite nicely protected by the 2nd all of them single man portable and use items of offense or defense... such as them awful assault weapons of mass destruction complete with "assault clips" and sholder thingies which go up.. OH MY!! . But if you consider them "pea shooters" why do you wish to have them banned?

Somehow I fucking seriously doubt that that's what the framers had in mind, that as time went on their militia would be seriously out-gunned. That's fucking laughable.

No problem, they have substantial advantages which you are too slow to understand. In military parlance they are called "force multipliers" and it is was allowed the Viet Cong to prevail in Vietnam and the afghan and iraqi resistance to give us fits. With respect to the US Army versus an insurgency supported by a substantial majority of the US population? The US Army would be defeated in a matter of weeks. You just are not smart enough to figure out why. Perhaps if you actually read Madison's Federalist #46, you might understand? Nope, not enough intellectual horsepower under your hood, never mind.

Where do you get "single man portable" weapons only? Are you basing that on DC v. Heller (2008)? Or did the framers do that? And if the framers didn't say that, then why are you letting someone restrict your 2nd amendment rights? Because you're a pussy, or is it something else?

 

[The Rabbi]

So the 2nd is stuck in time with arms meaning pea shooters, as the rest of the world amps up their weapons?

Modern arms are quite nicely protected by the 2nd all of them single man portable and use items of offense or defense... such as them awful assault weapons of mass destruction complete with "assault clips" and sholder thingies which go up.. OH MY!! . But if you consider them "pea shooters" why do you wish to have them banned?

Somehow I fucking seriously doubt that that's what the framers had in mind, that as time went on their militia would be seriously out-gunned. That's fucking laughable.

No problem, they have substantial advantages which you are too slow to understand. In military parlance they are called "force multipliers" and it is was allowed the Viet Cong to prevail in Vietnam and the afghan and iraqi resistance to give us fits. With respect to the US Army versus an insurgency supported by a substantial majority of the US population? The US Army would be defeated in a matter of weeks. You just are not smart enough to figure out why. Perhaps if you actually read Madison's Federalist #46, you might understand? Nope, not enough intellectual horsepower under your hood, never mind.

Where do you get "single man portable" weapons only? Are you basing that on DC v. Heller (2008)? Or did the framers do that? And if the framers didn't say that, then why are you letting someone restrict your 2nd amendment rights? Because you're a pussy, or is it something else?

It's in Heller. You might do yourself and us a favor and go read the opinion before you sound like an idiot again.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Where do you get "single man portable" weapons only? Are you basing that on DC v. Heller (2008)? Or did the framers do that?

The definition of arms at common law was this: "Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, to cast at, or strike at another."

I merely updated it into modern lingo which you might be able to comprehend. This was the definition given in Sir Edward Coke's influential Institutes of the Lawes on England and repeated in Timothy Cunningham’s New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771) which was cited by Scalia in Heller.

Now if you are really bright and examine the language carefully, you will note that arms must be something which is either worn or which can be taken into your hands... thus single man portable. Then if you are really on the ball, you might notice it is contemplating a weapon intended to to be "cast at, or strike at another". Now this would mean weapons which are intended for use in man on man combat.

And if the framers didn't say that, then why are you letting someone restrict your 2nd amendment rights? Because you're a pussy, or is it something else?

It is because you are clearly an uninformed ignoramus who is relying upon modern colloquial definitions of terms to interpret the Constitution... you probably would assume that "ex post facto" laws have something to do with the post office, huh? Perhaps the prohibition against unreasonable seizures was a vain attempt by the founders to ban epilepsy? Perhaps a capital offense is a crime committed in Washington DC? And of course, and because the founders hated Alex Trebeck, it is unlawful to watch Jeopardy twice.

Anything else?

 

[Spoonman]

So if the US army attacks you with tanks, the 2nd prohibits you from using tanks back? FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!!!

according to madison, the 2nd doesn't prevent us from owning tanks. he put no restrictions on ownership. the restrictions are a modern infringement on our rights.

It is only common sense that the world would be a safer place if everyone had a tank at home.

There is no evidence to suggest that this would breach the civil rights of anyone else.

at least i'd be safe from drunk drivers and drivers using their cell phones

 

[Spoonman]

So if the US army attacks you with tanks, the 2nd prohibits you from using tanks back? FUCKING HILARIOUS!!!!!

according to madison, the 2nd doesn't prevent us from owning tanks. he put no restrictions on ownership. the restrictions are a modern infringement on our rights.

Nonsense.

No right is absolute, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment. And as with the rest of the Constitution, the Second Amendment exists only in the context of its case law. Current Second Amendment case law acknowledges that weapons determined to be dangerous and unusual may be subject to regulation. See: DC v. Heller (2008).

Moreover, the Framers did not speak with one voice, nor were they of one mind. Consequently, the opinions of a particular Framer must be viewed only in the context of other Framers’ opinions and with the facts, evidence, and case law associated with the regulatory policy under review.

i think the framers would disagree with you which is why they included words and phrases like shall not be infringed, congress shall make no law against. they were explicit that these rights were absolute. What is wrong is that congress has made laws against. rights have been infringed. and that is what you liberal boneheads are too blind to see. you tools run around screaming rights and freedoms and you are the first ones to try to take away someones rights and freedoms if you don't agree with it. Liberals are hypocrites. your posts, your points of views reek of that hypocriscy.

 

[Mom]

Where do you get "single man portable" weapons only? Are you basing that on DC v. Heller (2008)? Or did the framers do that?

The definition of arms at common law was this: "Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, to cast at, or strike at another."

I merely updated it into modern lingo which you might be able to comprehend. This was the definition given in Sir Edward Coke's influential Institutes of the Lawes on England and repeated in Timothy Cunningham’s New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771) which was cited by Scalia in Heller.

Now if you are really bright and examine the language carefully, you will note that arms must be something which is either worn or which can be taken into your hands... thus single man portable. Then if you are really on the ball, you might notice it is contemplating a weapon intended to to be "cast at, or strike at another". Now this would mean weapons which are intended for use in man on man combat.

And if the framers didn't say that, then why are you letting someone restrict your 2nd amendment rights? Because you're a pussy, or is it something else?

It is because you are clearly an uninformed ignoramus who is relying upon modern colloquial definitions of terms to interpret the Constitution... you probably would assume that "ex post facto" laws have something to do with the post office, huh? Perhaps the prohibition against unreasonable seizures was a vain attempt by the founders to ban epilepsy? Perhaps a capital offense is a crime committed in Washington DC? And of course, and because the founders hated Alex Trebeck, it is unlawful to watch Jeopardy twice.

Anything else?

So basically you're saying that the framers wanted the militia to eventually have weapons that are obsolete against a real army. Got it. So you got fooled by the framers into thinking that you'd have a militia, when all you're left with is pea shooters and moonshine.

 

[Mom]

according to madison, the 2nd doesn't prevent us from owning tanks. he put no restrictions on ownership. the restrictions are a modern infringement on our rights.

Nonsense.

No right is absolute, including the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment. And as with the rest of the Constitution, the Second Amendment exists only in the context of its case law. Current Second Amendment case law acknowledges that weapons determined to be dangerous and unusual may be subject to regulation. See: DC v. Heller (2008).

Moreover, the Framers did not speak with one voice, nor were they of one mind. Consequently, the opinions of a particular Framer must be viewed only in the context of other Framers’ opinions and with the facts, evidence, and case law associated with the regulatory policy under review.

i think the framers would disagree with you which is why they included words and phrases like shall not be infringed, congress shall make no law against. they were explicit that these rights were absolute. What is wrong is that congress has made laws against. rights have been infringed. and that is what you liberal boneheads are too blind to see. you tools run around screaming rights and freedoms and you are the first ones to try to take away someones rights and freedoms if you don't agree with it. Liberals are hypocrites. your posts, your points of views reek of that hypocriscy.

So then why are you such a pussy that you don't use your militia to overthrow the rights takers?

 

[jgarden]

The whole gun issue in America is a self-fulfilling prophecty - the more private guns made available to the general public, the greater the opportunities for criminals and "wingbuts" to obtain them!

The greater the opportunities for criminals and "wingbuts" to obtain guns, the greater the perceived need by the general public to own bigger and more powerful guns for their personal protection!

The greater the perceived need by the general public to own bigger and more guns for their personal protection .....