What Does The Second Amendment Mean For Liberals?

It meant that guns were for a military that was necessary to protect the citizens.
Second Amendment was written in memory of Lexington and Concord and part that day played in founding of our nation.


It was written at a time when there were no 911 phone calls and police cruisers to respond down the paved road, only you and your family on your own with hostile varmints, four legged and two legged out there that might threaten your life.
 
No it’s because the founders feared the government they were establishing and did everything in their power to keep it weak, poor and powerless.
More revisionist history

Our founders created a Constitution with better weapons than armed civilians…….Freedom of the press and the vote

The Second Amendment makes it clear that arms are needed for a well regulated militia…..NOT to use against the Government
 
Last edited:
The 2nd Amendment means nothing to liberals; it is to be ignored at every opportunity.
Proof?
Ask a liberal what gun control law(s) they consider an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.
 
The First Amendment is more important to liberals.

Unless the person is performing wrongthink, or trying to practice their religion when said religion also goes against the SJW mantra.
 
More revisionist history

Our founders created a Constitution with better weapons than armed civilians…….Freedom of the press and the vote

The Second Amendment makes it clear that arms are needed for a well regulated militia…..NOT to use against the Government

The States have the right to keep militias, the people keep the right to arms.

commas mean things.
 
The states needed armed civilians to man their well regulated militias

The 2nd addressed two concerns. One that the Federal Government would try to be the only part of government with the right to an armed force. The second was that the government would try to limit the RKBA franchise to select individuals, approved by the government. If they wanted it to only be about militias, they wouldn't have added the 2nd part.
 
The states needed armed civilians to man their well regulated militias
The states needed armed civilians to man their well regulated militias
'well regulated militias' only covered males between the ages of 16-45. the FF were wise enough to realize males over the age of 45, and females, needed the right to own firearms.
 
'well regulated militias' only covered males between the ages of 16-45. the FF were wise enough to realize males over the age of 45, and females, needed the right to own firearms.
The average life expectancy in 1787 was 64.6 years. By 45 most citizens were worn out by the hard manual labor needed to survive in the colonies. Most of the founding fathers were between thirty-five and forty-five when they signed the Declaration of Independence. Men above 45 still had the right to own all weapons, they just weren't required to participate in the militia in times of emergency. Women had no rights at all, so they were not mentioned in the militia acts.
 
The average life expectancy in 1787 was 64.6 years. By 45 most citizens were worn out by the hard manual labor needed to survive in the colonies. Most of the founding fathers were between thirty-five and forty-five when they signed the Declaration of Independence. Men above 45 still had the right to own all weapons, they just weren't required to participate in the militia in times of emergency. Women had no rights at all, so they were not mentioned in the militia acts.
So when women were charged with crimes they didn't have a right to a jury trial? And they could be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment?
 
I'm asking this question because in another one of my threads, when we started discussing the possibility of an upcoming war (or wars) when people were talking about that they would kill them if needed they took it to mean death threats instead of the true meaning of "I would only kill you if provoked and you were a threat to me."


So that's where I get lost as if they don't know that then what do they think the second amendment means? I know that they can't stand it, but it also seems like they don't have a clue what it's actually talking about.
Nothing about the Constitution means anything to liberals.
 
There's a reason firearms are called great equalizers.
A pistol is a very reliable way a 100 pound women can "discourage" a 200 pound male rapist.


Ladies of Lead — Firearms Training for Women Ages 14 & Up​





www.ladiesoflead.com




Ladies Of Lead Group Therapy, LLC


Ladies of Lead Group Therapy Women Training Women in the NRA Firearms courses of Pistol, Rifle and Shotgun.. Bend, Oregon. Concealed Handgun License Handgun Lessons/Training for Ladies.


www.ladiesoflead.com

www.ladiesoflead.com




1540290_10201292056845665_376130381_o.jpg

Which is why Alaska has really high rates or rape, and NY has a much lower rape rate, right? No, wait, that doesn't work.
 
The 2nd Amendment means nothing to liberals; it is to be ignored at every opportunity.
Proof?
Ask a liberal what gun control law(s) they consider an infringement on the right to keep and bear arms.

Come on, I've spoken about the 2A for a long time on forums like this, and when I present evidence with REAL DOCUMENTS, people like you ignore me because it's not convenient for what you WANT the amendment to mean.

You asked a question, what is an infringement on the RKBA?

1) There's the right to keep arms and there's the right to bear arms.

2) The right to keep arms prohibits the US govt from stopping individuals from from being able to own weapons.

The problem with this is that if you can get a hand gun, then they're not prohibiting you from getting arms, therefore they can ban loads of other stuff (this is according to the 2A, rather than anything else which may or may not empower the govt to do these things)

3) The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. Or, it's the prohibition of the govt from stopping people from being in the militia.
 
I'm asking this question because in another one of my threads, when we started discussing the possibility of an upcoming war (or wars) when people were talking about that they would kill them if needed they took it to mean death threats instead of the true meaning of "I would only kill you if provoked and you were a threat to me."


So that's where I get lost as if they don't know that then what do they think the second amendment means? I know that they can't stand it, but it also seems like they don't have a clue what it's actually talking about.
The 2A just simply gives all nut jobs guns, as opposed to just trying to limit to only the sensible.

The reality with a war, the minority own a gun, and they own multiple guns, but realistically can only fire one gun at a time. If a tank was approaching your town, the gun is not really practical.

So there's that, also, the 2A gives the pro 2A'ers a false sense of reality.

So in a domestic normal society situation, allow the suitable to own/use guns. In the event of a hostile invasion, give guns out to more folk.
 
Last edited:
The 2A just simply gives all nut jobs guns, as opposed to just trying to limit to only the sensible.

The reality with a war, the minority own a gun, and they own multiple guns, but realistically can only fire one gun at a time. If a tank was approaching your town, the gun is not really practical.
So I need to own a killdozer.
 

Forum List

Back
Top