2nd Amendment Unapologetic Meaning

[bigrebnc1775]

I find it hilarious that the left still believes the military will side with socialist/communist.
When the truth is just the opposite.

They call Trump Hitler but how could they fight against him? lol

 

[capego]

Your point is meaningless

It is the entire crux of the matter . The amendment was crafted in a time when we did not have much of a standing federal army. So these militias were needed to stave off invasions by indigent peoples and by foreign actors.

So yes, the facts completely debase your ideas. In reality, the federal government went around confiscating the firearms of those who did not support the fledgling government.

So, if you are going to speak to the intent of the 2nd amendment, you should get it right or not speak at all.

Do I have to restrict my post sizes to one sentence to fit into your head? After telling you the point was meaningless, I went on to tell you why. If you are not contending against the specifics of my reasoning, there is no reason to continue talking to you and you are trolling my thread.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I find it hilarious that the left still believes the military will side with socialist/communist.

Well that was irrelevant and stupid....

 

[bigrebnc1775]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

• "a free State" = not a tyranny
• "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
• "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.

The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.

It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.

Frivolous Arguments
"But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.

"Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.

"A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.

"Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.




capego.icu

Blah blah. You know that's a recent interpretation right? Less than a decade old in fact.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

If you are not contending against the specifics of my reasoning, there is no reason to continue talking to you a

Then piss off. This is a public forum and I will make my points as I choose. If they are too much for you to bear, then block me.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I find it hilarious that the left still believes the military will side with socialist/communist.

Well that was irrelevant and stupid....

Totally relevant.

 

[Darkwind]

Your point is meaningless

It is the entire crux of the matter . The amendment was crafted in a time when we did not have much of a standing federal army. So these militias were needed to stave off invasions by indigent peoples and by foreign actors.

So yes, the facts completely debase your ideas. In reality, the federal government went around confiscating the firearms of those who did not support the fledgling government.

So, if you are going to speak to the intent of the 2nd amendment, you should get it right or not speak at all.

Meaningless? At the time of crafting, the militia had helped defeat the worlds largest army.

It is disingenuous to believe that the military would follow such an illegal order as to attack American citizens.

In truth, the agencies that may be disposed to being tyrannical are not as large or as well equipped as our Military.

In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would have.

We fight for liberty -- win or lose.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your point is meaningless

It is the entire crux of the matter . The amendment was crafted in a time when we did not have much of a standing federal army. So these militias were needed to stave off invasions by indigent peoples and by foreign actors.

So yes, the facts completely debase your ideas. In reality, the federal government went around confiscating the firearms of those who did not support the fledgling government.

So, if you are going to speak to the intent of the 2nd amendment, you should get it right or not speak at all.

Why didn't Washington call for the repeal of the second amendment after the whiskey rebellion?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your point is meaningless

It is the entire crux of the matter . The amendment was crafted in a time when we did not have much of a standing federal army. So these militias were needed to stave off invasions by indigent peoples and by foreign actors.

So yes, the facts completely debase your ideas. In reality, the federal government went around confiscating the firearms of those who did not support the fledgling government.

So, if you are going to speak to the intent of the 2nd amendment, you should get it right or not speak at all.

Meaningless? At the time of crafting, the militia had helped defeat the worlds largest army.

It is disingenuous to believe that the military would follow such an illegal order as to attack American citizens.

In truth, the agencies that may be disposed to being tyrannical are not as large or as well equipped as our Military.

In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would have.

We fight for liberty -- win or lose.

Plenty of Trump supporters in the military who will do what they are told. If Trump was Hitler like I would want my weapons.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would

Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Plenty of Trump supporters in the military who will do what they are told.

And the brilliant men Leading the military know Trump is a moron and would not accept idiot orders from him.

 

[capego]

The Federalist numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison. Read em.

They're specific to the use by the States of force, meaning the use of their Militia forces (all able-bodied males capable of bearing arms) in self-defense against any Federal usurpers seeking to oppress or dominate one or more States by force in violation of the Constitution's limits on Federal power.

The argument for militias for states against the federal government does not negate the general principle of guerilla warfare against tyranny, and, is rather an example of such.
The principle being:
"
The obstacles to usurpation and the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided the citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them. The natural strength of the people in a large community, in proportion to the artificial strength of the government, is greater than in a small, and of course more competent to a struggle with the attempts of the government to establish a tyranny.
"

 

[IsaacNewton]

The same people that claim the US military is by far the greatest in the world and can't be defeated, are the very same people that will tell you they could defeat the US military with only semi-automatic rifles and 'true grit'.

Uh huh.

Get behind us when Adolph Trump sends out the troops

So everyone can watch you die first? lol

 

[Darkwind]

In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would

Which is not my view at all. I am saying you delude yourself to think you will "defeat tyranny" with your penis extenders. Tyranny, if it occurs (watch closely, a wannabe tyrant is in the white house) will be defeated with ideas and democratic process. Else it will not be defeated at all.

It is your view and you just expressed it yet again.

Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world, but they would not have to fight the US military if government became tyrannical. The men and women who serve in our Armed Forces understand the nature of legal orders and are some of the most intelligent people on the planet.

 

[Darkwind]

Your point is meaningless

It is the entire crux of the matter . The amendment was crafted in a time when we did not have much of a standing federal army. So these militias were needed to stave off invasions by indigent peoples and by foreign actors.

So yes, the facts completely debase your ideas. In reality, the federal government went around confiscating the firearms of those who did not support the fledgling government.

So, if you are going to speak to the intent of the 2nd amendment, you should get it right or not speak at all.

Meaningless? At the time of crafting, the militia had helped defeat the worlds largest army.

It is disingenuous to believe that the military would follow such an illegal order as to attack American citizens.

In truth, the agencies that may be disposed to being tyrannical are not as large or as well equipped as our Military.

In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would have.

We fight for liberty -- win or lose.

Plenty of Trump supporters in the military who will do what they are told. If Trump was Hitler like I would want my weapons.

Not really.

 

[Darkwind]

I'm wondering if any of you understand that our military does not swear oaths to the President but to the Constitution?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Plenty of Trump supporters in the military who will do what they are told.

And the brilliant men Leading the military know Trump is a moron and would not accept idiot orders from him.

Trump could do like obama and discharge high ranking officers.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Your point is meaningless

It is the entire crux of the matter . The amendment was crafted in a time when we did not have much of a standing federal army. So these militias were needed to stave off invasions by indigent peoples and by foreign actors.

So yes, the facts completely debase your ideas. In reality, the federal government went around confiscating the firearms of those who did not support the fledgling government.

So, if you are going to speak to the intent of the 2nd amendment, you should get it right or not speak at all.

Meaningless? At the time of crafting, the militia had helped defeat the worlds largest army.

It is disingenuous to believe that the military would follow such an illegal order as to attack American citizens.

In truth, the agencies that may be disposed to being tyrannical are not as large or as well equipped as our Military.

In addition, the predicate that we should only stand up against tyranny if we can win is the view a coward would have.

We fight for liberty -- win or lose.

Plenty of Trump supporters in the military who will do what they are told. If Trump was Hitler like I would want my weapons.

Not really.

There is enough civilians that would prevent a coup against him

 

[Crepitus]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

• "a free State" = not a tyranny
• "A well regulated Militia," is stated here to indicate it is assumed to arise given the right of the people to bear arms, and it is necessary to ensure a free state. It is not stated as a requisite to the right to bear arms.
• "right of the people to keep and bear Arms" there is no restriction on the types of arms here.

The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias. Militias serve this purpose through the potential for widespread guerilla warfare. At the time, arms included canons. Given the intent is to allow for militias that could fight tyrannical governments, this right currently includes such things as conventional weapons, brass knuckles, rocket launchers, fully automatic machine guns, tanks, and all restrictions on such are in violation to the US Constitution.

It would not be expected that militias, guerilla groups, would have nukes. One way to look at what a militia might have, and, thus, what is included in the right to bear arms, is, "what arms are provided to fighting soldiers in the military". This notion reflects power-in-people-numbers, and, in this way, it is intended that militias could overthrow a tyrannical government if their numbers were large enough - given a tyrannical government would cause widespread rebellion by militias. Nukes are not a power-in-people-numbers weapon.

Frivolous Arguments
"But tanks/rocket launchers/automatic machine guns are dangerous "
So are cars, but more so is stupidity and ignorance. There is no constitutionality for the US government to restrict one's actions based on the potential danger to others.

"Rocket launchers could kill a lot of people"
So can bombs which require very little knowledge and cost. Rocket launchers are substantially more difficult to construct.

"A tank could kill a lot of people if it fell into the wrong hands"
Do you have any idea how much a tank costs to construct? Tanks are exceptionally expensive, and whoever owns one would probably take efforts to secure it.

"Higher lethality weapons would mean more massacres"
Apart from government or George Soros funded terrorism, massacres, especially in an un-restricted armed society, would rarely occur.




capego.icu

Blah blah. You know that's a recent interpretation right? Less than a decade old in fact.

View attachment 202890

Posting rwnj propaganda is not a response to my post.

I have to assume that means you are stumped.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Like I said, militia's have defeated the strongest militaries in the world,

No mitia would defeat the us military, in force. Stop being absurd. You discredit yourself with this nonsense.