2nd Amendment Unapologetic Meaning

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Trump is Adolph get behind if you don't like guns lol

 

[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.

There is enough civilians that would prevent a coup against him

It wouldn't be a coup if he ursurped powers not given to his office.
This isn't about Trump. It is about the people and their right to defend themselves from any tyrannical government.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Trump could do like obama and discharge high ranking office

He would not have to do so,for they would quit. And, should Trump then replace them with incompetent bootlickers, the integrity of the mitary would dissolve.

 

[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.

View attachment 202890

Posting rwnj propaganda is not a response to my post.

I have to assume that means you are stumped.

No response to what I posted means you are stumped.
If Trump is Hitler now would be the time to push for repeal of the second amendment wonderful idea.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is about the people and their right to defend

Which is a separate discussion from the second amendment, as that was the snot it's intent or meaning. So you have no constitutional providence here, and you are forced to support your belief using your own arguments instead of deferring.

 

[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

Trump is Adolph get behind if you don't like guns lol

Another internet 'tough guy'. Do you hold your finger up to the screen and go 'pew pew pew' too? Oh sorry, your mum has your sandwich and milk ready. Talk to you later.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Trump could do like obama and discharge high ranking office

He would not have to do so,for they would quit. And, should Trump then replace them with incompetent bootlickers, the integrity of the mitary would dissolve.

Sure and replace with his choice minions

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

push for repeal of the second amendment

Who gives a shit about that? We could literally ban all guns except for muzzle loader, then continue to guaranatee the right of everyone to own one, and the right of everyone to bear arms would still be in place.

The repeal tack is a red herring.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sure and replace with his choice minions

Who would, no doubt, be incompetent and stupid, by comparison.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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

Trump is Adolph get behind if you don't like guns lol

Another internet 'tough guy'. Do you hold your finger up to the screen and go 'pew pew pew' too? Oh sorry, your mum has your sandwich and milk ready. Talk to you later.

oh the last retort of a failed internet argument internet tough guy.
If that makes you sleep better snowflake.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Sure and replace with his choice minions

Who would, no doubt, be incompetent and stupid, by comparison.

How do you know?

 

[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

Trump is Adolph get behind if you don't like guns lol

Another internet 'tough guy'. Do you hold your finger up to the screen and go 'pew pew pew' too? Oh sorry, your mum has your sandwich and milk ready. Talk to you later.

oh the last retort of a failed internet argument internet tough guy.
If that makes you sleep better snowflake.

Aww, find your safe space snowflake and take your blanky. Sponebob is on soon.

 

[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.

No response to what I posted means you are stumped.
If Trump is Hitler now would be the time to push for repeal of the second amendment wonderful idea.

Lol, you know that imitation is the sincerist form of flattery right?

It's nice to have a new fan.

I said nothing about repealing the 2nd. I asked if you knew that your interpretation of it was fairly recent.you replied with rwnj stupidity.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

How do you know?

Simple. First, Trump is incompetent and stupid and would not appoint t replacements based on merit or ability, but rather on loyalty.

Second, this would certainly rule out those with merit and competence, as anyone in possession of those qualities would not remain loyal to such idiocy. so

 

[capego]

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.

I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong. These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it. And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco). Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

How do you know?

Simple. First, Trump is incompetent and stupid and would not appoint t replacements based on merit or ability, but rather on loyalty.

Second, this would certainly rule out those with merit and competence, as anyone in possession of those qualities would not remain loyal to such idiocy. so

Trump incompetent? That's hilarious he's beating the crap out of all those self-proclaimed smart people. He's been doing it since 2016

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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.

I appreciate your analysis, but it is fundamentally wrong. These days, that a federal employee swears an oath to the constitution does not indicate they will follow it. And, good intended young men can be easily mislead into wrong actions (gulf of tonkin) and there are always sizeable subsets who will outright do evil deeds (waco). Arguing against militias in favor of the US military is either ignorant or malicious.

Remember Katrina? Several soldiers were video saying they would draw down on Americans and gun confiscation did happen during that time.

 

[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.

View attachment 202890

Posting rwnj propaganda is not a response to my post.

I have to assume that means you are stumped.

No response to what I posted means you are stumped.
If Trump is Hitler now would be the time to push for repeal of the second amendment wonderful idea.

Lol, you know that imitation is the sincerist form of flattery right?

It's nice to have a new fan.

I said nothing about repealing the 2nd. I asked if you knew that your interpretation of it was fairly recent.you replied with rwnj stupidity.

Fan? I have a couple in tthe ceiling that moves hot air are you saying you want to be my fan?

 

[westwall]

The guarantee of the right is intended for fighting/preventing a tyrannical government through the presence and actions of militias.

Not the domestic government. That is a myth.

The Oath to every Public Official has this phrase, "I swear to uphold and defend the Constitution, against all enemies, foreign, AND DOMESTIC. So, yes, the Founders were every bit as concerned about a illegitimate government, as they were about an invader.

 

[westwall]

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.

Don't spam my thread. Apparently you didn't read my OP. I've included tanks and rocket launchers.

So you are advocating that the general public be allowed to own tanks and rocket launchers and everything else up to nuclear weapons?

They already do. Not the nukes, but the tanks, artillery, and rocket launchers. The Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston was the first field artillery unit in the US and it was PRIVATE.