Do Americans need weapons?

[Unkotare]

The idea of the 2nd Amendment is to have weapons to create a militia if necessary and prevent the arbitrariness of the feds. It doesn't work, the feds are constantly getting stronger, and the Americans have already turned into obedient sheep of the left regime. The weapon has become a fetish. The left is not afraid of it.

Wrong again, loon.

 

[Unkotare]

RIP over 30,000 people who die by guns in USA every year.

Weapons are of little use except murder and suicide.

None of your fucking business.

 

[Unkotare]

Need an adequate policy for organizing the defense of the states.
It is necessary to hold training camps and exercises

When we need advice on running our country, we will let you know. Until then, STFU.

 

[marvin martian]

What's the difference?

Because you lack a basic understanding of our civil rights. It would be a shame if you're an American, because you don't deserve to be.

 

[Unkotare]

Do Americans "need" freedom of speech? Do we "need" protection from illegal search and seizure? We sure as hell don't "need" some presumptuous, half-wit foreign busy-body doling out his sage advice on things that are none of his fucking business.

 

[Flash]

You need to be ready for everything.
Those problems that you listed are due to the fact that people forget why they need weapons. It will sober them up.

If you have a weapon, you should be in the reserve of the militia. It's written in the second amendment. Carrying a weapon makes a man liable for military service.

You are confused Moon Bat.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and protected the same as free speech and freedom of religion.

You don't have to be a member of any organization to be afforded that right. It is all in Heller case. Go look it up.

 

[rupol2000]

Because you lack a basic understanding of our civil rights. It would be a shame if you're an American, because you don't deserve to be.

No, I'm not an American.
What exactly do you mean? That the feds took away your freedoms? Isn't this visible?
Of course, you still have more freedoms than in Europe, but this does not negate the fact that the feds became stronger.

 

[rupol2000]

You are confused Moon Bat.

The Supreme Court has ruled that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and protected the same as free speech and freedom of religion.

You don't have to be a member of any organization to be afforded that right. It is all in Heller case. Go look it up.

This is bad because it doesn't help create a militia, instead gun ownership becomes chaotic and will eventually lead to the left taking those rights away under the pretense of endangering life.

 

[marvin martian]

This is bad because it doesn't help create a militia, instead gun ownership becomes chaotic and will eventually lead to the left taking those rights away under the pretense of endangering life.

Not if they don't want to get shot.

 

[rupol2000]

I believe that only those who agree to join the militia, conduct exercises and, if necessary, fight for the state should have the right to bear arms. Otherwise, this will lead to the federalization of the state and the deprivation of the right to own weapons in general.

 

[Flash]

This is bad because it doesn't help create a militia, instead gun ownership becomes chaotic and will eventually lead to the left taking those rights away under the pretense of endangering life.

You are confused. No it is not bad. It is good that it is an individual right.

Criminals will do bad things no matter what stupid laws are passed by deranged Liberals. It being an individual right allows the people the ability to protect themselves.

 

[rupol2000]

Not if they don't want to get shot.

These are empty words. You're not doing anything against the feds.

 

[BlindBoo]

Can not be. It's written about the state militia to defend the freedom of the state.

Here is where the Constitution delegate that authority to Congress.

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Full Text of the U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center

Read and share the complete text of the United States Constitution.

constitutioncenter.org

See the Whiskey Rebellion for the first example of a President using a State Militia against US Citizens in rebellion.

 

[rupol2000]

You are confused. No it is not bad. It is good that it is an individual right.

Criminals will do bad things no matter what stupid laws are passed by deranged Liberals. It being an individual right allows the people the ability to protect themselves.

But it also needs to be a defense of the freedom of the state. This state of affairs is not conducive to the freedom of the state from the feds.

 

[rupol2000]

Here is where the Constitution delegate that authority to Congress.

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Here we have in mind only the case of using the militia to reinforce the federal forces. No one canceled the main purpose: the protection of the independence of the state.

 

[marvin martian]

These are empty words. You're not doing anything against the feds.

King George III said the same thing.

 

[BlindBoo]

I believe that only those who agree to join the militia, conduct exercises and, if necessary, fight for the state should have the right to bear arms.

When the document was crafted, most all citizens were required to join their local militia's and provide their own personal weapons. Things change as times progress, but still the 17-45 year olds are all still considered part of the militia, or cannon fodder for the draft if it is ever necessary.

 

[rupol2000]

King George III said the same thing.

Then the Americans were smarter and more courageous. Now they have same-sex marriages

 

[rupol2000]

When the document was crafted, most all citizens were required to join their local militia's and provide their own personal weapons. Things change as times progress, but still the 17-45 year olds are all still considered part of the militia, or cannon fodder for the draft if it is ever necessary.

This is good for the Republican System. But you need to conduct exercises and have a military doctrine in every state. You need to have a real militia and not a formal one

 

[Mac-7]

What's the difference?

Dont answer a question with a question

you are fooling no one