The Right of the People (individually) to...

We should all have the right to full-auto military assault rifles and S.A.W.s

  • Yes.

    Votes: 14 43.8%
  • No.

    Votes: 18 56.3%

  • Total voters
    32
By the way, the neat part of this argument is that additive manufacturing techniques are going to make it completely moot in about a decade, if not sooner. :woohoo:
 
If the founders were wrong, amend.
No. They weren't. They wanted the civilians to be as equally armed as the government military; so when the consent to be governed was revoked, the citizens could enforce it. That's why the 2nd amendment exists.
I was under the impression that the founders were against having a standing army. That the 2nd amendment exists so that the state can summon a militia in times of need.
 
The right of the people to have motherfucking machine guns, shall not be infringed.

We must get back to the true meaning of infringement:

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
  1. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
    "making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
    synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
    • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
      "his legal rights were being infringed"
      synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on;
Muskets for all; you have to be able to load and shoot in under a minute, to be well regulated.
 
If the founders were wrong, amend.
No. They weren't. They wanted the civilians to be as equally armed as the government military; so when the consent to be governed was revoked, the citizens could enforce it. That's why the 2nd amendment exists.
I was under the impression that the founders were against having a standing army. That the 2nd amendment exists so that the state can summon a militia in times of need.
As is still the case. And it’s true... they were against a standing army. But we have one now. Which makes an armed citizenry all the more important, to maintain our freedom.
 
If the founders were wrong, amend.
No. They weren't. They wanted the civilians to be as equally armed as the government military; so when the consent to be governed was revoked, the citizens could enforce it. That's why the 2nd amendment exists.
I was under the impression that the founders were against having a standing army. That the 2nd amendment exists so that the state can summon a militia in times of need.
As is still the case. And it’s true... they were against a standing army. But we have one now. Which makes an armed citizenry all the more important, to maintain our freedom.
We have to fear our men and women in the military? That's a different message than what we might normally hear from those on the right.
 
The right of the people to have motherfucking machine guns, shall not be infringed.

We must get back to the true meaning of infringement:

in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
  1. actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
    "making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
    synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
    • act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
      "his legal rights were being infringed"
      synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on;
Doesnt say anything about machine guns
.


and it also says its contingent on having a well regulated militia like the national guard. Sorry

"contingent on"?...lol, I think the word you are looking for is"necessary", you know, as in..."necessary to the security of a FREE STATE"!... some other words you may have over looked are "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED ...too funny.
 
If the founders were wrong, amend.
No. They weren't. They wanted the civilians to be as equally armed as the government military; so when the consent to be governed was revoked, the citizens could enforce it. That's why the 2nd amendment exists.
I was under the impression that the founders were against having a standing army. That the 2nd amendment exists so that the state can summon a militia in times of need.
As is still the case. And it’s true... they were against a standing army. But we have one now. Which makes an armed citizenry all the more important, to maintain our freedom.
We have to fear our men and women in the military? That's a different message than what we might normally hear from those on the right.
Like your avatar, it puts the lie to the other lefties here who are trying to hide the fact they are communists/marxists.
 
If the founders were wrong, amend.
No. They weren't. They wanted the civilians to be as equally armed as the government military; so when the consent to be governed was revoked, the citizens could enforce it. That's why the 2nd amendment exists.
I was under the impression that the founders were against having a standing army. That the 2nd amendment exists so that the state can summon a militia in times of need.
As is still the case. And it’s true... they were against a standing army. But we have one now. Which makes an armed citizenry all the more important, to maintain our freedom.
We have to fear our men and women in the military? That's a different message than what we might normally hear from those on the right.
More so those who command them...
 
I was under the impression that the founders were against having a standing army. That the 2nd amendment exists so that the state can summon a militia in times of need.
so they can summon an armed militia in times of need, not mention that there would be less need to summon an already armed populace...and regardless of the founders/framers intentions concerning a standing army they made sure their intentions of an armed populace were included in the constitution.
 
If the founders were wrong, amend.
No. They weren't. They wanted the civilians to be as equally armed as the government military; so when the consent to be governed was revoked, the citizens could enforce it. That's why the 2nd amendment exists.
I was under the impression that the founders were against having a standing army. That the 2nd amendment exists so that the state can summon a militia in times of need.
We should have Standing Army tax rates; but it goes against right wing fantasy.
 
If the founders were wrong, amend.
No. They weren't. They wanted the civilians to be as equally armed as the government military; so when the consent to be governed was revoked, the citizens could enforce it. That's why the 2nd amendment exists.
I was under the impression that the founders were against having a standing army. That the 2nd amendment exists so that the state can summon a militia in times of need.
As is still the case. And it’s true... they were against a standing army. But we have one now. Which makes an armed citizenry all the more important, to maintain our freedom.
We have to fear our men and women in the military? That's a different message than what we might normally hear from those on the right.
More so those who command them...
Irrelevant. What you are saying is that the men and women in our military are willing to turn their arms against the people they have sworn to protect. Could you be any more disrespectful.
 

Forum List

Back
Top