2nd Amendment Unapologetic Meaning

capego

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Messages
43
Reaction score
10
Points
21
Location
capego.icu
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
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
43,569
Reaction score
4,888
Points
1,870
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.
 

IsaacNewton

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
17,309
Reaction score
3,662
Points
290
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.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,935
Reaction score
9,961
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
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.
Ya cause after all we had no problem in Vietnam or now in Afghanistan right?
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
43,569
Reaction score
4,888
Points
1,870
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.
Ya cause after all we had no problem in Vietnam or now in Afghanistan right?
Oh please, no comparison. If we had pooured a million troops into Afghanistan we could have made it the 51st state.
 
OP
capego

capego

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Messages
43
Reaction score
10
Points
21
Location
capego.icu
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.
Your point is meaningless. The right is intended to prevent tyranny, not specifically from within or without. That tyranny can arise from within only means the "that is a myth" is wholly ignorant.
 
OP
capego

capego

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Messages
43
Reaction score
10
Points
21
Location
capego.icu
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.
 

RetiredGySgt

Diamond Member
Joined
May 6, 2007
Messages
47,935
Reaction score
9,961
Points
2,040
Location
North Carolina
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.
Ya cause after all we had no problem in Vietnam or now in Afghanistan right?
Oh please, no comparison. If we had pooured a million troops into Afghanistan we could have made it the 51st state.
There are not a million troops in the Army or Marine Corps combined and even adding the air force and Navy you only barely break a million. If just 3 percent of the population rebels that is over 9 million people.
 
OP
capego

capego

Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2018
Messages
43
Reaction score
10
Points
21
Location
capego.icu
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.
Ya cause after all we had no problem in Vietnam or now in Afghanistan right?
Oh please, no comparison. If we had pooured a million troops into Afghanistan we could have made it the 51st state.
Your ignorance is not welcome on this thread. Go away. You don't understand guerilla warfare and apparently you don't understand that the US military would include militia members who would also rebel.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
43,569
Reaction score
4,888
Points
1,870
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.
 

IsaacNewton

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2015
Messages
17,309
Reaction score
3,662
Points
290
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?
 

Natural Citizen

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
12,629
Reaction score
5,572
Points
430
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.
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
43,569
Reaction score
4,888
Points
1,870
You don't understand guerilla warfare
I of course do understand that it can be defeated with sheer jumbers and firepower. We would have crushed Vietnam, for instance, if we had the will. But, we did not.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,929
Reaction score
9,840
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
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
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
43,569
Reaction score
4,888
Points
1,870
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
Good idea! You can be my official bullet-stopper.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,929
Reaction score
9,840
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
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.
It's ok we can protect him fro Adolph Trump
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
78,929
Reaction score
9,840
Points
2,070
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
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
Good idea! You can be my official bullet-stopper.
Great but my plan is already set Asymmetric warfare
 

Crepitus

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2018
Messages
39,674
Reaction score
7,880
Points
1,140
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.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top