2nd Amendment Unapologetic Meaning

[danielpalos]

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

it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.

 

[capego]

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

it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.

Tyranny advocates in this country (liberals) seem to have a major problem with reading comprehension.

As I stated
"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

And, if you have trouble interpreting the rather simple sentence structure of the amendment to discern what I've stated, here's the supreme court which apparently has to stoop so low as explaining grammar:

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause."

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It is the First Amendment that safeguards our rights and protected liberties, not the Second.

The right to free speech, free expression, to an unfettered press, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political and judicial process is our bulwark against tyranny.

Well, there were reasons for ALL of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment protections were to stop the government stifling people criticizing the government, so it would help prevent tyranny.

But also the separation of powers was designed to make sure no one man could get his hands on power and abuse it.

However the 2A was considered the ultimate safeguard. If all else failed, then the people could make that decision.

 

[danielpalos]

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

it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.

Tyranny advocates in this country (liberals) seem to have a major problem with reading comprehension.

As I stated
"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

And, if you have trouble interpreting the rather simple sentence structure of the amendment to discern what I've stated, here's the supreme court which apparently has to stoop so low as explaining grammar:

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause."

Yes, it does, and it must, as clearly Expressed in the First clause not the Second Clause.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.

Tyranny advocates in this country (liberals) seem to have a major problem with reading comprehension.

As I stated
"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

And, if you have trouble interpreting the rather simple sentence structure of the amendment to discern what I've stated, here's the supreme court which apparently has to stoop so low as explaining grammar:

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause."

Yes, it does, and it must, as clearly Expressed in the First clause not the Second Clause.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

That IS NOT what the English language has to say about that sentence AT ALL, and neither does the Supreme Court.

 

[danielpalos]

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

it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.

Tyranny advocates in this country (liberals) seem to have a major problem with reading comprehension.

As I stated
"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

And, if you have trouble interpreting the rather simple sentence structure of the amendment to discern what I've stated, here's the supreme court which apparently has to stoop so low as explaining grammar:

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause."

Yes, it does, and it must, as clearly Expressed in the First clause not the Second Clause.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

That IS NOT what the English language has to say about that sentence AT ALL, and neither does the Supreme Court.

Yes, that is what it has Always meant. Only the right wing, never gets it.

The security needs of a free State, outweigh, individual liberty and natural rights; for the duration of the security need.

First Sergeants have better reading comprehension.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.

Tyranny advocates in this country (liberals) seem to have a major problem with reading comprehension.

As I stated
"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

And, if you have trouble interpreting the rather simple sentence structure of the amendment to discern what I've stated, here's the supreme court which apparently has to stoop so low as explaining grammar:

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause."

Yes, it does, and it must, as clearly Expressed in the First clause not the Second Clause.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

That IS NOT what the English language has to say about that sentence AT ALL, and neither does the Supreme Court.

Yes, that is what it has Always meant. Only the right wing, never gets it.

The security needs of a free State, outweigh, individual liberty and natural rights; for the duration of the security need.

First Sergeants have better reading comprehension.

The English language is not your friend neither of those clauses have any bearing on the shall not infringe right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

[Auld Phart]

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

it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.

It doesn't mention the unorganized militia at all

 

[danielpalos]

it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.

Tyranny advocates in this country (liberals) seem to have a major problem with reading comprehension.

As I stated
"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

And, if you have trouble interpreting the rather simple sentence structure of the amendment to discern what I've stated, here's the supreme court which apparently has to stoop so low as explaining grammar:

"The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause."

Yes, it does, and it must, as clearly Expressed in the First clause not the Second Clause.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

That IS NOT what the English language has to say about that sentence AT ALL, and neither does the Supreme Court.

Yes, that is what it has Always meant. Only the right wing, never gets it.

The security needs of a free State, outweigh, individual liberty and natural rights; for the duration of the security need.

First Sergeants have better reading comprehension.

The English language is not your friend neither of those clauses have any bearing on the shall not infringe right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The second clause must follow wherever the first clause leads. Every "second sergeant", knows this.

 

[danielpalos]

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

it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.

It doesn't mention the unorganized militia at all

exactly; Only well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary.

 

[Auld Phart]

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

it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.

It doesn't mention the unorganized militia at all

exactly; Only well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary.

Shame the Founding Fathers didn't give them the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, isn't it?

 

[danielpalos]

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

it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.

It doesn't mention the unorganized militia at all

exactly; Only well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary.

Shame the Founding Fathers didn't give them the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, isn't it?

Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by the unorganized militia, when it really really matters.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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

it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.

It doesn't mention the unorganized militia at all

exactly; Only well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary.

Shame the Founding Fathers didn't give them the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, isn't it?

Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by the unorganized militia, when it really really matters.

The ONLY well regulated militia is the Federalized National Guard and a few States have their own militias.

 

[danielpalos]

it says, well regulated militia are necessary not the unorganized militia.

It doesn't mention the unorganized militia at all

exactly; Only well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary.

Shame the Founding Fathers didn't give them the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, isn't it?

Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by the unorganized militia, when it really really matters.

The ONLY well regulated militia is the Federalized National Guard and a few States have their own militias.

Yes, well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

Only an idiot would assume the majority of the military would follow the unlawful order to fire on groups of US citizens.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

It doesn't mention the unorganized militia at all

exactly; Only well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary.

Shame the Founding Fathers didn't give them the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, isn't it?

Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by the unorganized militia, when it really really matters.

The ONLY well regulated militia is the Federalized National Guard and a few States have their own militias.

Yes, well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You conveniently left out the part that mentions "The right of the people". There are also the subsequent writings of the Founding Fathers that affirm the rights of individual citizens to keep and bear arms.

 

[danielpalos]

exactly; Only well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary.

Shame the Founding Fathers didn't give them the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, isn't it?

Well regulated militia may not be Infringed by the unorganized militia, when it really really matters.

The ONLY well regulated militia is the Federalized National Guard and a few States have their own militias.

Yes, well regulated militia of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You conveniently left out the part that mentions "The right of the people". There are also the subsequent writings of the Founding Fathers that affirm the rights of individual citizens to keep and bear arms.

Not in our Second Amendment. The People are The Militia. Well regulated militia are expressly declared, Necessary, not the unorganized militia of the rest of the People.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

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

Your petty frivolous irrational arguments are super easy to dispel.
The 2nd Amendment specifically addresses the right of We The People (but not you) are empowered to be armed such that We The People (again, not you) can defend ourselves against the tyranny of our own government or group gaining control of said government.

Nuclear weapons are intended as deterrents to International threats. The government is highly unlikely to use nuclear weapons domestically but then I can see why you jackwads might fear it. As usual in your spasticism, garbage spews from your lips.

As far as tanks and rocket launchers.....if the US government is taken over by you nut jobs then we certainly will need weapons capable of stopping such tanks used against We The People (Last time, NOT YOU).

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Not in our Second Amendment. The People are The Militia. Well regulated militia are expressly declared, Necessary, not the unorganized militia of the rest of the People.

You fool. You have NO CLUE what the US Constitution is all about. Shocking.

People with totally fucked up thought processes like you should NEVER sit on the Supreme Court.

Thanks for the verification and reiteration.