A message from a veteran about firearms in this country

[Oldstyle]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

Wow...you took an oath to support something that you really didn't understand...didn't you!

The military fulfills my right to defend myself? The stupidity of that comment is amazing!

The Second Amendment does not say anything about personal self defense. it only talks about a well organized armed force to defend the country: aka the military.

We have a right to bear arms in order to form a well regulated militia. The Founding Fathers saw an armed citizenry as a counter balance TO the military.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

Wow...you took an oath to support something that you really didn't understand...didn't you!

The military fulfills my right to defend myself? The stupidity of that comment is amazing!

The Second Amendment does not say anything about personal self defense. it only talks about a well organized armed force to defend the country: aka the military.

You're retarded the militia is the citizens

 

[BlindBoo]

It made sense for the fledgling country of mostly rural farming communities. I'm not so sure that the FF's would have wanted everyone in the country to have access to rapid fire weapons that they couldn't even dream of. I mean weren't they still using mostly Muzzle loaders back then? They didn't have semi-automatic rifles with 50 round magazines.

Using your logic we could have black powder flintlock to defend ourselves. One shot and you ask them to hold on while you reload. No, they weren't that stupid and didn't try to anticipate technological advances.

Well you can have one if you want I guess. Not really logic to take it to such an extreme.

My point is since the SC now says the second includes an individuals right for protection, I think the 2nd is too broad and the right needs to be clarified by a new amendment addressing specifically the individuals rights.

The SC doesn't "now say". They merely acknowledged what every intelligent person in the country already knew, and which the progressives had been trying to rewrite for decades. The Bill of Rights are ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. A moron can figure that one out. The progressives have been trying to revise the English language, Law, and historical fact for decades. The Heller ruling merely stated that they were lying.

Okay zippy the SC ruled and further clarified........doesn't change the fact that imo the language of the 2nd is now too broad and needs to be clarified before any effective measures can be taken to stop gun violence.

What do you mean to broad?

The 2nd always meant the right to bear arms that's it...only idiots like you tried to say it meant something else.
.

So we the people have the right to personally own an RPGs or mortars or have a .50 cal. machine gun mounted on my Ranger? How about some hand held missiles like we saw the grunts using in Iraq?

The way it's worded we should be able to without restriction.

 

[Oldstyle]

What's sad is that at the very moment when every day Americans are under the biggest threat EVER from outside forces...you want to take away their right to defend themselves and their loved ones!

 

[BlindBoo]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

Wow...you took an oath to support something that you really didn't understand...didn't you!

The military fulfills my right to defend myself? The stupidity of that comment is amazing!

The Second Amendment does not say anything about personal self defense. it only talks about a well organized armed force to defend the country: aka the military.

We have a right to bear arms in order to form a well regulated militia. The Founding Fathers saw an armed citizenry as a counter balance TO the military.

I agree but that is only half. The people have the right even if they are not forming a militia. I think the States Militias were the first line of defense while the Government can raise an army.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Using your logic we could have black powder flintlock to defend ourselves. One shot and you ask them to hold on while you reload. No, they weren't that stupid and didn't try to anticipate technological advances.

Well you can have one if you want I guess. Not really logic to take it to such an extreme.

My point is since the SC now says the second includes an individuals right for protection, I think the 2nd is too broad and the right needs to be clarified by a new amendment addressing specifically the individuals rights.

The SC doesn't "now say". They merely acknowledged what every intelligent person in the country already knew, and which the progressives had been trying to rewrite for decades. The Bill of Rights are ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. A moron can figure that one out. The progressives have been trying to revise the English language, Law, and historical fact for decades. The Heller ruling merely stated that they were lying.

Okay zippy the SC ruled and further clarified........doesn't change the fact that imo the language of the 2nd is now too broad and needs to be clarified before any effective measures can be taken to stop gun violence.

What do you mean to broad?

The 2nd always meant the right to bear arms that's it...only idiots like you tried to say it meant something else.
.

So we the people have the right to personally own an RPGs or mortars or have a .50 cal. machine gun mounted on my Ranger? How about some hand held missiles like we saw the grunts using in Iraq?

The way it's worded we should be able to without restriction.

You can buy your own tank if you wanted to ..



http://m.exarmyvehicles.com/offer/tracked-vehicles/tanks/main-battle-tank-t-55a





WEAPONS SYSTEMS CAN BE DISARMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT LEGISLATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS OF EACH STATE
DOZENS OF TANKS, ORIGINALLY FROM SERBIA, ARE IN STOCK. TANKS MADE IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA, RUSSIA AND POLAND ARE AVAILABLE FOR SAIL. LOW KM AND MTH VALUES.

 

[Vastator]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

Absolute horseshit. Christ; how standards have dropped...

 

[BlindBoo]

Using your logic we could have black powder flintlock to defend ourselves. One shot and you ask them to hold on while you reload. No, they weren't that stupid and didn't try to anticipate technological advances.

Well you can have one if you want I guess. Not really logic to take it to such an extreme.

My point is since the SC now says the second includes an individuals right for protection, I think the 2nd is too broad and the right needs to be clarified by a new amendment addressing specifically the individuals rights.

I used your logic, it's it's extreme then how is that my problem?

What you think or feel isn't important. We have 240 years versus you.

You pole vaulted to a ridiculous extreme and called it logic. It's not.

Ditto for yours as well.

240 years versus you. Deal with it. Or be an idiot, not my loss.

Slavery existed for 240 years too. Didn't make it any less wrong

Slavery has existed for most of human history. Not all treated their slaves as a sub-human race deserving to be enslaved in perpetuity like the Southern States did.

 

[BlindBoo]

Well you can have one if you want I guess. Not really logic to take it to such an extreme.

My point is since the SC now says the second includes an individuals right for protection, I think the 2nd is too broad and the right needs to be clarified by a new amendment addressing specifically the individuals rights.

The SC doesn't "now say". They merely acknowledged what every intelligent person in the country already knew, and which the progressives had been trying to rewrite for decades. The Bill of Rights are ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. A moron can figure that one out. The progressives have been trying to revise the English language, Law, and historical fact for decades. The Heller ruling merely stated that they were lying.

Okay zippy the SC ruled and further clarified........doesn't change the fact that imo the language of the 2nd is now too broad and needs to be clarified before any effective measures can be taken to stop gun violence.

What do you mean to broad?

The 2nd always meant the right to bear arms that's it...only idiots like you tried to say it meant something else.
.

So we the people have the right to personally own an RPGs or mortars or have a .50 cal. machine gun mounted on my Ranger? How about some hand held missiles like we saw the grunts using in Iraq?

The way it's worded we should be able to without restriction.

You can buy your own tank if you wanted to ..



http://m.exarmyvehicles.com/offer/tracked-vehicles/tanks/main-battle-tank-t-55a





WEAPONS SYSTEMS CAN BE DISARMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT LEGISLATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS OF EACH STATE
DOZENS OF TANKS, ORIGINALLY FROM SERBIA, ARE IN STOCK. TANKS MADE IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA, RUSSIA AND POLAND ARE AVAILABLE FOR SAIL. LOW KM AND MTH VALUES.

Complete with Armor piercing DU rounds, machine-guns and ammo?

Kewl.

 

[ChairmanGonzalo]

Well you can have one if you want I guess. Not really logic to take it to such an extreme.

My point is since the SC now says the second includes an individuals right for protection, I think the 2nd is too broad and the right needs to be clarified by a new amendment addressing specifically the individuals rights.

I used your logic, it's it's extreme then how is that my problem?

What you think or feel isn't important. We have 240 years versus you.

You pole vaulted to a ridiculous extreme and called it logic. It's not.

Ditto for yours as well.

240 years versus you. Deal with it. Or be an idiot, not my loss.

Slavery existed for 240 years too. Didn't make it any less wrong

Slavery has existed for most of human history. Not all treated their slaves as a sub-human race deserving to be enslaved in perpetuity like the Southern States did.

There's a major difference between Roman style "slavery," where slavery was not justified out of racism, and where slaves (usually captured prisoners of war) were paid a wage, could vote, and could buy their freedom within years, and southern slavery where entire generations were treated as subhumans simply because of the color of their skin

 

[Wyatt earp]

The SC doesn't "now say". They merely acknowledged what every intelligent person in the country already knew, and which the progressives had been trying to rewrite for decades. The Bill of Rights are ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. A moron can figure that one out. The progressives have been trying to revise the English language, Law, and historical fact for decades. The Heller ruling merely stated that they were lying.

Okay zippy the SC ruled and further clarified........doesn't change the fact that imo the language of the 2nd is now too broad and needs to be clarified before any effective measures can be taken to stop gun violence.

What do you mean to broad?

The 2nd always meant the right to bear arms that's it...only idiots like you tried to say it meant something else.
.

So we the people have the right to personally own an RPGs or mortars or have a .50 cal. machine gun mounted on my Ranger? How about some hand held missiles like we saw the grunts using in Iraq?

The way it's worded we should be able to without restriction.

You can buy your own tank if you wanted to ..



http://m.exarmyvehicles.com/offer/tracked-vehicles/tanks/main-battle-tank-t-55a





WEAPONS SYSTEMS CAN BE DISARMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CURRENT LEGISLATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS OF EACH STATE
DOZENS OF TANKS, ORIGINALLY FROM SERBIA, ARE IN STOCK. TANKS MADE IN CZECHOSLOVAKIA, RUSSIA AND POLAND ARE AVAILABLE FOR SAIL. LOW KM AND MTH VALUES.

Complete with Armor piercing DU rounds, machine-guns and ammo?

Kewl.

Heck if I know, I never wanted to buy one.

 

[2aguy]

I used your logic, it's it's extreme then how is that my problem?

What you think or feel isn't important. We have 240 years versus you.

You pole vaulted to a ridiculous extreme and called it logic. It's not.

Ditto for yours as well.

240 years versus you. Deal with it. Or be an idiot, not my loss.

Slavery existed for 240 years too. Didn't make it any less wrong

Slavery has existed for most of human history. Not all treated their slaves as a sub-human race deserving to be enslaved in perpetuity like the Southern States did.

There's a major difference between Roman style "slavery," where slavery was not justified out of racism, and where slaves (usually captured prisoners of war) were paid a wage, could vote, and could buy their freedom within years, and southern slavery where entire generations were treated as subhumans simply because of the color of their skin

Yes....democrats treated their black slaves horribly...now they want to scale that treatment to all races....

 

[BlindBoo]

I used your logic, it's it's extreme then how is that my problem?

What you think or feel isn't important. We have 240 years versus you.

You pole vaulted to a ridiculous extreme and called it logic. It's not.

Ditto for yours as well.

240 years versus you. Deal with it. Or be an idiot, not my loss.

Slavery existed for 240 years too. Didn't make it any less wrong

Slavery has existed for most of human history. Not all treated their slaves as a sub-human race deserving to be enslaved in perpetuity like the Southern States did.

There's a major difference between Roman style "slavery," where slavery was not justified out of racism, and where slaves (usually captured prisoners of war) were paid a wage, could vote, and could buy their freedom within years, and southern slavery where entire generations were treated as subhumans simply because of the color of their skin

Can't disagree.

 

[OKTexas]

Didn't you take an oath to defend the Constitution? Do you happen to know what it says? JW

The constitution says that "the people" as a whole are allowed to bear arms to form "well regulated militias"

Basically, there is a collective right for civilians to form an armed force to stand by in readiness to defend the country. The second amendment is therefore fulfilled by the existence of the U.S military

oh bullshit
"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
You leftist totalitarians are ALWAYS trying to "interpret" basic sayings. Its pathetic. Try honesty. Or at least try to think.

Back when the constitution was written, the vast majority of voters rejected the idea of a standing army. However, the founding fathers thought that it was important for the country to have a standing military in case of emergencies.

Therefore, they wrote the second amendment in order to grant the "people" (not individuals, but the people as a whole) to form and maintain a military in spite of the public opposition to a standing army.

"The well regulated militia" refers to a group of volunteer citizenry who are trained and drilled in the use of arms to defend their homes. Aka the U.S military. I was a part of the "well regulated militia." A gun nut who owns 80 assault rifles in his basement is not.

What you fail to realize is the State mentioned in the second amendment is NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, it is the individual States. The terms State and Federal Government are NEVER use interchangeably in the Constitution. Also no where does the Constitution use the terms for governments and the people (meaning individual citizens), interchangeably. So the second amendment says the individual citizen has a right to keep and bear arms. The first portion of the amendment is not a limiter to the second. BTW what you think a person needs is irrelevant, an AR style weapon is good for a lot more than just killing people. I bet you were a Cat 4 on your ASFAB.

definition of State

a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government.
"Germany, Italy, and other European states"
synonyms: country, nation, land, sovereign state, nation state, kingdom, realm, power, republic,confederation, federation


So you see the word State can be used interchangeably with Country

I'm sorry you're too stupid to read, I said it's not, not that it couldn't be. Leave it to regressives not to understand what is, they just live in their fantasy land.

 

[BlindBoo]

You pole vaulted to a ridiculous extreme and called it logic. It's not.

Ditto for yours as well.

240 years versus you. Deal with it. Or be an idiot, not my loss.

Slavery existed for 240 years too. Didn't make it any less wrong

Slavery has existed for most of human history. Not all treated their slaves as a sub-human race deserving to be enslaved in perpetuity like the Southern States did.

There's a major difference between Roman style "slavery," where slavery was not justified out of racism, and where slaves (usually captured prisoners of war) were paid a wage, could vote, and could buy their freedom within years, and southern slavery where entire generations were treated as subhumans simply because of the color of their skin

Yes....democrats treated their black slaves horribly...now they want to scale that treatment to all races....

Most of the country still believed they were an inferior race deserving to be slaves. Even after Lincoln was assassinated and they were all freed.

 

[ChairmanGonzalo]

240 years versus you. Deal with it. Or be an idiot, not my loss.

Slavery existed for 240 years too. Didn't make it any less wrong

Slavery has existed for most of human history. Not all treated their slaves as a sub-human race deserving to be enslaved in perpetuity like the Southern States did.

There's a major difference between Roman style "slavery," where slavery was not justified out of racism, and where slaves (usually captured prisoners of war) were paid a wage, could vote, and could buy their freedom within years, and southern slavery where entire generations were treated as subhumans simply because of the color of their skin

Yes....democrats treated their black slaves horribly...now they want to scale that treatment to all races....

Most of the country still believed they were an inferior race deserving to be slaves. Even after Lincoln was assassinated and they were all freed.

Even after de jure slavery ended, de facto slavery in the form of sharecropping and Jim crow laws continued until the 1970's, and de facto slavery through mass incarceration and forced prison labor of people of color continues TO THIS DAY

 

[OKTexas]

No it doesn't advocate it, it demands a well armed militia, and prohibits the feds from doing a damn thing about it.

The difference between you and I is that you see the government as the enemy.....while I do not......
However, I DO see the carnage that so many guns in the hands of morons can cause.

I won't apologize for sharing the founder suspensions of government, why do you think they placed so many restrictions on it? Many of which have been destroyed by the same government they created.

Some people don't realize that the Founding Fathers didn't intend for our government to get as big and powerful as it is today.

They intended for us to be a nice little agrarian country that was isolated from the world

Right, that's why they included protections for scientific advancement and the arts.

 

[defcon4]

Using your logic we could have black powder flintlock to defend ourselves. One shot and you ask them to hold on while you reload. No, they weren't that stupid and didn't try to anticipate technological advances.

Well you can have one if you want I guess. Not really logic to take it to such an extreme.

My point is since the SC now says the second includes an individuals right for protection, I think the 2nd is too broad and the right needs to be clarified by a new amendment addressing specifically the individuals rights.

I used your logic, it's it's extreme then how is that my problem?

What you think or feel isn't important. We have 240 years versus you.

You pole vaulted to a ridiculous extreme and called it logic. It's not.

Ditto for yours as well.

240 years versus you. Deal with it. Or be an idiot, not my loss.

Slavery existed for 240 years too. Didn't make it any less wrong

Nice comparison.....

 

[westwall]

Using your logic we could have black powder flintlock to defend ourselves. One shot and you ask them to hold on while you reload. No, they weren't that stupid and didn't try to anticipate technological advances.

Well you can have one if you want I guess. Not really logic to take it to such an extreme.

My point is since the SC now says the second includes an individuals right for protection, I think the 2nd is too broad and the right needs to be clarified by a new amendment addressing specifically the individuals rights.

The SC doesn't "now say". They merely acknowledged what every intelligent person in the country already knew, and which the progressives had been trying to rewrite for decades. The Bill of Rights are ALL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. A moron can figure that one out. The progressives have been trying to revise the English language, Law, and historical fact for decades. The Heller ruling merely stated that they were lying.

Okay zippy the SC ruled and further clarified........doesn't change the fact that imo the language of the 2nd is now too broad and needs to be clarified before any effective measures can be taken to stop gun violence.

What do you mean to broad?

The 2nd always meant the right to bear arms that's it...only idiots like you tried to say it meant something else.
.

So we the people have the right to personally own an RPGs or mortars or have a .50 cal. machine gun mounted on my Ranger? How about some hand held missiles like we saw the grunts using in Iraq?

The way it's worded we should be able to without restriction.

You progressives sure love to whine don't you. No, the Founders stated "ARMS" That implies small arms. In other words, rifles pistols etc. However, there still is a Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston that was founded in the 1650's. Private citizens buying artillery and training their members in the use of same. So, the Founders KNEW these men, and didn't write in a prohibition for artillery. So, what does that tell you? And for the record I used to own a .50 calibre machinegun. It got too expensive to feed so I sold it. Perfectly legal, just expensive.

 

[westwall]

I used your logic, it's it's extreme then how is that my problem?

What you think or feel isn't important. We have 240 years versus you.

You pole vaulted to a ridiculous extreme and called it logic. It's not.

Ditto for yours as well.

240 years versus you. Deal with it. Or be an idiot, not my loss.

Slavery existed for 240 years too. Didn't make it any less wrong

Slavery has existed for most of human history. Not all treated their slaves as a sub-human race deserving to be enslaved in perpetuity like the Southern States did.

There's a major difference between Roman style "slavery," where slavery was not justified out of racism, and where slaves (usually captured prisoners of war) were paid a wage, could vote, and could buy their freedom within years, and southern slavery where entire generations were treated as subhumans simply because of the color of their skin

Wow. I think you failed that history class.....


"Slaves were the lowest class of society and even freed criminals had more rights. Slaves had no rights at all in fact and certainly no legal status or individuality. They could not create relations or families, nor could they own property. To all intents and purposes they were merely the property of a particular owner, just like any other piece of property - a building, a chair or a vase - the only difference was that they could speak. The only time there was anywhere near equality for all persons in Roman society was during the Saturnalia festival when, for a few days only, slaves were given some freedoms usually denied them.

Slaves were, for many of the Roman elite, a status symbol and, therefore, the more (and the more exotic) one had, the better, so that wealthy Romans very often appeared in public accompanied by an entourage of as many as 15 slaves."


Slavery in the Roman World