CDZ Guns Tanks and Nucklear Weapons. The second amendment.

hauke

VIP Member
Jan 27, 2015
1,318
31
73
every american is allowed to have arms in a well regulated militia.

im paraphrasing

what kind of arms is an american allowed to have ?

rifles ? tanks ? nuclear weapons ?

hey wait. it said "in a well regulated militia"

so does that mean that americans aren t allowed to have arms outside a well regulated militia ?

what do you think ?

what are arms ? a muzzleloaded musket ? or a laser guided Assault rifle ? or a nuclear bomb ? are americans allowed to have nuclear bombs ?

and do they have the right to bear this arms outside a well regulated militia ?
 
every american is allowed to have arms in a well regulated militia.

im paraphrasing

what kind of arms is an american allowed to have ?

rifles ? tanks ? nuclear weapons ?

hey wait. it said "in a well regulated militia"

so does that mean that americans aren t allowed to have arms outside a well regulated militia ?

what do you think ?

what are arms ? a muzzleloaded musket ? or a laser guided Assault rifle ? or a nuclear bomb ? are americans allowed to have nuclear bombs ?

and do they have the right to bear this arms outside a well regulated militia ?
Obviously linguistics lexicology escapes you not to mention history. Look up what 'well regulated' meant in the 18th and 19th centuries.
 
Last edited:
question :
what is of importance what well regulated meant 1787 today ?

how is 1787 diffrent from 2016 ?

where ther semi automatic weapons with 20 round exchangeble magazine capable of killing people at 800 meters available 1787 ?

did the founding fathers even imagine these weapons could exist ?

and can americans have private nuclear weapons ?

nuclear weapons are arms, so acording to the 2. amendmend every american has the right to have nuclear weapons

every other country in the world thinks thats insane
 
Last edited:
"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."

Our State does have a well-regulated militia, and doesn't infringe the peoples' right to bear arms. As to what kind of arms we are allowed to bear, that seems to be something the federal government wants to manage, albeit our State hasn't found a reason to begrudge any of the federal requirements at this point. We have added additional confirmation of our rights to bear arms to our State Constitution though, as a precautionary measure should the federal government attempt to overstep their bounds.
 
Last edited:
the 2nd amendmend was made in 1784 when arms meant muzzle loaded muskets.

not assault rifles machineguns tanks nuclear weapons
 
ok if you want to fight the federal gouvernement, because you don t agree to democratic votes, you are fighting the most powerfull military in the world, and even if you had a fully automatic assault rifle you d just be a bad joke
 
the 2nd amendmend was made in 1784 when arms meant muzzle loaded muskets.

not assault rifles machineguns tanks nuclear weapons

It doesn't refer to weapon type anywhere I can see, nor does it require interpretation contrary to the of the peoples' right to bear arms. If you need to make something up that isn't there , then chances are you are overreaching in attempts to satisfy desires contrary to the actual stated intent.
 
if you need more then 5 rounds to kill the bear that attacks you...you should never have gone into the wilderness
 
you have to join a "well regulated" militia to bear arms.

join the national guard

otherwise your just a criminal with guns
 
if you need more then 5 rounds to kill the bear that attacks you...you should never have gone into the wilderness

The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about bears in the wilderness either.
 
if all democratic people join the national guard it will never be used for dictatorship

democrats join the national guard to keep it democratic
 
you have to join a "well regulated" militia to bear arms.

join the national guard

otherwise your just a criminal with guns

The National Guard is supported by both the State and the Federal Government and is not a free State militia. They do pledge to defend the State and the State's Constitution, but that has little to no bearing on the Second Amendment rights.
 
every american is allowed to have arms in a well regulated militia.

im paraphrasing

what kind of arms is an american allowed to have ?

rifles ? tanks ? nuclear weapons ?

hey wait. it said "in a well regulated militia"

so does that mean that americans aren t allowed to have arms outside a well regulated militia ?

what do you think ?

what are arms ? a muzzleloaded musket ? or a laser guided Assault rifle ? or a nuclear bomb ? are americans allowed to have nuclear bombs ?

and do they have the right to bear this arms outside a well regulated militia ?

when scaila polluted our legal waters with heller, he didn't quite get to that part.
 
if all democratic people join the national guard it will never be used for dictatorship

democrats join the national guard to keep it democratic

Military units such as the National Guard have a chain of command and are not democratic in nature.

Being controlled by the State as well as federal resources, National Guard units are not susceptible to all provisions of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, but at the same time most States incorporate provisions of the UCMJ in managing their National Guard units.
 
Last edited:
question :
what is of importance what well regulated meant 1787 today ?

how is 1787 diffrent from 2016 ?

where ther semi automatic weapons with 20 round exchangeble magazine capable of killing people at 800 meters available 1787 ?

did the founding fathers even imagine these weapons could exist ?

and can americans have private nuclear weapons ?

nuclear weapons are arms, so acording to the 2. amendmend every american has the right to have nuclear weapons

every other country in the world thinks thats insane
The basis of all constitutional law in this country is supposed to be (but obviously not always has been) based on the 'original intent' of the founders, that's the metric SCOTUS is supposedly to apply.
That's why the meaning is important, the meaning based on common usage during the founders' time.
As for people owning nukes, missiles, etc there is the doctrine of 'reasonable restrictions', the current argument has to do with high capacity magazines and only because of their use in mass killings.
As for what the founders envisioned in the way of future weapons I seriously doubt they could see the development of the percussion cap let alone the trap door and bolt action rifles or the revolver.
Oh and the usage of well regulated by the founders referred to well oiled, well tuned, properly organized.
 
the 2nd amendmend was made in 1784 when arms meant muzzle loaded muskets.

not assault rifles machineguns tanks nuclear weapons
They also had manual printing presses, no telegraph, no phones, no internet, no email. Using your obvious reference to firearms non-existance at the time what applies to one applies to all...........
 
They also had manual printing presses, no telegraph, no phones, no internet, no email. Using your obvious reference to firearms non-existance at the time what applies to one applies to all...........

Hey, keep them thinking about firearms. I am pretty sure the federal government would like to take away the freedoms and liberties we enjoy with the First Amendment and the internet, but if we can keep the silly people from focusing on that, the folks with firearms can keep them busy for a while.
 
so the constitution made in 1776 isn t up to date.. what suprise.

how about a nationwide basic democratic movement to make a new constitution.

wiith laws that are 21 century ?

maybe make a 21 century democratic system too
 
the USA made the 1st Democracy in the new age of 1776

maybe the USA can make the 1st 21. Century true democracy
 

Forum List

Back
Top