Joe Biden Says That The Second Amendment Isn't Absolute

[Open Bolt]

The National Guard is not a standing army.

That is incorrect. The National Guard are part of the US Army.

The Second Amendment needs to be seen from the right angle. As I said, it prevents the US federal government from stopping individuals being able to own "arms". It doesn't really mention what types of arms.

It doesn't have to mention it. Collective defense includes repelling foreign invasions. That means firepower appropriate for repelling foreign invasions.

The reality is the militia was designed to have people with their own weaponry that would be every day weaponry for hunting, what normal people would have. Not cannon or other such weaponry used in high tech warfare of the day. So, from both points there I think you're wrong.

I'm not wrong. What people had back then was modern infantry weaponry. Hunting was decidedly not part of the right to keep and bear arms.

If you want to exclude weapons that are too large and expensive to be owned and operated by common individuals, that is one thing, but limiting the right so that it covers only "individual" infantry weapons still leaves full-auto assault rifles and things like grenades and bazookas.

Collective defense means people getting together to defend themselves. Take a look at the Ukraine. People did not have all the weaponry they needed, but they still got it from somewhere.

If they had had the Second Amendment, they would not have to get the weapons from somewhere. They would have the right to provide their own weapons.

 

[Dr Grump]

No you don't. Free people have the right to keep and bear arms.



No one over here is scared either.

This thing about "need" is serf speak. Free people have guns because we choose to have them. Need is irrelevant.



Yes it is. If a free person chooses to have guns, that is all that matters. Free people do not have to provide justification.

It is only serfs who have to provide justification before they are allowed to have guns.



That is not why people choose to have guns. That is the bigoted stereotype of a freedom hater.

1) Says who? I am more than happy to go through many, many scenarios with you where I am absolutely more free than you are. I was born in NZ, now live in Australia. US isn't even in the top 10.

Freedom Index by Country 2025

worldpopulationreview.com

2) Meh, I have the need to rape and pillage. Doesn't mean I should be allowed to do it.
3) Yeah, they do. If you 'need' to walk down a street with an AR15 strapped to your side, then go for it. Join other great nations where this happens, like Afghanistan, Pakistan, <insert third-world shithole here>
4) BS. I watch the auditors. I see NRA types interviewed. I see the likes of you on messageboards like this. It's a stereotype for a reason.

 

[Open Bolt]

1) Says who?

Says the historical fact that keeping and bearing arms is the right of free people.

I am more than happy to go through many, many scenarios with you where I am absolutely more free than you are. I was born in NZ, now live in Australia.

You aren't even remotely free. If you were free you would not keep going on and on about "need" and "justification".

2) Meh, I have the need to rape and pillage. Doesn't mean I should be allowed to do it.

You are thinking like a serf. This "need" nonsense does not apply to free people.

3) Yeah, they do.

No we don't. We free people do what we want without justifying ourselves. And it doesn't matter whether or not anyone thinks we "need" something.

If you 'need' to walk down a street with an AR15 strapped to your side, then go for it. Join other great nations where this happens, like Afghanistan, Pakistan, <insert third-world shithole here>

Every time you talk about "need" you show that you are not free.

If I walk down the street with an AR15, it will not because of any nonsense about "need".

It will because I choose to do it. And as a free person, I will not have to justify my choice.

4) BS. I watch the auditors. I see NRA types interviewed. I see the likes of you on messageboards like this. It's a stereotype for a reason.

The reason why it's a stereotype is because people who oppose gun rights have small penises.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That is incorrect. The National Guard are part of the US Army.



It doesn't have to mention it. Collective defense includes repelling foreign invasions. That means firepower appropriate for repelling foreign invasions.



I'm not wrong. What people had back then was modern infantry weaponry. Hunting was decidedly not part of the right to keep and bear arms.

If you want to exclude weapons that are too large and expensive to be owned and operated by common individuals, that is one thing, but limiting the right so that it covers only "individual" infantry weapons still leaves full-auto assault rifles and things like grenades and bazookas.



If they had had the Second Amendment, they would not have to get the weapons from somewhere. They would have the right to provide their own weapons.

The National Guard has duel status.

It's like saying someone can't be in the National Guard because they have a job in Walmart. As if the two aren't compatible.

Cannon was modern weaponry, did they talk about people owning cannon?

The thing is, the way the 2A is written means weaponry of certain types can be excluded AS LONG AS the feds don't prevent people from owning arms.

Well, they do have the right to provide their own weapons. These people would be infantry, not artillery, not anything else.

 

[Dr Grump]

Says the historical fact that keeping and bearing arms is the right of free people.



You aren't even remotely free. If you were free you would not keep going on and on about "need" and "justification".



You are thinking like a serf. This "need" nonsense does not apply to free people.



No we don't. We free people do what we want without justifying ourselves. And it doesn't matter whether or not anyone thinks we "need" something.



Every time you talk about "need" you show that you are not free.

If I walk down the street with an AR15, it will not because of any nonsense about "need".

It will because I choose to do it. And as a free person, I will not have to justify my choice.



The reason why it's a stereotype is because people who oppose gun rights have small penises.

I note you didn't mention the link I provided.
LOL..re small penises. Am I the guy walking around with an extension of such strapped to my side? Your NEED to arm yourself just reinforces how scared you are (which is definitely a sign of lack of freedom) of your fellow citizens.
What historical 'fact' about bearing arms?
Gee, all the other free countries - who are way up the top of the freedom index - don't feel the NEED to be armed to the hilt like conservative Americans. Why is that? Oh, that's right, they've gone beyond the school boy fantasies of being Wyatt Earp, or maybe in your case William Bonney, and have grown up. Maybe, one day in the faaaaarrrr future, gun loving Yanks will too. I won't hold my breath though.

 

[Open Bolt]

The National Guard has duel status.
It's like saying someone can't be in the National Guard because they have a job in Walmart. As if the two aren't compatible.

The two are absolutely not compatible. The Framers intended the militia and the standing army to be two entirely different things.

Cannon was modern weaponry, did they talk about people owning cannon?

Canon were too large and expensive for common individuals to buy, and too large and complex for individuals to operate.

As I said before, if you want to exclude expensive and complex weapons on that basis, fine.

But that still leaves "individual" infantry weapons like grenades, bazookas, and full-auto rifles.

The thing is, the way the 2A is written means weaponry of certain types can be excluded AS LONG AS the feds don't prevent people from owning arms.

The way it is written means the inclusion of modern infantry weapons that are appropriate for repelling a foreign invasion.

Well, they do have the right to provide their own weapons. These people would be infantry, not artillery, not anything else.

Infantry includes grenades, bazookas, and full-auto rifles.

 

[frigidweirdo]

The two are absolutely not compatible. The Framers intended the militia and the standing army to be two entirely different things.



Canon were too large and expensive for common individuals to buy, and too large and complex for individuals to operate.

As I said before, if you want to exclude expensive and complex weapons on that basis, fine.

But that still leaves "individual" infantry weapons like grenades, bazookas, and full-auto rifles.



The way it is written means the inclusion of modern infantry weapons that are appropriate for repelling a foreign invasion.



Infantry includes grenades, bazookas, and full-auto rifles.

The founders intended lots of things, and one of the things they intended was ADAPTABILITY of the political process. Hence why there are amendments and a lot of things are written quite vaguely.

Still doesn't matter. The reality is the National Guard is a part of the Militia, whether you like it or not.

Cannons were too large and expensive and people didn't need them to hunt, and the leaders didn't want the people with cannons anyway.

And it doesn't matter what you think is infantry weaponry or not. The reality, again, is that the Second Amendment only PREVENTS the federal govt from doing things, and one of those things is preventing individuals from having arms. Now, can you get arms in the US today without buying a hand grenade? Yes.

 

[Open Bolt]

LOL..re small penises. Am I the guy walking around with an extension of such strapped to my side?

The only extension of a small penis here is your reliance on bigoted stereotypes.

Your NEED to arm yourself just reinforces how scared you are (which is definitely a sign of lack of freedom) of your fellow citizens.

Your endless talk about "need" just proves that you can't even comprehend what freedom is.

What historical 'fact' about bearing arms?

Free people have always had the right to keep and bear arms.

Gee, all the other free countries - who are way up the top of the freedom index - don't feel the NEED to be armed to the hilt like conservative Americans.

More of your serf talk. These other countries are not free and they never will be,

Why is that? Oh, that's right, they've gone beyond the school boy fantasies of being Wyatt Earp, or maybe in your case William Bonney, and have grown up.

More of your small-penis bigotry.

 

[Open Bolt]

The founders intended lots of things, and one of the things they intended was ADAPTABILITY of the political process. Hence why there are amendments and a lot of things are written quite vaguely.

Nothing in the Constitution was written vaguely.

Yes, the Constitution can be amended. Feel free to try to amend it.

Still doesn't matter. The reality is the National Guard is a part of the Militia, whether you like it or not.

That is incorrect. The National Guard are not the militia.

Cannons were too large and expensive and people didn't need them to hunt, and the leaders didn't want the people with cannons anyway.

Hunting has nothing to do with anything here. Did you forget your claim that the Second Amendment is about collective defense?

None of the Framers had any objections to people owning cannons.

And it doesn't matter what you think is infantry weaponry or not.

It matters what is an infantry weapon or not.

As it happens, I accurately listed examples of infantry weapons.

The reality, again, is that the Second Amendment only PREVENTS the federal govt from doing things, and one of those things is preventing individuals from having arms.

That is incorrect. A Second Amendment that is specifically focused on collective defense, specifically prevents outlawing the sorts of arms that are used for collective defense.

Now, can you get arms in the US today without buying a hand grenade? Yes.

That is incorrect. Being armed for collective defense requires hand grenades and full-auto weapons.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Nothing in the Constitution was written vaguely.

Yes, the Constitution can be amended. Feel free to try to amend it.



That is incorrect. The National Guard are not the militia.



Hunting has nothing to do with anything here. Did you forget your claim that the Second Amendment is about collective defense?

None of the Framers had any objections to people owning cannons.



It matters what is an infantry weapon or not.

As it happens, I accurately listed examples of infantry weapons.



That is incorrect. A Second Amendment that is specifically focused on collective defense, specifically prevents outlawing the sorts of arms that are used for collective defense.



That is incorrect. Being armed for collective defense requires hand grenades. Also bazookas and full-auto rifles.

Nothing was written vaguely huh?

"arms", not vague?

Hunting has lots to do with it. Mostly because people had guns because they used them to HUNT.

Well, the Founding Fathers probably didn't bother talking about cannons because it wasn't an issue. They wanted individuals to have GUNS because they felt that with guns they could get what they wanted, seeing how they won the revolutionary war with people just having guns, and other stuff, like cannons, being provided elsewhere.

No, you're wrong. The Second Amendment does NOT prevent the feds from banning certain types of weapons. Not even the NRA thinks the nukes and SAMs should be in the hands of normal people.

So, if you don't have a hand grenade, you won't be able to fight?

 

[Open Bolt]

Nothing was written vaguely huh?

Correct.

"arms", not vague?

Correct.

Hunting has lots to do with it. Mostly because people had guns because they used them to HUNT.

That is incorrect. Hunting has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, and certainly has nothing to do with a Second Amendment that is focused on collective defense.

No, you're wrong. The Second Amendment does NOT prevent the feds from banning certain types of weapons. Not even the NRA thinks the nukes and SAMs should be in the hands of normal people.

I'm not wrong. A Second Amendment that is focused on collective defense, prevents the government from restricting the sort of weapons that are used for collective defense.

Not even the NRA thinks the nukes and SAMs should be in the hands of normal people.

You are the one who proposed that the Second Amendment was strictly about collective defense.

So, if you don't have a hand grenade, you won't be able to fight?

I'm sure soldiers can fight with their bare hands.

The Second Amendment is there to prevent our collective defense from being forced to use substandard weapons.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Correct.



Correct.



That is incorrect. Hunting has nothing to do with the Second Amendment, and certainly has nothing to do with a Second Amendment that is focused on collective defense.



I'm not wrong. A Second Amendment that is focused on collective defense, prevents the government from restricting the sort of weapons that are used for collective defense.



You are the one who proposed that the Second Amendment was strictly about collective defense.



I'm sure soldiers can fight with their bare hands.

The Second Amendment is there to prevent our collective defense from being forced to use substandard weapons.

Well, you're making a lot of claims and nothing to back them up with.

 

[Open Bolt]

Well, you're making a lot of claims and nothing to back them up with.

They are backed up with logic. If the Second Amendment is about collective defense, then it is about collective defense.

By the way, you needn't worry about nukes and SAMs. They are closer to cannons than they are to individual weapons. Stinger missiles may be held by a single person, but they are normally operated by a two-man crew. They are also extremely expensive, nothing that an average person can afford.

Hand grenades, on the other hand, are cheap and are operated by a single person.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They are backed up with logic. If the Second Amendment is about collective defense, then it is about collective defense.

By the way, you needn't worry about nukes and SAMs. They are closer to cannons than they are to individual weapons. Stinger missiles may be held by a single person, but they are normally operated by a two-man crew. They are also extremely expensive, nothing that an average person can afford.

Hand grenades, on the other hand, are cheap and are operated by a single person.

No, you're not using that much logic. You're not trying to start at the beginning and work from there, trying to understand why the founding fathers put things in the Constitution or didn't.

Or trying to understand their mentality from the past.

 

[Abatis]

I read the Second Amendment's declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary, as a mandate to compel the government to always have a well regulated militia.

I gave you a quite comprehensive reply why your belief is wrong. The declaratory clause has no legal operation to mandate or compel anything; as SCOTUS has said repeatedly, the 2ndA has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government.

The only constitutional authority to mandate / compel / direct any militia action, federal, state and the citizen, comes from the militia clauses in the body of the Constitution (Art I, §8, cl's. 15 & 16).

From that enumerated grant of power the Militia Act of 1792 was enacted, and that law was the full expression by Congress of the powers conferred to Congress by the Constitution, none of which emanate from the 2nd Amendment . . . And that law was rescinded in 1903, extinguishing the militia powers of the states and relieving militia duty impressment on the citizens.

.

 

[2aguy]

We're going back 100 years. Western Europe has moved on. So should you.

1930s were 100 years ago? And you want to ignore 15 million murdered?

You don't think the socialist left wouldn't do this again if given half the chance?

This is why we don't trust you asshats.....you have no understanding of human history or human nature........

 

[Dr Grump]

1930s were 100 years ago? And you want to ignore 15 million murdered?

You don't think the socialist left wouldn't do this again if given half the chance?

This is why we don't trust you asshats.....you have no understanding of human history or human nature........

Jim Crowe was only 60 years ago. You still want to wallow in those laws?

 

[Dr Grump]

I read the Second Amendment's declaration that a well regulated militia is necessary, as a mandate to compel the government to always have a well regulated militia.

I love it. Two arrogant pro-gunners who are dismissive and condescending towards others on this board who are not opposed to certain restrictions on firearms, and think they are the final word on the second, can't agree. Made my day. Thought you were both 100 per cent right in your views? You can't even agree among yourselves. This is aimed at you too Abatis

 

[2aguy]

Nothing was written vaguely huh?

"arms", not vague?

Hunting has lots to do with it. Mostly because people had guns because they used them to HUNT.

Well, the Founding Fathers probably didn't bother talking about cannons because it wasn't an issue. They wanted individuals to have GUNS because they felt that with guns they could get what they wanted, seeing how they won the revolutionary war with people just having guns, and other stuff, like cannons, being provided elsewhere.

No, you're wrong. The Second Amendment does NOT prevent the feds from banning certain types of weapons. Not even the NRA thinks the nukes and SAMs should be in the hands of normal people.

So, if you don't have a hand grenade, you won't be able to fight?

What is it with you asshats and the stupid nuclear weapon comparison?

They can’t ban rifles……nukes are not personal arms you moron……SAMs are not rifles…..you idiot.

 

[2aguy]

Jim Crowe was only 60 years ago. You still want to wallow in those laws?

You idiots are trying to segregate society again..,,,,,

Governments take guns away from people then murder 15 million of them……that is a lesson an intelligent person would never forget……..and you forgot it…….