The 2nd Amendment was meant for you to have same guns as the ARMY.

[bucs90]

Libs are making a big error in interpretation here. They say some guns are military weapons of war and song belong in citizens hands. They say the citizens may have a right to guns to defend against tyranny...but that's the same guns as police have not the Army.

Wrong.

1776.
There were no police. Tyranny came from the military if it camw. They wanted us to have the same guns as the British Army...and in turn...the Continental Army of the US. Same pistols and same muskets. Same cannons....if you could afford one.

There were no police in 1776 in America. So..it wasn't meant to have the same guns as police.

 

[Montrovant]

Libs are making a big error in interpretation here. They say some guns are military weapons of war and song belong in citizens hands. They say the citizens may have a right to guns to defend against tyranny...but that's the same guns as police have not the Army.

Wrong.

1776.
There were no police. Tyranny came from the military if it camw. They wanted us to have the same guns as the British Army...and in turn...the Continental Army of the US. Same pistols and same muskets. Same cannons....if you could afford one.

There were no police in 1776 in America. So..it wasn't meant to have the same guns as police.

Also in 1776, there was no second amendment.

Wasn't that pointed out to you in another thread?

 

[Timmy]

So the 2nd covers surface to air missiles too? Where does it end ?

 

[bucs90]

Libs are making a big error in interpretation here. They say some guns are military weapons of war and song belong in citizens hands. They say the citizens may have a right to guns to defend against tyranny...but that's the same guns as police have not the Army.

Wrong.

1776.
There were no police. Tyranny came from the military if it camw. They wanted us to have the same guns as the British Army...and in turn...the Continental Army of the US. Same pistols and same muskets. Same cannons....if you could afford one.

There were no police in 1776 in America. So..it wasn't meant to have the same guns as police.

Also in 1776, there was no second amendment.

Wasn't that pointed out to you in another thread?

That's right. That's the point. The conditions in 1776 are what caused the Founders to WANT those rights.

A tyrannical government using the Army to oppress.

1776 led to the 2nd Amendment.

 

[bucs90]

So the 2nd covers surface to air missiles too? Where does it end ?

No it doesn't. But it does cover weapons of war. ALL WEAPONS are weapons of war ya know.

 

[RandallFlagg]

So the 2nd covers surface to air missiles too? Where does it end ?

Sonny, you are a fucking idiot. Turn your man card in - you're too stupid to be breathing my air.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Libs are making a big error in interpretation here. They say some guns are military weapons of war and song belong in citizens hands. They say the citizens may have a right to guns to defend against tyranny...but that's the same guns as police have not the Army.

Wrong.

1776.
There were no police. Tyranny came from the military if it camw. They wanted us to have the same guns as the British Army...and in turn...the Continental Army of the US. Same pistols and same muskets. Same cannons....if you could afford one.

There were no police in 1776 in America. So..it wasn't meant to have the same guns as police.

This is why I advocate for our right to bear intercontinental nuclear bizzombs bitches

 

[HappyJoy]

So the 2nd covers surface to air missiles too? Where does it end ?

No it doesn't. But it does cover weapons of war. ALL WEAPONS are weapons of war ya know.

OP: 'You can have weapons of war until it makes my argument look really childish.'

 

[bucs90]

Libs are making a big error in interpretation here. They say some guns are military weapons of war and song belong in citizens hands. They say the citizens may have a right to guns to defend against tyranny...but that's the same guns as police have not the Army.

Wrong.

1776.
There were no police. Tyranny came from the military if it camw. They wanted us to have the same guns as the British Army...and in turn...the Continental Army of the US. Same pistols and same muskets. Same cannons....if you could afford one.

There were no police in 1776 in America. So..it wasn't meant to have the same guns as police.

This is why I advocate for our right to bear intercontinental nuclear bizzombs bitches

Of course you do.

Obviously some restrictions have been placed on the 2nd. And I agree with them. Bazookas. Nukes. Flamethrowers. No reason those belong on the streets.

But...if we are gonna have this debate about the 2nd we must start with the factual history. The 2nd DOES include weapons of war....since that's the new catch phrase.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

Libs are making a big error in interpretation here. They say some guns are military weapons of war and song belong in citizens hands. They say the citizens may have a right to guns to defend against tyranny...but that's the same guns as police have not the Army.

Wrong.

1776.
There were no police. Tyranny came from the military if it camw. They wanted us to have the same guns as the British Army...and in turn...the Continental Army of the US. Same pistols and same muskets. Same cannons....if you could afford one.

There were no police in 1776 in America. So..it wasn't meant to have the same guns as police.

It's obvious that your current Government wants to take your guns off you, every massacre is used to shout for new gun laws and to change your Second Amendment.

The Orlando shooting was played down by everyone from Obama to Hillary to Bernie and the MSM as being a terrorist attack committed by a Radical Muslim, instead immediately they were all out there saying that this again illustrates why they need to crackdown on guns etc.

They're probably hoping or engineering an economic collapse, that way they can do a full-on Soviet style gun confiscation nationwide.

After WWI the Communists seized control, the economy had collapsed, they had millions of ex-military with weapons, being ex-military they knew they'd be Patriotic and would fight the Communists, so they needed to get the guns off them.

They used the threat of starvation, because of the economic collapse, all the people had to rely on the government to feed them.

The ex-military were told, if they handed in their guns, they'd get food, so they handed in their guns and then the Communists deliberately let them starve to death.

The result of the disarmed Russians was 40 MILLION dead, because nobody was able to stop Stalin, Beria etc.

The most recent example would be 1994 in Rwanda, the Hutu's disarmed the Tutsi's, resulting in the Genocide of an estimated 1 million Tutsi's.

There's nothing more dangerous to a Totalitarian Government than a well-armed population and there's nothing to STOP a Totalitarian Government from doing WHATEVER they want IF the population has been disarmed.

History should teach Americans to NOT ALLOW their Government to disarm them, if you allow yourselves to be disarmed, then history should teach you you'll be on the road to Tyranny.

That's what your Second Amendment is for, one of the reasons, to PROTECT you from your government falling to Tyranny.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Libs are making a big error in interpretation here. They say some guns are military weapons of war and song belong in citizens hands. They say the citizens may have a right to guns to defend against tyranny...but that's the same guns as police have not the Army.

Wrong.

1776.
There were no police. Tyranny came from the military if it camw. They wanted us to have the same guns as the British Army...and in turn...the Continental Army of the US. Same pistols and same muskets. Same cannons....if you could afford one.

There were no police in 1776 in America. So..it wasn't meant to have the same guns as police.

This is why I advocate for our right to bear intercontinental nuclear bizzombs bitches

Of course you do.

Obviously some restrictions have been placed on the 2nd. And I agree with them. Bazookas. Nukes. Flamethrowers. No reason those belong on the streets.

But...if we are gonna have this debate about the 2nd we must start with the factual history. The 2nd DOES include weapons of war....since that's the new catch phrase.

Who the hell are you to say I can't have a bazooka? What part of "shall not be infringed" do you not understand?!

 

[HappyJoy]

Libs are making a big error in interpretation here. They say some guns are military weapons of war and song belong in citizens hands. They say the citizens may have a right to guns to defend against tyranny...but that's the same guns as police have not the Army.

Wrong.

1776.
There were no police. Tyranny came from the military if it camw. They wanted us to have the same guns as the British Army...and in turn...the Continental Army of the US. Same pistols and same muskets. Same cannons....if you could afford one.

There were no police in 1776 in America. So..it wasn't meant to have the same guns as police.

This is why I advocate for our right to bear intercontinental nuclear bizzombs bitches

Of course you do.

Obviously some restrictions have been placed on the 2nd. And I agree with them. Bazookas. Nukes. Flamethrowers. No reason those belong on the streets.

But...if we are gonna have this debate about the 2nd we must start with the factual history. The 2nd DOES include weapons of war....since that's the new catch phrase.

^Conservative telling people what weapons they are allowed to have.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Libs are making a big error in interpretation here. They say some guns are military weapons of war and song belong in citizens hands. They say the citizens may have a right to guns to defend against tyranny...but that's the same guns as police have not the Army.

Wrong.

1776.
There were no police. Tyranny came from the military if it camw. They wanted us to have the same guns as the British Army...and in turn...the Continental Army of the US. Same pistols and same muskets. Same cannons....if you could afford one.

There were no police in 1776 in America. So..it wasn't meant to have the same guns as police.

This is why I advocate for our right to bear intercontinental nuclear bizzombs bitches

Of course you do.

Obviously some restrictions have been placed on the 2nd. And I agree with them. Bazookas. Nukes. Flamethrowers. No reason those belong on the streets.

But...if we are gonna have this debate about the 2nd we must start with the factual history. The 2nd DOES include weapons of war....since that's the new catch phrase.

^Conservative telling people what weapons they are allowed to have.

Straight out of the Marxist playbook, and he has no idea

 

[defcon4]

That's right. That's the point. The conditions in 1776 are what caused the Founders to WANT those rights.

A tyrannical government using the Army to oppress.

1776 led to the 2nd Amendment.

I have to disagree with you on that one:
The 2nd Amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms, therefore it doesn't say: the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms.
It says: "......, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Thus recognizing the already existing right (independently from any government) and the 2nd Amendment is for the sole purpose of limiting/prohibiting the government from infringing it.

 

[Timmy]

So the 2nd covers surface to air missiles too? Where does it end ?

Sonny, you are a fucking idiot. Turn your man card in - you're too stupid to be breathing my air.

Insults ? For shame .

Back in 1776 we didn't have a standing army . We do now .

You want a gun to protect your house or to hunt . Fine .

But what's up with the mass killing machines designed to turn people into hamburger ?

 

[bucs90]

That's right. That's the point. The conditions in 1776 are what caused the Founders to WANT those rights.

A tyrannical government using the Army to oppress.

1776 led to the 2nd Amendment.

I have to disagree with you on that one:
The 2nd Amendment does not grant the right to keep and bear arms, therefore it doesn't say: the people shall have the right to keep and bear arms.
It says: "......, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Thus recognizing the already existing right (independently from any government) and the 2nd Amendment is for the sole purpose of limiting/prohibiting the government from infringe it.

AH....Interesting point.

 

[Ozone]

well regulated militia... there's a chain of command involved in that. the more specialized the weapons, the more restrictions on who gets to use them.

 

[bucs90]

So the 2nd covers surface to air missiles too? Where does it end ?

Sonny, you are a fucking idiot. Turn your man card in - you're too stupid to be breathing my air.

Insults ? For shame .

Back in 1776 we didn't have a standing army . We do now .

You want a gun to protect your house or to hunt . Fine .

But what's up with the mass killing machines designed to turn people into hamburger ?

What's the best gun for protecting ones house?

 

[TheOldSchool]

So the 2nd covers surface to air missiles too? Where does it end ?

Sonny, you are a fucking idiot. Turn your man card in - you're too stupid to be breathing my air.

Insults ? For shame .

Back in 1776 we didn't have a standing army . We do now .

You want a gun to protect your house or to hunt . Fine .

But what's up with the mass killing machines designed to turn people into hamburger ?

What's the best gun for protecting ones house?

A grenade launcher. Fucking DUH

 

[HappyJoy]

Libs are making a big error in interpretation here. They say some guns are military weapons of war and song belong in citizens hands. They say the citizens may have a right to guns to defend against tyranny...but that's the same guns as police have not the Army.

Wrong.

1776.
There were no police. Tyranny came from the military if it camw. They wanted us to have the same guns as the British Army...and in turn...the Continental Army of the US. Same pistols and same muskets. Same cannons....if you could afford one.

There were no police in 1776 in America. So..it wasn't meant to have the same guns as police.

This is why I advocate for our right to bear intercontinental nuclear bizzombs bitches

Of course you do.

Obviously some restrictions have been placed on the 2nd. And I agree with them. Bazookas. Nukes. Flamethrowers. No reason those belong on the streets.

But...if we are gonna have this debate about the 2nd we must start with the factual history. The 2nd DOES include weapons of war....since that's the new catch phrase.

^Conservative telling people what weapons they are allowed to have.

Straight out of the Marxist playbook, and he has no idea

Hell, at this point he's trading make up secrets with Lena Dunham.