What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

The future is very bright for the United States

zaangalewa

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
10,575
Reaction score
832
Points
140
States are upholding the 2nd Amendment...
That's your only standard for a bright future?

Single issue voters are annoying and stupid.
The Second Amendment is the guarantee for the entire Bill of Rights.

As far as I can see you armed the citizens of the USA on reason "America to the Americans and not to the Indians."

The Bill of Rights limits the powers of the government . If you want to live in a free country for the long term the Second Amendment is a very important single issue to protect.

And by the way: I took a look now at this bill of rights and in this context it looks to me the second amendment would guarantee every state of the USA an own army. I guess the current military structure of the USA is illegal in context of this second amendment. I guess they never thought about that the USA on its own has the right to have soldiers.
 
Last edited:
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
55,861
Reaction score
8,316
Points
2,060
Location
United States
And by the way: I took a look now at this bill of rights and in this context it looks to me the second amendment would guarantee every state of the USA an own army. I guess the current military structure of the USA is illegal in context of this second amendment.
Well clearly you can’t read and/or you have a signifcant reading comprehension problem - because the 2nd Amendment says no such thing.
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.
It’s one sentence, plain as day, cut & dry. The people have a right to keep and bear arms. Not the military. The people.
 

zaangalewa

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
10,575
Reaction score
832
Points
140
And by the way: I took a look now at this bill of rights and in this context it looks to me the second amendment would guarantee every state of the USA an own army. I guess the current military structure of the USA is illegal in context of this second amendment.
Well clearly you can’t read and/or you have a signifcant reading comprehension problem - because the 2nd Amendment says no such thing.

I doubt that you are right. I'm normally very good in sensing what ancient cultures think when they say something. I guess the basic idea of this second amandment is it that every state of the USA has an own army - supported from the own citizens. A similar system exists in Switzerland. Everyone has a gun at home, because he is ready to defend the own country and the neutrality of their multi-ethnic country.

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.
It’s one sentence, plain as day, cut & dry. The people have a right to keep and bear arms. Not the military. The people.

You are the US-American. It's your constitution. But I think this law was made once from people who had used muzzle loaders. In average 1 shot per minute. Every 7th shot was a malfunction. After 25 shots they needed a new flint and after 60 shots the rifle was not able to be used any longer because of the massive dirt and had to be cleaned first.
An AR-15 today fires about 700-1000 shots within a minute. This is comparable with an army of about 500 men in the time of history when this amandment was made.

 
Last edited:

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
11,119
Reaction score
3,063
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
And by the way: I took a look now at this bill of rights and in this context it looks to me the second amendment would guarantee every state of the USA an own army. I guess the current military structure of the USA is illegal in context of this second amendment.
Well clearly you can’t read and/or you have a signifcant reading comprehension problem - because the 2nd Amendment says no such thing.
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.
It’s one sentence, plain as day, cut & dry. The people have a right to keep and bear arms. Not the military. The people.
You and zaangalewa are both right.
The federal military is supposed to come from the state militia, which is supposed to come from the municipal posses, which come from each home owner being armed.
You can tell because like in the Civil War, each division came from different states, wore different uniform, and used different firearms.
The founders did not trust or want any paid professional mercenaries.

Which is what we have screwed up.
Instead of relying on armed citizen soldiers, we have a paid professional, mercenary military, National Guard, and police.
That is a formula for police state, dictatorship.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
11,119
Reaction score
3,063
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
And by the way: I took a look now at this bill of rights and in this context it looks to me the second amendment would guarantee every state of the USA an own army. I guess the current military structure of the USA is illegal in context of this second amendment.
Well clearly you can’t read and/or you have a signifcant reading comprehension problem - because the 2nd Amendment says no such thing.

I doubt that you are right. I'm normally very good in sensing what ancient cultures think when they say something. I guess the basic idea of this second amandment is it that every state of the USA has an own army - supported from the own citizens. A similar system exists in Switzerland. Everyone has a gun at home, because he is ready to defend the own country and the neutrality of their multi-ethnic country.

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.
It’s one sentence, plain as day, cut & dry. The people have a right to keep and bear arms. Not the military. The people.

You are the US-American. It's your constitution. But I think this law was made once from people who had used muzzle loaders. In average 1 shot per minute. Every 7th shot was a malfunction. After 25 shots they needed a new flint and after 60 shots the rifle was not able to be used any longer because of the massive dirt and had to be cleaned first.
An AR-15 today fires about 700-1000 shots within a minute. This is comparable with an army of about 500 men in the time of history when this amandment was made.


To make fire effective, the rate has to be much lower than that. and I do not believe that rate of random fire is even possible/
{... According to the Bushmaster AR-15 manual, the firearm has a maximum effective rate of 45 rounds per minute — ...}

But that does not matter, because although the firearms are much deadlier now than in the days of the founders, the enemy, whether drug gang, thief, invader, etc., also has that rate of fire. Like the Korean grocers defending their stores in the LA riots. Now every had to keep up with the standard.

R852e2866763701bb0656b00accb07126
 
OP
P@triot

P@triot

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 5, 2011
Messages
55,861
Reaction score
8,316
Points
2,060
Location
United States
Instead of relying on armed citizen soldiers, we have a paid professional, mercenary military, National Guard, and police.
Well the US Constitution does authorize the federal government to tax for a standing military.

And let’s be honest, a “citizen army” simply cannot defend the United States in the 21st century. Some objectives require highly trained, highly specialized, elite special forces such as Navy Seals and Delta Force.
That is a formula for police state, dictatorship.
True. Which is what makes upholding the 2nd Amendment (as written) more important than ever.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
11,119
Reaction score
3,063
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Instead of relying on armed citizen soldiers, we have a paid professional, mercenary military, National Guard, and police.
Well the US Constitution does authorize the federal government to tax for a standing military.

And let’s be honest, a “citizen army” simply cannot defend the United States in the 21st century. Some objectives require highly trained, highly specialized, elite special forces such as Navy Seals and Delta Force.
That is a formula for police state, dictatorship.
True. Which is what makes upholding the 2nd Amendment (as written) more important than ever.

Do we need something like Navy Seals and Delta Force, to defend?
Seems to me they are for assassinations and other offensive actions we probably should not be doing?
Any athlete could be trained in weapons use on weekends and be just as good.
No one should be professional at harming other people.
 

zaangalewa

Gold Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2015
Messages
10,575
Reaction score
832
Points
140
And by the way: I took a look now at this bill of rights and in this context it looks to me the second amendment would guarantee every state of the USA an own army. I guess the current military structure of the USA is illegal in context of this second amendment.
Well clearly you can’t read and/or you have a signifcant reading comprehension problem - because the 2nd Amendment says no such thing.

I doubt that you are right. I'm normally very good in sensing what ancient cultures think when they say something. I guess the basic idea of this second amandment is it that every state of the USA has an own army - supported from the own citizens. A similar system exists in Switzerland. Everyone has a gun at home, because he is ready to defend the own country and the neutrality of their multi-ethnic country.

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.
It’s one sentence, plain as day, cut & dry. The people have a right to keep and bear arms. Not the military. The people.

You are the US-American. It's your constitution. But I think this law was made once from people who had used muzzle loaders. In average 1 shot per minute. Every 7th shot was a malfunction. After 25 shots they needed a new flint and after 60 shots the rifle was not able to be used any longer because of the massive dirt and had to be cleaned first.
An AR-15 today fires about 700-1000 shots within a minute. This is comparable with an army of about 500 men in the time of history when this amandment was made.


To make fire effective, the rate has to be much lower than that. and I do not believe that rate of random fire is even possible/
{... According to the Bushmaster AR-15 manual, the firearm has a maximum effective rate of 45 rounds per minute — ...}

But that does not matter, because although the firearms are much deadlier now than in the days of the founders, the enemy, whether drug gang, thief, invader, etc., also has that rate of fire. Like the Korean grocers defending their stores in the LA riots. Now every had to keep up with the standard.

R852e2866763701bb0656b00accb07126

I guess you underestimate that it exists not only a new quantity. It exists also a new quality meanwhile. I remember for example that someone started to shoot in a public event where three police cars and six policmen were around. Although all of this policemen reacted very fast and in the very best of all possible ways 4 people had to die before the policemen were able to stop this single psychopath.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$505.00
Goal
$350.00

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top