The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms not guns.

[petro]

Wrong, the 2nd merely enumerates the natural Right to own weapons.

These idiots really believe that the government is giving us rights, when it is the other way around.

They have no concept of natural rights as supporters of a Nanny State.

 

[easyt65]

The 2nd Amendment IS.

Just like every other protr ted freedom, Democrats want to strip them from tbe American people.

We now have rogue partisan agencies that will raid the houses of targeted American citizens and drag them from their homes.

We now have a federal government that jails, beats, and places citizens it has targeted and entrapped into prisons for years, denying them of their Cinstitutional rightto a speedy trial....all to brand them as threats, to silence them, intimidate them, and discourage them from standing up to a corrupt, Authoritarian government.

Instead of going aftet Americans' legally owned firearms, why don't Democrats focus on cleaning up their crime-plagued cities and stop letting violent crominals go as soon as they are arrested?!

When our government refuses to provide protection we must protect ourselves.

'...enemies. foreign and domestic'

 

[Cellblock2429]

The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms not guns. Guns are the weakest of the arms available in today's world. If you want to have the rights granted in the Constitution, you should be able to have all arms available to the militaries of the world.
Those who are fighting for just guns are a bunch of wooses. They are not fighting for the full rights of the 2nd amendment. They are ignoring and trampling on the 2nd amendment
1. arms - weapons considered collectively. implements of war

/-----/ I'm gonna get me one of these things...

 

[Dagosa]

The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms not guns. Guns are the weakest of the arms available in today's world. If you want to have the rights granted in the Constitution, you should be able to have all arms available to the militaries of the world.
Those who are fighting for just guns are a bunch of wooses. They are not fighting for the full rights of the 2nd amendment. They are ignoring and trampling on the 2nd amendment
1. arms - weapons considered collectively. implements of war

You don’t seem to know what “arms” are…..look it up as it applies to the constitution. “Weapons”, “guns” are terms not found in the 2@. you’re just babbling. The 2@ specifically refers to “people”:not “persons” and preempts the right to bear arms to members of a well regulated militia.

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.

 

[Dagosa]

The Second Amendment is the right to bear arms not guns. Guns are the weakest of the arms available in today's world. If you want to have the rights granted in the Constitution, you should be able to have all arms available to the militaries of the world.
Those who are fighting for just guns are a bunch of wooses. They are not fighting for the full rights of the 2nd amendment. They are ignoring and trampling on the 2nd amendment
1. arms - weapons considered collectively. implements of war

You don’t seem to know what “arms” are…..look it up as it applies to the constitution. “Weapons”, “guns” are terms not found in the 2@. you’re just babbling. The 2@ specifically refers to “people”:not “persons” and preempts the right to bear arm.

people-human beings in general or considered collectively:
There is no right to bear arms for any persons as an individual. Hence, the SC has always advocated and accepted that “persons”: right to bear arms can and should be regulated. There has never been any exception to the ability of the govt, to regulate, never.

 

[Ivan88]

Originally, American Men owned their state armories and had a right to arm themselves from it. The Constitution was invented to prevent American Men from regulating their public servants.

 

[westwall]

Originally, American Men owned their state armories and had a right to arm themselves from it. The Constitution was invented to prevent American Men from regulating their public servants.

This is one of the most idiotic things I have ever heard.

 

[Rigby5]

I want a damn Davy Crockett for fuck's sake. Who's with me?

Davy Crockett (nuclear device) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Did you ever notice that the range of the Davy Crockett is about 1.26 miles and its lethal radius is 1.5 miles?

 

[Rigby5]

That is not what the second amendment says. You are altering the intent of the second amendment. My point the second amendment has changed with time, as it should. The nut cases yelling it cannot be changed are too late. It has been changed and should be changed as the world of arms changes.

The basic intent of the 2nd amendment is that governments can never be trusted.
They are always inherently corrupt, and the population must maintain the ability to nullify government when it becomes too corrupt to be allowed any longer.
That does not mean that individuals need nuclear weapons though.
In fact, it is not clear anyone needs them?
All we need is what would be necessary in order to succeed with a popular rebellion that would allow us to start over once again.
Which is what the Founders expected.

 

[Rigby5]

You don’t seem to know what “arms” are…..look it up as it applies to the constitution. “Weapons”, “guns” are terms not found in the 2@. you’re just babbling. The 2@ specifically refers to “people”:not “persons” and preempts the right to bear arms to members of a well regulated militia.

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.

Wrong.
While the "well regulated militia" is listed as one reason for the 2nd amendment, it clearly says "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
One reason being listed does not at all imply it is the ONLY one.
And only INDIVIDUALS have rights.
Governments do not have rights, but delegated authorities instead.
So clearly the 2nd amendment was ensuring rifles were an individual right of all people that could not be taken away.

 

[Rigby5]

You don’t seem to know what “arms” are…..look it up as it applies to the constitution. “Weapons”, “guns” are terms not found in the 2@. you’re just babbling. The 2@ specifically refers to “people”:not “persons” and preempts the right to bear arm.

people-human beings in general or considered collectively:
There is no right to bear arms for any persons as an individual. Hence, the SC has always advocated and accepted that “persons”: right to bear arms can and should be regulated. There has never been any exception to the ability of the govt, to regulate, never.

Wrong.
His point is that "arms" includes MORE than just rifles.
In the Revolutionary War, most of the Continental Army cannon were privately owned, for example.
So then the 2nd amendment likely refers to all weapons necessary in order to perform additional rebellions as they became necessary.
The idea a government could ever be so perfect that it could not become corrupt and need another rebellion, is obviously irrational.
Governments always tend toward corruption and need to be destroyed periodically.

 

[Rigby5]

Anyone assuming that government should be completely trusted with a monopoly on all weapons, is really, really dumb, considering history has shown all governments eventually become so corrupt they have to be destroyed.