Militias should be well regulated, but not guns?

[Bill]

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.

Should only ppl in a "well regulated militia" possess guns??​

 

[Seahawk]

Interesting point. It only mentions that Militia should be regulated, not arms. It does, however, specifically state that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Question is, which arms? Nuclear weapons? Even the first amendment has some reasonable restrictions.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Interesting point. It only mentions that Militia should be regulated, not arms. It does, however, specifically state that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Question is, which arms? Nuclear weapons? Even the first amendment has some reasonable restrictions.

Maybe it means the right to arm bears, and the framer was dyslexic??

 

[canceled.2021.3]

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.

Should only ppl in a "well regulated militia" possess guns??​

Do you know what the term "regulated" meant?

Given that the British confiscated arms from the colonists, do you think it more or less likely that the founders meant for people to be armed or unarmed?

 

[Seahawk]

Maybe it means the right to arm bears, and the framer was dyslexic??

That was so horrible. I'm going to make a stiff drink and forget you ever said it.

You're responsible if I become an alcoholic.

 

[Legion Troll]

A slimey Limey was arrested after he tried to grab a gun and kill Trump.

Brit-shits are prone to political assassination with guns.

First Jo Cox, now this.

 

[Seahawk]

Do you know what the term "regulated" meant?

Given that the British confiscated arms from the colonists, do you think it more or less likely that the founders meant for people to be armed or unarmed?

Why does it say "people" and not "militia" when it comes to the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[Seahawk]

A slimey Limey was arrested after he tried to grab a gun and kill Trump.

Brit-shits are prone to political assassination with guns.

First Jo Cox, now this.

Why are you so obsessed with all things British? Did a British person kick your ass, well, in your case, an online ass kicking?

 

[Bill]

A slimey Limey was arrested after he tried to grab a gun and kill Trump.

Brit-shits are prone to political assassination with guns.

First Jo Cox, now this.

Theft............ Attempted murder.......... Isn't high time we started profiling those ppl??

You know how the founding fathers felt about them perhaps trump will round them up like those other groups... & deport them for their own good & protection..

 

[Mircea]

Question is, which arms? Nuclear weapons? Even the first amendment has some reasonable restrictions.

Are you for real?

Arms means personal weapons; weapons that one can bear -- which means to carry as a burden.

Arms never meant crew-served weapons or weapons platforms.


The 2nd Amendment does not say..."the right to bear cannon shall not be infringed."

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Are you for real?

Arms means personal weapons; weapons that one can bear -- which means to carry as a burden.

Arms never meant crew-served weapons or weapons platforms.


The 2nd Amendment does not say..."the right to bear cannon shall not be infringed."

and yet, some people owned cannons for the defense of their towns........

 

[Legion Troll]

and yet, some people owned cannons for the defense of their towns........

They even remembered to stockpile snacks in case they were besieged, didn't they?

 

[tsuke]

Interesting point. It only mentions that Militia should be regulated, not arms. It does, however, specifically state that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Question is, which arms? Nuclear weapons? Even the first amendment has some reasonable restrictions.

i mentioned to someone the other day that they already accepted some restrictions to weapons so the question is where the line was. I said you already accepted that you cant own nukes, tanks, and aircraft carriers right?

His response was "so now you want to ban people from owning tanks too???"

so.... he listed off some examples and while I did not realize it from my bubble apparently Americans can and do own tanks. tanks.

Your assault rifle ban has a long way to go.

 

[Legion Troll]

 

[Seahawk]

Are you for real?

Arms means personal weapons; weapons that one can bear -- which means to carry as a burden.

Arms never meant crew-served weapons or weapons platforms.


The 2nd Amendment does not say..."the right to bear cannon shall not be infringed."

If that is true, thank you for clarifying that. I was not under the impression arms was limited. For example, the "arms" race between the US and the Soviets was about nuclear arms.

You make a good point, can you explain the modern meaning of arms and how it ties into the 2nd?

 

[Seahawk]

The nuclear arms race was a competition for supremacy in nuclear warfare between the United States, the Soviet Union, and their respective allies during the Cold War.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nuclear arms race

 

[Seahawk]

i mentioned to someone the other day that they already accepted some restrictions to weapons so the question is where the line was. I said you already accepted that you cant own nukes, tanks, and aircraft carriers right?

His response was "so now you want to ban people from owning tanks too???"

so.... he listed off some examples and while I did not realize it from my bubble apparently Americans can and do own tanks. tanks.

Your assault rifle ban has a long way to go.

Quite honestly, this is what I consider the heart of the 2nd amendment debate.

What are arms? And which arms do we allow citizens to have.

I cannot fathom the founders protecting the citizens rights to bear nuclear arms.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Quite honestly, this is what I consider the heart of the 2nd amendment debate.

What are arms? And which arms do we allow citizens to have.

I cannot fathom the founders protecting the citizens rights to bear nuclear arms.

the founders/framers had just won their independence from a tyrant that tried to control them by seizing their arms and ammunition. the 2nd was written to prevent the new federal government from having any say over the private arms of the new citizens. therefore, any weapon of war that the government would bring to bear against it's citizens should be available to it's citizens.

 

[Seahawk]

the founders/framers had just won their independence from a tyrant that tried to control them by seizing their arms and ammunition. the 2nd was written to prevent the new federal government from having any say over the private arms of the new citizens. therefore, any weapon of war that the government would bring to bear against it's citizens should be available to it's citizens.

It is a fair argument, one I've heard and argued against before.

Let us just presume that you are correct, any arms the government has, so shall the people have. For starters, that is not what the second said. Also, do you really want any citizen to have the ability to purchase a nuclear weapon? How about a bazooka? Maybe a GBU-43/B ?

Like with the first, I believe there must be limitations.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

any arms the government has, so shall the people have.

that is not what I said. I said any arms that the government would bring to bear against it's citizens, the citizens should also have. It would be political suicide to drop a nuke on it's citizens, as well as bombing runs or jet fighters.

For starters, that is not what the second said.

what do you think I said the 2nd says?

Also, do you really want any citizen to have the ability to purchase a nuclear weapon? How about a bazooka? Maybe a GBU-43/B ?

do you foresee the government using these weapons against citizens?

Like with the first, I believe there must be limitations.

the government thanks you for your support in its tyranny.