*JPP bomb thrown*

Southern Man said:
Correct, that it can't be regulated, since it is designed to be used by a person defending himself against or attacking individuals. If the weapon was designed to kill two or more at the same time, it wouldn't meet Hamilton's intent.
Click to expand...

That's so retarded. You could use a rocket launcher to defend yourself against someone trespassing on your property with a vehicle. Where in the constitution does Hamilton say arms only means weapons that are meant to kill one person at a time?
 
ib1yysguy said:
That's so retarded. You could use a rocket launcher to defend yourself against someone trespassing on your property with a vehicle. Where in the constitution does Hamilton say arms only means weapons that are meant to kill one person at a time?
Click to expand...
Have you been following this discussion at all? I don't feel the need to re-hash for you. Just read through the damn thread.
 
It amazes me how people can defend fucking the Constitution in one breath immediately after whining like fucking kindergarteners about how the Bush administration fucked the Constitution.

You want to know the intent of the 2nd Amendment, then learn some fucking history. The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting. Therefore assuring us that you are not after our hunting rifles is irrelevant. The 2nd Amendment is only partially about personal self defense, so saying we do not need certain types of weapons for personal self defense is irrelevant.

The 2nd Amend IS about a right the founders considered (correctly) to be necessary to a free state. Get it? It's about PROTECTING the FREE STATE. But whom are we protecting the free state from? After all, is it not the job of the government to provide for the common defense? So, knowing the founders had already provided for defending the state against outside aggressors, how is it the purpose of the 2nd is also essential to a free state?

The answer is there for anyone with any brain left that have not been sucked out and turned to mush by the present day political system. The right of the people to keep and bear arms was defined as necessary to a free state because the PEOPLE's right to bear arms provides the ability to resist against their own government if/when the need arises.

As such, it is also necessary, for that right to be effective, that the people have access to the same types of arms they would be facing against the standing army of an overgrown tyrannical government. So, when asked the supposedly ridiculous questions, should the right include RPGs, grenades, and even tactical nucs, the answer is yes. If the armed forces controlled by the government has them, then to offset that level of violent authority by the government, then it is essential that the people have them also, "being necessary to a free state".
 
Good Luck said:
The 2nd Amend IS about a right the founders considered (correctly) to be necessary to a free state. Get it? It's about PROTECTING the FREE STATE. But whom are we protecting the free state from? After all, is it not the job of the government to provide for the common defense? So, knowing the founders had already provided for defending the state against outside aggressors, how is it the purpose of the 2nd is also essential to a free state?

The answer is there for anyone with any brain left that have not been sucked out and turned to mush by the present day political system. The right of the people to keep and bear arms was defined as necessary to a free state because the PEOPLE's right to bear arms provides the ability to resist against their own government if/when the need arises.
Click to expand...

This has always been, and continues to be, the core of my understanding and support of the 2nd.
 
Good Luck said:
As such, it is also necessary, for that right to be effective, that the people have access to the same types of arms they would be facing against the standing army of an overgrown tyrannical government. So, when asked the supposedly ridiculous questions, should the right include RPGs, grenades, and even tactical nucs, the answer is yes. If the armed forces controlled by the government has them, then to offset that level of violent authority by the government, then it is essential that the people have them also, "being necessary to a free state".
Click to expand...

You're a fucking lunatic.

And an obnoxious prick.
 
Grind said:
we should repeal the first one too.
Click to expand...
Nah, the totalitarians, supported by brain dead twits, will simply find the need for "reasonable limits" (ie: ban anything they do not agree with). It's the way they work - slowly and insidiously with the goal of absolute control (all in the name of "safety"). What is not forbidden will be mandatory.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top