It's not hard to prepare for emergencies. The hard part involves long-term emergencies. For that, one has to become a pessimist, although I prefer the term "realist." In contrast is the starry-eyed romantic who actually imagines that he's some Hollywood Patriot who will use his lean, athletic body to run around, setting up booby traps and taking down one bad guy after another with his magnificent long rifle (complete with unlimited ammo), and then pause momentarily to smile at the camera, promising a bright, beautiful future thanks to the power of the mighty rifle.
You seem to be relying on the premise that the Police and Military will be totally on the side of the Government, instead of siding with the American citizens.d
You also appear to be believe that Americans will support each other.
Is this because you would be a collaborator with those that are attempting to control the citizens.
SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.
That's my point. The purpose of 2A is to enforce mandatory military service. With that, what's left of 2A in terms of implementation is the Selective Service System. If you want to see current implementation of 2A, then the closest to that would be mandatory service in Switzerland.
Post #161: "2A is a weird bird because it "commands" people to follow a right that's already God-given, i.e., natural."
A person may well naturally defend himself, but that is independent of the right to bear arms. One does not need a gun to exercise the "right" to self defense. The right to possess arms is VERY alienable.
You may well think you have the right to speak as you wish or carry a weapon or any of your undefined and abstract "natural" rights. Go ahead and do that. There are limitations on EVERY ONE of those activities. You don't need permission. pally, but there are consequences.
It's amazing to me that the simplest of concepts escape some. The ONLY reason you possess the right to bear arms is because it is codified in our BofR via the legislative and ratification process. Had the votes been different by 1791 and there were only 9 Amendments ratified sans the Second, your "right" would not exist.
My understanding is that what allowed the U.S. and NATO to keep the Al Qaeda in check involved the Northern Alliance (which consists primarily of drug lords) and aerial bombings, especially with daisy cutters. This also explains why poppy production is now thriving in the region, which is helpful at least for the U.S. has it has had a history of funding covert activities using drug money coupled with arms sales.
As for your last point, there is a connection between the two, as the mujahedeen which fought against the Russians were funded by the CIA, recruited by Saudi Arabia, and trained in Pakistani camps. From their ranks rose the Taliban and the Al Qaeda.
In addition, it wasn't so much Afghans as foreign mercenaries who outnumbered Russian and Afghan military troops. Afghan civilian deaths were around 2 million.
I use the term only because that's what the framers believed. My point is that they are natural because they are inalienable. That means the fundamental right even applies to those who don't believe in God.
The right to bear arms is not independent of the right to defend oneself because one can defend oneself using arms, and arms can refer to various weapons and not just firearms.
That's why long before 2A, colonists were defending themselves using whatever they could access or afford. The same applied to Native Americans. They did not wait for any authorities to give them permission to do so. Whatever you think can't be done has been done from the start. You are probably an exception, still waiting for the authorities to give you permission to do what you've been doing naturally.
Your problem is that you are confusing infringement with abridgement. That is, the government cannot infringement on your right to bear arms but it can abridge that right, and that takes place only through a majority vote, whether directly or through representation.
That probably explains why your confusion concerning limitations. When what you saw is limited by law, then that doesn't mean that you can't say anything until you are told to do so or that you can't say anything at all. In light of this topic, that means by default you defend yourself and loved ones when you are threatened with bodily harm. You don't wait and ask the government for permission to defend yourself.
One more thing: 2A is not about the right to bear arms. I think I made that very clear at the start.
Bookmarks