At the time this country was being formed a gun was a a must have tool to feed and protect your family. There were wild animals about that in a pinch you could cook up after protecting yourself from them.
While true, that is not the reason they wrote the 2nd Amendment. Did you read the quotes, statements by the writers and supporters of the 2nd amendment at its signing? Not once did they mention protecting themselves from wild animals, nor hunting, nor survival. What they Did mention, repeatedly, was the need for the people to arm themselves against tyranny.
There was no reason to even think people would not need a gun forever.
And there still is no reason to believe the people will nopt forever need firearms, because when it comes to the REASON for the 2nd Amendment, you still have your head firmly implanted up the donkey's ass.
They wanted the militia to arm itself because it was the cheapest way to assemble an armed force at short notice.
That is the only thing you've said that is in any way accurate.
I really think you people imagine that because I dont agree with your interpitation of the line that you think I want your fucking guns taken away.
I dont want your guns taken away, I dont want you to force me to have to carry a gun.
From what I have read, no one has accused you of that desire. But just because you do not want to take my firearms does not mean you are not totally fucked in the head when it comes to understanding the 2nd Amendment. The fact is, whether you want to take firearms rights away or not, you are using the very same arguments used by those who DO. And you are every bit as wrong to use those arguments as the totalitarian fucks who would remove 2nd Amendment rights permanently.
We have reasonable gun laws in this country. They do not infringe your right to have a gun. They do not violate any constitutional statements.
Yes, they do infringe, and they do violate the Constitution, and as such, no, they are not reasonable. Reasonable laws are those that make it illegal to sell a firearm to a person whose 2nd amendment rights have been constitutionally removed via due process of law. Any other laws which curtail sales to law abiding citizens, regardless if the intent of the law, are not reasonable - they are stupid as well as infringing.
Take the laws governing full auto firearms. Can you point, specifically, to the clause in the Constitution that gives the federal government the authority to define WHAT firearms are included under that "shall not infringe" clause? Did they say "rifles and pistols" in the 2nd Amendment so as to preclude cannon and other implements of warfare? No they did not, and it was, indeed, not uncommon for people to own their own cannon, along with the ammunition.
Additionally, more than one founder stated, quite clearly, that the intent of securing the right to arms included "every other terrible implement of the soldier". Try as you might to IGNORE the intent of the founders with your repetition of made-up lies by the anti-gun liberal tyrants, their intent was written in the annals of history for anyone with a brain to read and comprehend.
Or, take the laws which prohibit the possession of a firearm in certain areas. That is a DIRECT violation of the "AND BEAR ARMS" portion of the 2nd Amendment. That is neither constitutional nor reasonable. Treating law abiding citizens as potential criminals just because they are entering a building controlled by government is demeaning, insulting, and totalitarian.
The peoples right to bare arms is what they said, why did they not say the citizens right to bare arms.
Because the word citizen was not officially defined until the 14th Amendment, 77 years later. For them, the word PEOPLE was good enough, considering they invariably used that word when they meant citizens, and invariably used the word STATE when they meant the states. You are grasping at imaginary straws trying to defend your interpretation. Is that because you know it to be a lie? Or are you truly that assininely stupid?
Becuase they were talking about the militia which was well regulated by the people (you know the ones who the state government was supposed to be of, for and by).
Wrong again. (and again, and again, and again, and again, etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum) The PEOPLE are the PEOPLE. Show ONE, just ONE other time in ALL government ddocuments through the entire history of the United States when the word PEOPLE referred to the government. Just ONE. Problme is, you cannot. So you make up the lame "the government of the people" bullshit. Try to remember who coined that phrase, and when. One more time, your knowledge of histrory shows you to be an ignorant fool.
They knew the government could not take all the guns of people even if it wished to.
Why would you take away a tool that they could not survive the wild without.
They wouldn't. That is the point. As a tool for survival, the use of firearms was never at issue. For the I-can't-count-how-many-times this has been pointed out to you brain dead historically illiterate morons, IT"S NOT ABOUT THAT!!! It never HAS been about that. It WAS and IS about assuring the PEOPLE (ie: each and every human being of the United States of America, individually and collectively) will always have the means to stave off tyranny. The proof is in the writing and written recordings of statements by the people who wrote and debated the Bill of Rights. Have you bothered to read them, or are you too invested in your own ignorance?
