America was a weak ass country and very vulnerable. The Brits burned Washington and the capitol down in 1812. We had no army except citizen soldiers, so we made sure they could have weapons. That is not the case now. We needed a well-regulated citizenry back then. We do not even need guns now. They make it a more dangerous place.
The Bill of Rights is NOT negotiable.
- Thread starter Rune
- Start date
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so admit that you're one of those that trusts the government more than the citizenry. An attitude the EXACT OPPOSITE of the founding fathers......in other words, Anti American
Fuck yes i do. The bodies keep piling on the streets and in homes. The founding fathers did not keep weapons to fight against themselves, the guys who made the rules. How stupid is that? You are anti American and pro-blood on the streets. You have it wrong.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
governments have killed over 200 MIILLION of its' citizens over the last 100 years...............you have a total misunderstanding of history.............
.
It pains me to disagree with a venerable forum sage such as yourself ... but I need to correct/explain some errors that I see ...
1. The brits burned the US Capitol down in retalliation for the US forces burning the brit Capitol in Canada
2. The United States Army is 245 years old ... being formed on ... June 14, 1775
3. We needed a well regulated citizenry to protect the westard expansion of our nation
4. We DO need guns NOW ... otherwise, only criminals would have guns
It pains me to disagree with a venerable forum sage such as yourself ... but I need to correct/explain some errors that I see ...
1. The brits burned the US Capitol down in retalliation for the US forces burning the brit Capitol in Canada
2. The United States Army is 245 years old ... being formed on ... June 14, 1775
3. We needed a well regulated citizenry to protect the westard expansion of our nation
4. We DO need guns NOW ... otherwise, only criminals would have guns
evince
Truthmatters
What were the arms at the time it was written
evince
Truthmatters
You might need a refresher on Constitutional Law...
Well, if you want to take an originalist approach to interpreting the Constitution, then you must agree that "ARMS" refers to the original definition of what was defined as "ARMS" in the 18th century, not the 21st century.
The Constitution is either all originalist, or none of it is.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
irrelevant
SmarterthanYou
rebel
show your proof
SmarterthanYou
rebel
wrong. you have no clue what the constitution means or why it was written. sit down and shut the fuck up, simpleton
LMAO!
You can't pick and chose at your discretion which parts of the Constitution are originalist and which aren't.
I mean you CAN, you'll just look like an idiot if you do.
What? You say crazy things that are so wrong. Who was killed by the American government? Police thinned out the forest, are you counting them.?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
the problem lies with what YOU think the constitution does. It doesn't provide the people with their rights, it provides restrictions upon the government.
thinking any different makes you the idiot
SmarterthanYou
rebel
first off, I said governments, meaning global.
secondly, how many native americans did the US government murder?
how many japanese americans died at the hands of the us government?
go learn some history instead of being brainwashed by your handlers, moron
.
Let me see ... Swords were abundant ... tomahawks were abundant ... large knives were abundant ... blunderbuss' were abundant ... dueling pistols were abundant ... oh yeah ... muskets were abundant (rifles came along later).
.
Let me see ... Swords were abundant ... tomahawks were abundant ... large knives were abundant ... blunderbuss' were abundant ... dueling pistols were abundant ... oh yeah ... muskets were abundant (rifles came along later).