SmarterthanYou
rebel
in your opinion, what is the intent of the 2nd Amendment????????
This European comedy sketch explains how the world sees America’s gun problem
- Thread starter signalmankenneth
- Start date
in your opinion, what is the intent of the 2nd Amendment????????
A basic handgun is how most homicides and suicides occur in the U. S. A very small percentage of homicides occur using rifles.
May I?
The original intent, as worded, was to ensure that citizens could keep a firearm lawfully, in order to belong to a "well-regulated militia" meant to safeguard "the security".... which could mean basically to repel marauders, attacking Natives, foreign government soldiers hoping to invade, perhaps even an American government-gone-mad. What you (plural you) gun-humpers always ignore is that "well-regulated militia" part. The writers envisioned a local citizen army of sorts, there being no standing national army at the time. Were the French to try to encroach upon the states and grab territory, were the Natives to try to overrun a settlement.... they wanted the citizenry to have the arms and the training (that "well-regulated militia" thing again) to stand against them to ensure "the security of a free State." There is absolutely nothing in there about citizens having legal access to the same firearms used by law enforcement or military. That's all made-up bullshit stuff by the NRA and the gun makers.
It's human nature to admit that you were had, that you're just a puppet. But there you go, Puppets.
Cancel 2019.1
Verified User
Obviously the founding fathers wanted every child to carry a AR-15 or AK-47 to School!
God Bless America!��
Jade Dragon
And I'm the one that jaded you.
We're obviously not talking about those, we're talking about mass shootings.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
while you are not wrong, you're not completely correct. the 'well regulated' part of the militia did not mean anything other than to be well trained, well outfitted, and well organized within it's own framework. we the people were that militia and the free state part is the state of freedom. It would not be logical to deduce that the framers of the constitution, who had just won independence from their central government trying to confiscate their arms, would want their new central government to have superiority in arms or numbers, hence the fear of the standing army thing. As to law enforcement.....since police departments or police units weren't even an idea in that time, the elected sheriff or magistrate used the citizenry AND their equal armament to help enforce law, so in essence, the founders did indeed mean to have the populace as well armed as any government agent or force that could be used against them. That's not from the NRA or the gun makers, that's from the writings of the federalist and anti federalist papers themselves.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
so 15,000 singular deaths by handguns is ok, just not 10 or more in a single instance when done by a modern rifle????????
Nicely done.
So the authors of the Constitution were not really thinking about these guys when they wrote the 2nd amendment?
Yep... and again, focus on that "well-regulated" part, and how it pertained to a group of armed men training together in case of an emergency. Do you think that today's gun-owners are 'well-regulated' in any sense of that word?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
many of them try to be, but for the harassment of local, state, and federal governments. not to mention the thousands of fraidy cat liberals who don't think they should be doing that. you also have to take in to account those of us who are former active duty military..........I still train with my weapons. would you consider that well regulated?
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Well, let us know when the greater nations of the world make a citizen out of you.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
Aside from the sheer volume of regulations on the books? Having a well-regulated militia, such as the Minutemen, is the reason why the 2nd Amendment was drafted - for revolution against a tyrannical government that leftists either believe cannot come about or should come about to bring about order. That being said, the founders also considered the general public to be the militia, and if properly armed, capable of fomenting revolution, which is why the 2nd gives a blanket protection against infringement.
Gotcha68
Verified User
Are you actually stating that if the govt came to take your guns there would be a Waco like stand off with your house at the center of it and you behind your closed front door with all your guns ready to rock and roll while the police/military were outside preparing to get your guns by force?
Is that your contention with comments like this?
Not what well regulated meant.
Well regulated at that time meant well supplied.
Hence a well regulated militia man put put his hands on a weapon, and bullets and powder and patches and be out the door in a minute...see Minute Men for example.
See also unenrolled militia for further knowledge of their thought process.
The last two paragraphs are nothing more than your imagination as there were no police and the citizens were the military ( militia).
You just couldn't be more incorrect.
In the incorrect sense that you are using it, gun owners today are over regulated.
THERE ARE LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF GUN LAWS.
Since that would be entirely unconstitutional, yes.
Any such action should be met with deadly force.
It's been shown useless words don't work yet your answer is to add more and try it again. Let me help you. Criminals intent on doing something like this don't read or pay attention to those words no matter how many you add. The words you want to add will only affect those that read and abide by them. For example, schools are gun free zones, therefore, despite the fact that I conceal carry as my state allows, I don't take one onto school grounds when I go. The ones those words you want to add aren't the ones you need to worry about doing something like this. Those that will do these shootings won't read or pay attention to any of them no matter how many you put.