How could the framers of the constitution know that assault rifles were going to be a thing? Also, the interstate commerce clause should only apply to the original thirteen colonies. How could the founding fathers have ever imagined 50 whole states together?

Why precisely does the second amendment exist? It was created to keep leverage against the government wasn't it?

Aren't small arms only one aspect of an effective resistance, as evidenced by every armed rebellion since 1776? A successful campaign against da spooky fed would surely require explosives or heavier munitions wouldn't it? Why then aren't we given constitutional rights to explosives and mortars?

Is it because at some point we DO create a compromise between national security and the amendment?

I'm not saying that current or proposed gun legislation is actually effective protection from mass killers or terrorists or whatever, I just despise the "muh regulated militia" bullshit.

Don't get me started on how oxymoronic the "militia" concept is.

agreed

Congratulations. Your state now has complete and total control over its own commerce and industries and will be recognized as a foreign nation in trade and subject to taxes and tariffs as applicable.

All hail the newly crowned country of Verbtopia.

Quote from: eggsalad on April 04, 2016, 06:58:48 PM

Why precisely does the second amendment exist? It was created to keep leverage against the government wasn't it?

I'm actually part of the camp who believes that the "being necessary to the security of a free State" shows the real intent as being able to put up some resistance to foreign threats, not our government, as we were given the means to bring about change to that in very peaceful means via the constitution itself.

So if our military is more than capable of defending the country, is a citizen's right to own a weapon nullified?

Quote from: BAS D00T 1026 on April 04, 2016, 07:16:17 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on April 04, 2016, 06:58:48 PM

Why precisely does the second amendment exist? It was created to keep leverage against the government wasn't it?

I'm actually part of the camp who believes that the "being necessary to the security of a free State" shows the real intent as being able to put up some resistance to foreign threats, not our government, as we were given the means to bring about change to that in very peaceful means via the constitution itself.

So if our military is more than capable of defending the country, is a citizen's right to own a weapon nullified?

But unless there's an active invasion of the US mainland, active duty forces can't do shit unless your commander in chief happens to be  Lyndon B. Johnson.

Quote from: Yulius Kaisar on April 04, 2016, 10:26:49 PM

Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 04, 2016, 10:24:25 PM

Quote from: BAS D00T 1026 on April 04, 2016, 07:16:17 PM

Quote from: eggsalad on April 04, 2016, 06:58:48 PM

Why precisely does the second amendment exist? It was created to keep leverage against the government wasn't it?

I'm actually part of the camp who believes that the "being necessary to the security of a free State" shows the real intent as being able to put up some resistance to foreign threats, not our government, as we were given the means to bring about change to that in very peaceful means via the constitution itself.

So if our military is more than capable of defending the country, is a citizen's right to own a weapon nullified?

It would be very difficult for the military to defend against itself.

I'm not sure what that has to do with what Das said.

Turkey, honey, I'm drinking and just wanted to talk shit on anti-2A'ers by applying their rhetoric to the commerce clause.

I HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN A MK19 GRENADE LAUNCHER

Why precisely does the second amendment exist? It was created to keep leverage against the government wasn't it?

Aren't small arms only one aspect of an effective resistance, as evidenced by every armed rebellion since 1776? A successful campaign against da spooky fed would surely require explosives or heavier munitions wouldn't it? Why then aren't we given constitutional rights to explosives and mortars?

Is it because at some point we DO create a compromise between national security and the amendment?

I'm not saying that current or proposed gun legislation is actually effective protection from mass killers or terrorists or whatever, I just despise the "muh regulated militia" bullshit.

Don't get me started on how oxymoronic the "militia" concept is.

A violent revolution probably would be fought with IEDs, but nobody keeps potentially-unstable explosives just lying around. They would likely be constructed out of easily-obtainable chemicals as needed. Thus, it's kind of pointless to have an amendment protecting them.

Quote from: eggsalad on April 04, 2016, 06:58:48 PM

Why precisely does the second amendment exist? It was created to keep leverage against the government wasn't it?

Aren't small arms only one aspect of an effective resistance, as evidenced by every armed rebellion since 1776? A successful campaign against da spooky fed would surely require explosives or heavier munitions wouldn't it? Why then aren't we given constitutional rights to explosives and mortars?

Is it because at some point we DO create a compromise between national security and the amendment?

I'm not saying that current or proposed gun legislation is actually effective protection from mass killers or terrorists or whatever, I just despise the "muh regulated militia" bullshit.

Don't get me started on how oxymoronic the "militia" concept is.

A violent revolution probably would be fought with IEDs, but nobody keeps potentially-unstable explosives just lying around. They would likely be constructed out of easily-obtainable chemicals as needed. Thus, it's kind of pointless to have an amendment protecting them.

we also have a hell of a lot of shit that can be used as shrapnel in IEDs. do not want to step on an american guerilla glass frag mine. nty.