Why precisely does the second amendment exist? It was created to keep leverage against the government wasn't it?
agreed
Quote from: eggsalad on April 04, 2016, 06:58:48 PMWhy 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.
Quote from: BAS D00T 1026 on April 04, 2016, 07:16:17 PMQuote from: eggsalad on April 04, 2016, 06:58:48 PMWhy 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: HurtfulTurkey on April 04, 2016, 10:24:25 PMQuote from: BAS D00T 1026 on April 04, 2016, 07:16:17 PMQuote from: eggsalad on April 04, 2016, 06:58:48 PMWhy 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.
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 PMQuote from: HurtfulTurkey on April 04, 2016, 10:24:25 PMQuote from: BAS D00T 1026 on April 04, 2016, 07:16:17 PMQuote from: eggsalad on April 04, 2016, 06:58:48 PMWhy 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.
Well then what foreign threats would the citizenry need to defend against if the military can respond to it?
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.
as we were given the means to bring about change to that in very peaceful means via the constitution itself.
Quote from: eggsalad on April 04, 2016, 06:58:48 PMWhy 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.
That being said, it of course needs to reminded that considering gun ownership a fundamental, basic and core human right deserving constitutional recognition is preposterous and that the second amendment should be repealed as soon as possible.
Quote from: aSMARTfeminist on April 06, 2016, 02:04:33 AMQuote from: Flee on April 05, 2016, 09:38:14 AMThat being said, it of course needs to reminded that considering gun ownership a fundamental, basic and core human right deserving constitutional recognition is preposterous and that the second amendment should be repealed as soon as possible. HAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHANo.It's only a matter of time, my friend. Just give in already and vote for Hillary.
Quote from: Flee on April 05, 2016, 09:38:14 AMThat being said, it of course needs to reminded that considering gun ownership a fundamental, basic and core human right deserving constitutional recognition is preposterous and that the second amendment should be repealed as soon as possible. HAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHANo.
Quote from: BAS D00T 1026 on April 06, 2016, 04:17:43 AMQuote from: Flee on April 06, 2016, 03:01:30 AMQuote from: aSMARTfeminist on April 06, 2016, 02:04:33 AMQuote from: Flee on April 05, 2016, 09:38:14 AMThat being said, it of course needs to reminded that considering gun ownership a fundamental, basic and core human right deserving constitutional recognition is preposterous and that the second amendment should be repealed as soon as possible. HAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHANo.It's only a matter of time, my friend. Just give in already and vote for Hillary.Why would we want to give Bush a fifth term tho?Hm, how about Gary Johnson 2016?
Quote from: Flee on April 06, 2016, 03:01:30 AMQuote from: aSMARTfeminist on April 06, 2016, 02:04:33 AMQuote from: Flee on April 05, 2016, 09:38:14 AMThat being said, it of course needs to reminded that considering gun ownership a fundamental, basic and core human right deserving constitutional recognition is preposterous and that the second amendment should be repealed as soon as possible. HAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHANo.It's only a matter of time, my friend. Just give in already and vote for Hillary.Why would we want to give Bush a fifth term tho?