Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry right-wingers, the purpose of the Second Amendment was to raise a fighting force in the absence of a standing army, not protect the people from their democratically elected government. If the people believed that their leaders became tyrants, they have the opportunity to vote them out of office. It's preposterous to think that leaders would be elected and then it is legitimate to overthrow that elected leader via force. That would mean that every time a minority with guns is dissatisfied, they have the right to undo the electoral will of the majority.
The the right-wing theory really is levying war against the United States, which the Constitution defines in Article III Section 3 as:
" Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."
Moreover, the notion means that countries, such as those in Europe, who have strict gun laws are not really democracies and are at risk of their leaders becoming tyrants, which is patently false.
I think of the United States as 'We the people". It's a far reach to suggest that those that have a grievance or a differing opinion are in fact committing treason.
And since we're a republic instead of a pure democracy, the majority can't take certain rights away.
Neither can the minority take certain rights away. And it is the minority (as it has been for far too many years) who are making all the noise and who seem to think that they know what is in the best interests of the entire country.
And if that total stranger had a Glock (or any other brand of pistol), with her, she would not have been over powered by some thug that pushed her on the subway tracks and stole her phone. She could have shot the bastard before he had a chance to toss her on the tracks.
But its the liberal left that would rather protect the criminals while disarming the righteous.
That's nonsense. I don't know anyone who wants to protect criminals. I want to see both sides disarmed and the societal problems tackled that cause people to do stupid things in the first place (drugs, poverty, etc.). And while working on that we should rethink what being armed means, and what it doesn't. In the amendment it doesn't say firearms, but arms, which can be any tool to defend oneself, doesn't have to be lethal...
And while working on that we should rethink what being armed means, and what it doesn't. In the amendment it doesn't say firearms, but arms, which can be any tool to defend oneself, doesn't have to be lethal...
Yes, the authors of the 2nd were really just wanting those militias to have "non-lethal" arms.
Rebels will never attack the military directly. We would concentrate on making this country such a hell that there'd be no economy nor order. Then the military would be defeated because it needs lots of money to fight. No money = no government, no military.
One more thing: US defeated Italy and Japan. USSR defeated Germany. England had no appreciable role in WW2.
England had no appreciable role in WW2? Those RAF troops that fought with my US Aircorp father would disagree.
England had no appreciable role in WW2? Those RAF troops that fought with my US Aircorp father would disagree.
ask those same english how much less prepared they would have been if american citizens would have not sent hundreds of thousands of privately owned firearms for englands defense?
I think of the United States as 'We the people". It's a far reach to suggest that those that have a grievance or a differing opinion are in fact committing treason.
Righting a letter to your Congressperson is a grievance. Taking up arms against the United States is the definition of treason.
ask those same english how much less prepared they would have been if american citizens would have not sent hundreds of thousands of privately owned firearms for englands defense?
I would suggest that the battleships and planes we sent during Lend-lease were far more significant. But you have outlined the purpose of the 2nd Amendment, which was for defending the country from outside invasion in the absences of a standing army.
The first amendment is also a protection against tyranny. Perhaps even more than the second amendment
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
