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.
Any able bodied citizen. That doesn't matter though because there doesn't have to be a militia for the Right to exist, as anyone who has had a 3rd grade language arts class would be able to tell you after they read the amendment.
Unfortunately, it was written like a kindergartener or preschooler, about as unclear as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC
Anyone can kill with anything.
Everyone has a birthright to bear arms.
A birthright? Hardly. They have a right, while a citizen of the US, as determined by a few guys in the 1700s. That's not a birthright.
The 2nd was placed there as a protection against a standing army and the centralized federal gov't.
No it wasn't.
That is why the founders put the 2A in the Bill of Rights..... Keeping that purpose in mind, does it make sense to say that the founders wanted centralized gov't officials to regulate the militias with they'd be at odds with?
They militia wasn't designed to be at odds with the federal government. Under the Constitution, one of the first times the militias were called out was during the Whisky Rebellion at the request of the President, who along with Treasury Secretary Hamilton, personal led the militia troops westward against the rebels.
Furthermore, does it make sense to theorize that the founders intended for the citizenry to be regulated in to having inferior weapons compared to those of the Federal Government?
Are you suggesting individual citizens should have nuclear weapons?
Oh, and as a courtesy to the readers of the forum, could you please use the quote system properly? Simply copying what someone wrote and pasting it in bold text doesn't properly attribute the quote to the author, and denies the readers the opportunity to find the original text to read it in full context. Thanks.
Well if your blog says so I guess that gets you out of answering the question. The person I was responding to suggested the public should not have inferior weapons to the federal government, which has nuclear weapons.
Oh, and as a courtesy to the readers of the forum, could you please use the quote system properly? Simply copying what someone wrote and pasting it in bold text doesn't properly attribute the quote to the author, and denies the readers the opportunity to find the original text to read it in full context. Thanks.
Only if you promise never to use yourself as an authority on anything ever again, ever. Do we have a deal?
As far as field artillery goes, yes I think private citizens should be able to own those weapons. There are a few hundred fully functioning tanks in the hands of citizens right now. The ammunition is the sticking point on being able to fire them successfully. Right now, the only plentiful artillery ammo is the 20mm and that's because someone has developed a shoulder fired rifle for it.
The 2nd was placed there as a protection against a standing army and the centralized federal gov't.
No it wasn't.
Solid rebuttal.....
Quote:
That is why the founders put the 2A in the Bill of Rights..... Keeping that purpose in mind, does it make sense to say that the founders wanted centralized gov't officials to regulate the militias with they'd be at odds with?
They militia wasn't designed to be at odds with the federal government.
Never said it was specifically "designed" to be at odds with the Fed Gov, I said it was created as a defense against it if necessary....
Quote:
Furthermore, does it make sense to theorize that the founders intended for the citizenry to be regulated in to having inferior weapons compared to those of the Federal Government?
Are you suggesting individual citizens should have nuclear weapons?
Since Nuclear weapons aren't "arms" and the Second Amendment doesn't protect the use or ownership of them, no, that is not what I am suggesting...
Never said it was specifically "designed" to be at odds with the Fed Gov, I said it was created as a defense against it if necessary....
Since Nuclear weapons aren't "arms" and the Second Amendment doesn't protect the use or ownership of them, no, that is not what I am suggesting...
Nuclear weapons are in fact "arms" as arms refers to the weapons of war, which includes nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, or, arms.
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.
