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.
So,, let us try one more time, because you seem to know it all.
Why was the militia even mentioned in the amendment if it wasn't the intention of the founders to grant people who comprise a militia, the right to bear arms?
Seems like a simple question,
but not one person posting in this thread has answered it.
Let's hear your answer, and only your answer, no one else.
As has been pointed out to you multiple times in this thread.....
1) The people ARE the militia.
2) If it was the intentions of the Founders to limit the ownership of arms to those who are actively participating in an organized military force......then why didn't they enforce that interpretation?
Why are there no historical accounts of them enforcing that interpretation by confiscation of arms from the general public?
Why would the Founders feel the need to codify something as obvious as the military's right to own firearms and put that right in the Bill of Rights, second only to freedom of speech?
I've asked you this multiple times and you keep ignoring it.
How , or why is it, not one person has answered the question I originally posted.
Is it because you know I am right, or that you honestly don't know the answer?
Straight question for the hundredth time. Why were the words a well regulated militia included in the 2nd, if that was not the intention of the founders to give the people of the militia the right to bears arms?
Again:
The people ARE the militia.
It doesn't say "we the government grant only the militia the right to keep and bear arms"..... because it CAN'T do that.
Because the Constitution doesn't "give rights" to anyone, it bars the government from interfering in those rights.
And just because it mentions the need for a militia, doesn't mean that it applies ONLY to an organized military force.
Otherwise it would not have followed by saying THE PEOPLE'S RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
And also again:
Please do point out where else in the Constitution and Bill of Rights where "the people" doesn't actually mean "the people".
If the second amendment was about protecting the people from government, why aren’t people allowed to own tanks?
Is there some part of "bear arms" you don't understand?
Are you going to carry an M1 Abrams on your back? Or do you plan on attaching a sling and carrying it at shoulder arms?
It's a crew-served/weapons platform, not a firearm that you bear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bureaucat
An AK vs. an Abrams isn’t much of a fight.
A real troop leader who was experienced in combat wouldn't have such callous disregard for the lives of those he commands by sending them up against an Abrams with AK.
A real troop leader who was experienced in combat could effectively defeat or neutralize tanks without callously risking the lives of his troops, and you don't even need an AK or any firearm to do that.
Is there some part of "bear arms" you don't understand?
Are you going to carry an M1 Abrams on your back? Or do you plan on attaching a sling and carrying it at shoulder arms?
It's a crew-served/weapons platform, not a firearm that you bear.
A real troop leader who was experienced in combat wouldn't have such callous disregard for the lives of those he commands by sending them up against an Abrams with AK.
A real troop leader who was experienced in combat could effectively defeat or neutralize tanks without callously risking the lives of his troops, and you don't even need an AK or any firearm to do that.
It's shocking really how little you people know.
If the right to bear arms is about defending the people from an oppressive government, how do “the people” prevail over a heavily armed government? Unless your “citizen militia” have access to military aircraft, tanks and artillery, you’re going to be crushed. This isn’t some Red Dawn fantasy where kids defeat the Russkies.
The whole concept of “the right to bear arms” as a check on government power is a fantasy in the modern era.
If the right to bear arms is about defending the people from an oppressive government, how do “the people” prevail over a heavily armed government? Unless your “citizen militia” have access to military aircraft, tanks and artillery, you’re going to be crushed. This isn’t some Red Dawn fantasy where kids defeat the Russkies.
The whole concept of “the right to bear arms” as a check on government power is a fantasy in the modern era.
Tell that to a soldier retuning from Afghanistan. Or a Viet Nam veteran. Another thing you're not taking into account is also pretty obvious. "A well regulated militia (meaning armed equipped and proficient) being necessary to the security of a free state ( a two pronged wording that covers militia aiding in the defense of the nation alongside or in other supportive role to regulars, and also at individual state, community or individual level) the Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed.
"Security of a free state" also covers in opposition to a government that has designs on total absolute power over the people. . I believe that is actually a secondary concern with the 2A but still an important one. And an armed citizenry as a check on government power is hardly a fantasy. It seems you believe that the military would obey an order from DC to fire on citizens. I highly doubt that would happen. An F 15E Strike Eagle pilot might just not be so OK with an order to drop Rockeye 2 cluster bombs on a residential neighborhood. A battalion of 155mm Howitzers just might be a tad...hesitant...to drop the rain on a small rural community the feds have deemed "subversive."
Those M1A tanks you spoke of are crewed by people. People who came from places they are receiving orders to flatten. Sure, the president is the CiC. But that doesn't mean that he will be backed by the PEOPLE who man the tanks, aircraft and big guns. That the military will obey blatantly unconstitutional and illegal orders from DC should there be a coup attempt. That is a fantasy. If the 2A is no threat to a government that desires total and absolute power why is the government working so hard to dismantle it?
Yes you can buy a tank...
Yes you can own and license a working tank cannon
Yes you can mount said cannon on tank turret
Yes you can own and license M60s, M240s, M2's for coax/pintle mounted support arms
You might even be able to drive it on the road.
You can certainly drive it on your property.
Plus the AK vs. Abrams, it entirely depends on the situation. When the tanks buttoned up in limited maneuverability environments, and collateral damage concerns (say MOUT) I'd take the smart guy with the molotovs and a pipe bomb over the tank. But that's just me.
If the right to bear arms is about defending the people from an oppressive government, how do “the people” prevail over a heavily armed government? Unless your “citizen militia” have access to military aircraft, tanks and artillery, you’re going to be crushed. This isn’t some Red Dawn fantasy where kids defeat the Russkies.
The whole concept of “the right to bear arms” as a check on government power is a fantasy in the modern era.
They didn't have tanks and aircraft carriers when the 2nd was written.
They also didn't have standing armies.
The PEOPLE were the army, so there was no army to defend the government against the people.
And the people owned artillery and battleships.
So, unless like Joe Biden, you're planning on using F-15s and Nukes against the American people.....
It's sorta irrelevant.
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.
