Ok, but he started it by going off topic with insults
Originally posted by Omega Vision
He's a TI Militia that's TI-regulated.
Originally posted by jaden101
I would presume that would be the case. But then he is a Walt so will probably say something different.
Originally posted by Surtur
What is a Walt? Walt Disney? Is...is he still alive? Because I once saw this pretty horrifying episode of Robot Chicken that delved into what would happen if that was the case.
Originally posted by jaden101
Walter Mitty.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Right, back to the topic. The Second Amendment, however, also states that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Does that mean the people of the well-regulated(how is that defined, anyway?) militia only or the people in general?
Originally posted by Omega Vision
The way it's written, it suggests that given the need for a "well-regulated militia" (a need which no longer exists), the government won't infringe on the rights to bear arms. But since we don't have well-regulated militias anymore, the original point of the 2nd Amendment is moot and it's become a matter of tradition.
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Understanding well-regulated.
Google definition of militia
militia
mɪˈlɪʃə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
"creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
(in the US) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
You could interpret it as a military, but it's not technically the same as say, the army.
It is an organised army of the people to rise against the government should they need to fight against a tyranny the oppose. It was seen as a necessity because they literally just fought and declared independence against England and felt such a thing was a right of the people, given its effectiveness in forming the ****ing country.
This constitutional amendment is relevant to understanding the war of independence, 1812, Andrew jack sons presidency, the civil war and the NRA do believe that should the time come to rise against government, they shall be prepared (at least initially).
It's about standing up to your masters. It's about having the freedom to defend your principles. It is a right TO HAVE a well regulated militia against the government if people are so inclined, the right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed.
The Oklahoma bombers, although criminal terrorists, were excersising their constitutional rights as free Americans to bear arms. George Washington bore arms to create the ****ing country. It is a right to say no to the government, and to ensure a government is subject to the people.
Similar principles were discussed in the French Revolution.
The Thai people often have military coups to overthrow government.
This right to overthrow government is what is really at stake here.
Originally posted by It's xyz!
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Understanding well-regulated.Google definition of militia
militia
mɪˈlɪʃə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
"creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
(in the US) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.You could interpret it as a military, but it's not technically the same as say, the army.
It is an organised army of the people to rise against the government should they need to fight against a tyranny the oppose. It was seen as a necessity because they literally just fought and declared independence against England and felt such a thing was a right of the people, given its effectiveness in forming the ****ing country.
This constitutional amendment is relevant to understanding the war of independence, 1812, Andrew jack sons presidency, the civil war and the NRA do believe that should the time come to rise against government, they shall be prepared (at least initially).
It's about standing up to your masters. It's about having the freedom to defend your principles. It is a right TO HAVE a well regulated militia against the government if people are so inclined, the right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed.
The Oklahoma bombers, although criminal terrorists, were excersising their constitutional rights as free Americans to bear arms. George Washington bore arms to create the ****ing country. It is a right to say no to the government, and to ensure a government is subject to the people.
Similar principles were discussed in the French Revolution.
The Thai people often have military coups to overthrow government.
This right to overthrow government is what is really at stake here.
In order for the American people to be able to forcibly overthrow the government (which goes against democratic principles in any case), they'd need rocket launchers, anti-aircraft weapons, maybe even an air force. The Syrian military isn't 1/50th the military that the US is and they're still standing after years of battle.
And anyway, that wasn't the meaning of "well-regulated militia" in the first place. It actually referred to the sort of forces that would have been used to crush rebellions and uprisings, controlled by the government, as happened in the Whiskey Rebellion where George Washington shut down an incipient rebellion.
Neither of the arguments work.
If you think your government will turn tyrannical and the military will follow their orders then a population armed with assault rifles would have zero hope against the US military so why bother having them?
And if you believe that even if the government wanted to forcefully subjugate the population to whatever end but the majority of the armed forces would not carry out those orders and instead would overthrow a government making any such attempt then you don't need them in that scenario either.
Originally posted by jaden101
Neither of the arguments work.If you think your government will turn tyrannical and the military will follow their orders then a population armed with assault rifles would have zero hope against the US military so why bother having them?
And if you believe that even if the government wanted to forcefully subjugate the population to whatever end but the majority of the armed forces would not carry out those orders and instead would overthrow a government making any such attempt then you don't need them in that scenario either.
This is a more true statement. Much of the military would defect
Originally posted by Omega Vision
You're dreaming if you think private gunowners would have a prayer against the US military if push came to shove. That's the most easily refutable (and stupid) argument for gun ownership.In order for the American people to be able to forcibly overthrow the government (which goes against democratic principles in any case), they'd need rocket launchers, anti-aircraft weapons, maybe even an air force. The Syrian military isn't 1/50th the military that the US is and they're still standing after years of battle.
And anyway, that wasn't the meaning of "well-regulated militia" in the first place. It actually referred to the sort of forces that would have been used to crush rebellions and uprisings, controlled by the government, as happened in the Whiskey Rebellion where George Washington shut down an incipient rebellion.
This would only be an issue of the Military joined the Liberal Socialists who want to turn this country into a Dictatorship....
And I already posted a link to a vid that points how where Meggy is going WRONG on his view of the 2nd amendment, and I don't seem to see any response to that...
not surprised.
Originally posted by Omega Vision
He's a TI Militia that's TI-regulated.
You still dont get it..
Lets break it down barney style for you liberals.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"A well regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free State,
The right of the people to keep and bear arms."
Is it not common sense that these are two separate rights?