The United States second amendment to the constitution.

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.

You actually don't realise that most gun owners are former servicemen and the military is made up of ordinary American citizens. I don't know what world you live in where citizens of the military will engage in every action of the military, but generally speaking, if a military were to turn against its own citizens, most of the military would defect. I'd rather these defectors had the help of ordinary citizens instead of criminals, just saying.

>easily refutable, kek.

Lol, Syria is getting help from Russia and that whole situation is a cluster **** anyway. Let's focus on the us military. You know who runs it? US citizens. You know who operates the rocket launchers and machinery? That's right, US citizens. There will be loyalists and defectors just with any civil war, but it's not as if the US has no chance against its government, nor is that an argument to disarm the people even more! Its an argument for less restriction.

>we will never win against the us military, so let's give up our right to bear arms!

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed!

Originally posted by Omega Vision
(which goes against democratic principles in any case)

But as a country don't we do a lot of things that go against democratic principles?

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.

I will say I don't think we should ban all guns, but I do find it problematic when any country clings to these laws or principles that were created centuries ago. Some of these things will still hold up no matter how much time passes. Others though can definitely take on different meanings as opposed to what they were meant for centuries ago.

Originally posted by Surtur
But as a country don't we do a lot of things that go against democratic principles?

Originally posted by Surtur[I
]I will say I don't think we should ban all guns, but I do find it problematic when any country clings to these laws or principles that were created centuries ago. Some of these things will still hold up no matter how much time passes. Others though can definitely take on different meanings as opposed to what they were meant for centuries ago.[/I]

There is also the interpretation that "We The People" are the MILITIA that the Amendment refers to.
Meaning that we are all supposed to be ready and able to both defend and assist in all sorts of situations.

Yes I know for some of our LIBERAL Posters, the thought of them being responsible for physically being able to help others is ANETHMA to them, but still....

Originally posted by Flyattractor
[b]Yes I know for some of our LIBERAL Posters, the thought of them being responsible for physically being able to help others is ANETHMA to them, but still.... [/B]

This reminds me of the series finale for Seinfeld where they get arrested for not helping out a guy who they saw getting mugged.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
There is also the interpretation that "We The People" are the MILITIA that the Amendment refers to.
Meaning that we are all supposed to be ready and able to both defend and assist in all sorts of situations.

You're forgetting that the militia is supposed to be "well regulated", meaning it's not just a bunch of people with guns doing whatever they want. Words are important.

Originally posted by Surtur
This reminds me of the series finale for Seinfeld where they get arrested for not helping out a guy who they saw getting mugged.

Worst part about that episode was that we didn't get to see Elaine was getting up to in Woman's prison.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're forgetting that the militia is supposed to be "well regulated", meaning it's not just a bunch of people with guns doing whatever they want. Words are important.

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?

In order for there to be a "militia", people must be free to "bear arms". Doesn't do away with said "militia" and by default "arms" being "well regulated".

It's clear what the forefathers wanted and it wasn't gun laws so relaxed that any criminal or insane person can walk into a gun show and walk away with an assault rifle and hundreds of rounds.

You really have no cue what the framers intented.

The Supreme court backed the framers.

Framers>Supreme court ruling (District of Columbia v. Heller)>>>>>>x9000 Rob's liberal opinion.

The framers did not intend open borders Rob.

YouTube video

Historically speaking, they were criminal insane people who killed the loyalists with those powder guns.

Originally posted by Robtard
In order for there to be a "militia", people must be free to "bear arms". Doesn't do away with said "militia" and by default "arms" being "well regulated".

It's clear what the forefathers wanted and it wasn't gun laws so relaxed that any criminal or insane person can walk into a gun show and walk away with an assault rifle and hundreds of rounds.

Historically speaking, the Revolutionary War ended in 1783, the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.

Seems there was some fixing after the fact.

Seems you don't understand intentions of the right after having Penn Jillette explain it you and you're clutching at straws.

Originally posted by Robtard
Historically speaking, the Revolutionary War ended in 1783, the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.

Seems there was some fixing after the fact.

Originally posted by Robtard
Historically speaking, the Revolutionary War ended in 1783, the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.

Seems there was some fixing after the fact.

Framers>Supreme court>you and history.

SC held up the second amendment for what it says, whether you like it or not.

Which well regulated militia are you a part of?

SC held up the second amendment for private citizens to bear arms. Whether you like it or not.

I support private citizen gun ownership 👆

You're doing that thing again where you see "smart gun regulation" and translate it as "they want to take all our guns!"

Originally posted by It's xyz!
YouTube video

Originally posted by Robtard
I support private citizen gun ownership 👆

You're doing that thing again where you see "smart gun regulation" and translate it as "they want to take all our guns!"

Proof?

Nice moving goal posts after you cannot prove your point.

We've done this before a few times, last time I recall was when you were going on about Obama wanting to take away all your guns and I pointed out that the bill was for gun law reform, not taking away guns flat out, you insisted it was and I said "I don't agree with that", but again, it wasn't about that.