Freedom of speech is more necessary. Without that, what is your gun protecting? The right to own one?
I’m pretty sure the founding fathers were concerned against the threat of an overreaching Federal government and the cost of standing army for the almost-bankrupt Union of States, and weren’t interested in perpetuating a massive hobby/industry under the guise of protecting the 2A
If I don’t have this, the Black Helicopters are coming for me:
Yes, if the standing army is the bigger threat, why not reduce the number of Armed Forces back to 50 000 as in the aftermath of WW1?
That wouldn’t change the the second. And why wouldn’t the government then just use conscription when it makes its move against the people of Dearborn, MI? We wouldn’t resist, remember?
Okay…
Not sure what your point is?
So if the Jews had guns they could have stopped the Holocaust? And the Jews in Germany were Germans. Some were veterans of WW1. They were still killed by their fellow Germans. There were German citizens who weren’t Jewish but were killed for opposing the Nazis. The college aged leaders of the White Rose were beheaded.
In the US you had Japanese internment camps. Not that long ago you had police officers using stop and frisk in NYC without worrying about the Constitutionality, let alone the racism, of the policy. Which can bring us back to the Civil Rights Movement and the abuse that blacks suffered at the hands of the cops. They were all Americans.
Obviously. What does that have to do with the video?
That is a good question. Why not reduce it further?
Ok, but then the citizen would be expected to have the ability, without being infringed upon, to protect the nation against foreign military soldiers…Which then forces one to conclude that the founders DID indeed intend for citizens to have military grade arms, again. Either way, standing army or not.
Thanks for the list of governmental sins. Not the best avenue for your argument.
Well, in my opinion, the 2A was a common-sense response to a myriad political, military and societal challenges the nascent Country was facing.
I believe the entire gun stockpiling hobby industry that sprung up has nothing to do with the original purpose of the 2A
I need to buy this spear/bayonet for my AR-15s because liberty is at stake.
Do whatever the fuck you want everywhere else - Patriot Act, stop and frisk and whatnot but just leave me to play around with my guns.
A fun activity masquerading as a necessary bulwark against tryanny.
When the government cuts off your electricity, phones, internet, stops fuel deliveries, stops food deliveries, cuts off the water, makes your money worthless, etc., all things it can do without taking your guns or firing a shot, it will have won. Yeah, you’ll have your home but it’s not like the government wanted it.
Okay then, how do you propose the US maintain the intent of the 2A while eliminating the “stockpile hobby industry”?
Sins carried out by Americans and all things that guns would not have stopped. In fact, where were all of these armed Americans who are supposed to be about protecting freedom?
1 Like
Past tense.
How could they possibly do all of that without turning the entire population against them and/or completely destroying the country?
Where was the federal government and the US military when all those native Americans were being slaughtered?
Oh, wait…
You just have to stop enjoying firearms. You can demonstrate that you no longer enjoy them only by surrendering them.
1 Like
It wasn’t a band-aid. Why use such certain language if it was? It uses a world like infringe. Which suggests it can’t even be tampered with around the edges. Or, why not just say “have a right to keep and bear arms,” period? That way there would be wiggle room to say, “but, after we do a 30 day background check/cooling off period. See, you’ll get your gun!” It says it can’t even be infringed upon.
1 Like
I don’t even really enjoy them. Ya, it’s enjoyable I guess to send rounds down range, but then you have to clean the damn things, store them properly per fed/state law, etc…
That’s comforting. Well, no.
Again, you assume that the entire population would be against the government. That’s not how it works.
Look at our own Civil War; Americans (in the North) had no problems with stomping the crap out of Americans (in the South).
1 Like