SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6557|North Tonawanda, NY

RAIMIUS wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

The fact that it is already regulated shows that it is OK to do so.
Hell no!  That logic does not work.  Otherwise, segregation would still be acceptible...etc.
Perhaps I was not clear.  I need a permit to own a handgun.  That is regulation.  The courts have decided that this sort of requirement is constitutional. 

If I am a violent criminal, can I own a firearm?  If I am mentally unstable and documented as such, can I own a firearm?

There are regulations in place, which the courts have deemed constitutional.  Not all of them have been examined, though.  Such is this case.
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7141|US

pj666 wrote:

The Constitution has to be re-interpreted as time passes because the country changes. Otherwise the law becomes irrelevant and is ignored.

Now you can carry a SMG with extended clip that could kill a platoon of MinuteMen with one clip in seconds. Or an assault rifle designed to be carried by a modern infantry man (granted, so could the old militas with the weapons of the day). I don't think the Founding Fathers intended that.
The founding fathers intended to have a "well regulated militia."  You cannot have a good militia without decent weapons.

The Bill of Rights is based on a set of ideals.  Those ideals (justice, liberty, prevention of tyranny, etc) do not change with time.

There is also the danger of meddling with basic rights.  Who gets to decide when my rights become "irrelevant" or "outdated?"

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2008-03-18 21:39:16)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6832|North Carolina
I hope common sense prevails here...   Isn't it pretty obvious that handgun bans are useless, when D.C. is the murder capital of the country?
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7141|US

SenorToenails wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

The fact that it is already regulated shows that it is OK to do so.
Hell no!  That logic does not work.  Otherwise, segregation would still be acceptible...etc.
Perhaps I was not clear.  I need a permit to own a handgun.  That is regulation.  The courts have decided that this sort of requirement is constitutional. 

If I am a violent criminal, can I own a firearm?  If I am mentally unstable and documented as such, can I own a firearm?

There are regulations in place, which the courts have deemed constitutional.  Not all of them have been examined, though.  Such is this case.
I can accept denying people their constitutional rights, IF they are a legitimate danger to those around them (i.e. convicted, violent criminals).  Convicted criminals are denied rights.  That is a longstanding legal tradition that is reasonable.

Handgun permits are not reasonable, IMO.  The burden of proof lies on the government proving I cannot handle the responsibility, NOT in me proving it to them.
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|7108|Disaster Free Zone

Turquoise wrote:

I hope common sense prevails here...   Isn't it pretty obvious that handgun bans are useless, when D.C. is the murder capital of the country?
I hope common sense prevails here...  Isn't it pretty obvious the right to bear arms is useless, when the US is the murder capital of the western world?

Last edited by DrunkFace (2008-03-18 21:47:24)

Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6832|North Carolina

DrunkFace wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I hope common sense prevails here...   Isn't it pretty obvious that handgun bans are useless, when D.C. is the murder capital of the country?
It's pretty obvious the right to bear arms are useless, when the US is the murder capital of the world?
Um...  you must be confusing us with Sierra Leone or Rwanda.
DrunkFace
Germans did 911
+427|7108|Disaster Free Zone

Turquoise wrote:

Um...  you must be confusing us with Sierra Leone or Rwanda.
I' edit it for you.
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6832|North Carolina

DrunkFace wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I hope common sense prevails here...   Isn't it pretty obvious that handgun bans are useless, when D.C. is the murder capital of the country?
I hope common sense prevails here...  Isn't it pretty obvious the right to bear arms is useless, when the US is the murder capital of the western world?
If you think guns alone lead to more violence, you're quite wrong.  Canada and Switzerland have more guns per person than we do.  They have a fraction of our crime rates.

It's wealth disparity that leads to crime.  We have some of the worst wealth disparity in the western world, so that's really what you should attack us about.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6557|North Tonawanda, NY

RAIMIUS wrote:

I can accept denying people their constitutional rights, IF they are a legitimate danger to those around them (i.e. convicted, violent criminals).  Convicted criminals are denied rights.  That is a longstanding legal tradition that is reasonable.

Handgun permits are not reasonable, IMO.  The burden of proof lies on the government proving I cannot handle the responsibility, NOT in me proving it to them.
I agree with the pistol permit objections, but my point stands.  It is all in the court's interpretation of the law.  If that doesn't work out for the majority, the law needs to be changed.
Diesel_dyk
Object in mirror will feel larger than it appears
+178|6421|Truthistan

DrunkFace wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

I hope common sense prevails here...   Isn't it pretty obvious that handgun bans are useless, when D.C. is the murder capital of the country?
I hope common sense prevails here...  Isn't it pretty obvious the right to bear arms is useless, when the US is the murder capital of the western world?
I have to disagree with you

The founding fathers may have written the constitution in antiquated language but if you look at the threat they were facing and their 2nd amendment solution it was simply brilliant.
They were facing the British empire and their solution was to arm every civilian and every household meaning that an invasion by any country would be met with door to door bloodshed.... HEH!!!! doesn't that sound familiar???? it should its called urban warfare in modern speak and it is a deterrent even to modern armies today. they came up with the solution over 200 years ago. hats off to them.

They also wanted to prevent future people from saying "we're all modern and sh*t and don't need their ideas" that's why there is the NO INFRINGEMENT clause to prevent know-it-all's from removing this very important national and home security clause. The 2nd Amendment is a modern day deterrent and helps to PREVENT future and possibly unknown threats from destroying American democracy.

If I had a choice between the life experience and combined wisdom of the founding fathers and some know-it-all who simply reads the headlines.... I think that choice is obvious.

Last edited by Diesel_dyk (2008-03-18 22:09:24)

B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7268|Cologne, Germany

I am not a US citizen, so the implications are rather smalll for me, but still...

To me, the words "well regulated militia", and "defense of a free state" clearly indicate that the amendment was designed under the impression of the war of independence, at a time when the US had no standing army to defend against foreign agression.

The 2nd Amendment doesn't differentiate between regular citizens and members of the militia, because no such difference existed at the time.

Today, however, the US has a standing army, it has well-organized law enforcement agencies, and also the national guard.
Today, not every citizen must a soldier. You have the most sophisticated war machine on the planet. No one can match it.

From my point of view, the 2nd amendment acknowledges the right of individuals to own a firearms solely in the capacity as a member of a regulated militia ( for example the National Guard ), and for the specific purpose of defending the state.

How one can conclude from the text that today, everyone is allowed to own a handgun ( perfectly useless as a military weapon ), regardless of wether that individual is actually involved in a "well-regulated militia" is beyond me.

The 2nd amendment made sense in the specific historic circumstances under which it was created. There was no real union, the states handled their own security, and the colonies were still very much threatened by foreign powers. Today, however, all of that has changed.
It is common practise ( and common sense, really ) that from time to time, out-dated legislation is thrown out, and replaced by laws that fit more adequately into a modern society. Why you would want to exclude the 2nd amendment from that, I cannot understand.

I am glad to see that the SC will look into the case. And I hope the verdict will end the gun debate once and for all, whatever it will be.
Personally, though, I am afraid that with the omnipresent gun culture in the US, and the high number of guns already in circulation, the SC will find it hard to throw out the right to bear arms completely.
My prediction: the DC law will be thrown out. Cause if you uphold it, it would mean that the general right of law-abiding, adult, mentally stable citizens to own firearms is being infringed upon, which the 2nd amendment specifically disallowes, at least in its current interpretation by gun lobbyists.

Maybe the SC will find a way to work around that, and chicken out of making a ruling on the 2nd amendment as a whole. But I would hope they'd make a clear ruling. I am pretty sure americans are growing tired on the gun debate. I know I am, and I am not even living there...
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|7073
Change the second ammendment? Thats blasphemy! If it worked 200 years ago it should still work the same today, because guns, as we all know, have not changed at all.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,072|7199|PNW

Deadmonkiefart wrote:

The meaning is very clear.
"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."
Either the founding fathers made a huge error on the US bill of rights with a superfluous comma, or the second amendment really does specifically permit the right of individuals to own firearms.  The question here is not whether it says this or that, because the meaning is quite clear.  Whether you disagree with it or not, you cannot deny the second amendments true intention.
If the meaning is so clear, then how come savvy politicians and scholars haven't all caught onto your brilliant mindstorm of interpretation? Why the argument nowadays? Besides which, it wouldn't exactly be easy to, in times of emergency, form a civilian defense force out of people armed only with asses and toenails, now would it?

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2008-03-19 04:33:04)

FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6838|'Murka

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Change the second ammendment? Thats blasphemy! If it worked 200 years ago it should still work the same today, because guns, as we all know, have not changed at all.
Changes in technology do not equate to changes in principle.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Commie Killer
Member
+192|6814
Meh why not. I wrote a essay for English class, we had a few topics to chose from and I chose gun control. It sucks pretty bad, failed at sources and examples and w/e, but it got a A cause my English teacher is stupid. Anyways, here it is, try not to rip it apart and flame me to much. As you can tell, I kinda gave up after the second paragraph cause it met the requirements for length.



      Since the creation of the so called “Gun Free Zones” the vast majority of mass shootings have occurred in these areas. That though brings us to Gun Controls, what is it? The advocates of it say it is keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. This is obviously not true, as those who are criminals have already decided to break the laws. What Gun Control really is, is the blatant violation of our rights. It is the removal of our, the basic law abiding citizens right to provide for his or her own self defense, the inability to protect against an oppressive government, and the removal of the ability to provide for our own food through hunting in time of need.
      Back when our country was founded and the constitution ratified, back in 1789, our fathers of this country put a certain phrase in our Bill of Rights. It said “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That was written into the Constitution of the United States of America for many reason, all of them important, one of the reasons was for self defense. When our country was founded, we were the police. There weren’t enough law enforcement officers to do much good. Their job was, and still is, to “keep the peace”. The police can not protect us at all times of the day and in all places. That means, if someone intends to commit “serious bodily harm” to you or another person, you can legally shoot or even kill them if necessary. So what does gun control do to help you with that? The answer is nothing, it hurts you. The common law abiding citizen will be forced to turn in his weapons and his or her self defense. The “great equalizer” which can bring an 18 year old male and an 88 year old grandmother of 10 to the same level is gone. Now there is 10 kids whose grandmother is missing because some politician in Washington thought taking guns away from law abiding citizens was some how going to reduce crime. On the HBO show Bull Shit, they ran a story about a Texas Congresswoman, Susanna Hop, who was still a regular citizen back in 1991 when she and her parents went to a local restaurant in Killen Texas. A mad man drove his truck through the window and methodically began shooting people. Her father rushed the man in a vain attempt to take him out, he was cut down. Her mother stayed with her father, and when the gun man came back around, he calmly walked up to her, put the gun to her head, and pulled the trigger. Because back then, you weren’t allowed to carry a gun, Susanna was forced to leave her gun in her car. 22 people and the gunman died that day. Now, as all this is happening, the criminals are all getting more guns. Also, on the same episode of the same show, they had a previous gang member, you know what he said? He said that he can walk around his “hood” in LA with an AK47 hanging on his back and not one single person would call the cops on him. The reason for this is because it is pointless. The cops could come, take that gun away, but it wouldn’t matter. The next day, he could buy 10 of them from an illegal dealer. These guns aren’t being sold by law abiding citizens, they are being sold by criminals, these guns are coming from outside the United States. Gun Control just hurts the common citizen; the criminal isn’t going to turn in his weapons, what does he or she care about the law.
      After all that, you may be thinking a bigger and stronger police force is the answer, this couldn’t be further from the truth. One of the many other important reasons the Second Amendment to the Constitution has that famous clause embedded in it is because the founding fathers feared that the Federal Government would get to powerful. As proven over the centuries, human nature is to always want more. No matter it land, money, food, or power. Thomas Jefferson once told us that to be a true democracy and to keep the government in check we should have an armed rebellion every 30 years. Thankfully that hasn’t happened, we have so far not had any extreme problems with our government taking over our way of life, no one wishes for violence but the means to keep our freedoms is very important.
      Since people first came to the New World, guns have been at our side, they have been used for things such as defense and hunting. When the white man started traveling west, from the eastern parts of what is not the East Coast, he kept his gun with him, it brought him food, it brought him self reliance. Families could live out in the wilderness, they had their own means of producing food, whether it was killed or grown or scavenged. Even today roughly 1/7th of the population of the United States hunt or have hunting licenses. They can, if need be, live off themselves, in the wild, just like the woodsmen of the previous 3 centuries.\
      Some say that Gun Free Zones help reduce gun crime, think about this: Columbine is a gun free zone, so was the Amish School house in Pennsylvania, so was Virginia Tech, the list could go on virtually for ever. These were all places where the common law abiding citizen was not allowed to carry a weapon, these were also places where only the criminals brought their weapons. Awhile ago, at Pearl High School in Mississippi, there was a shooting rampage taking place, the gun man had already killed 2 and wounded others, the Vice Principle ran out to his car, where he retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 pistol and brought the rampage to an end. At a school dance in PA, the dance hall owner was forced to retrieve his weapon from his house a block away and bring the killing to a stop only after a teacher was killed and 2 students wounded. Makes you wonder what would of happened if these law abiding citizens would have been allowed to keep their weapons with them. How many lives would have been saved…
      Gun Control; the proponents of it say it is keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, this is obviously not true, as to be a criminal, they have already decided to break the law. What is it that is going to make criminals turn in their weapons? Nothing. What Gun Control really is, is the removal of a law abiding citizen to provide protection to themselves and others. What Gun Control really is, is the removal of the ability to say NO to an oppressive government. What Gun Control really is, is the removal of the ability for a law abiding citizen to gain food in a time of need. Let all that sink in, and then decide, what really is the right thing to do? Leave the innocents unarmed and at the mercy of others, or allow them to say NO to oppressors?

Last edited by Commie Killer (2008-03-19 05:14:23)

B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7268|Cologne, Germany

FEOS wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Change the second ammendment? Thats blasphemy! If it worked 200 years ago it should still work the same today, because guns, as we all know, have not changed at all.
Changes in technology do not equate to changes in principle.
oh really ? What do you think your chances would be in a rebellion that featured citizens with handguns and a couple of rifles against a professional army with jets, helicopters, tanks, artillery and the like ?

The idea that an armed population would be able to rise up against a tyrannical government was maybe realistic during a time when there was little difference in the way civilians and government forces were armed. But today ?

After a week, the civilians would run out of ammunition, and then, what ?

The idea that a modern, post-WWII, democratically elected western government could one day turn into a tyrannical, fascist dicatorship is absurd.
I mean, after what europe and the rest of the world had to endure during WWII, do you really think it could happen again ?
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6821|The Gem Saloon

B.Schuss wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Change the second ammendment? Thats blasphemy! If it worked 200 years ago it should still work the same today, because guns, as we all know, have not changed at all.
Changes in technology do not equate to changes in principle.
oh really ? What do you think your chances would be in a rebellion that featured citizens with handguns and a couple of rifles against a professional army with jets, helicopters, tanks, artillery and the like ?

The idea that an armed population would be able to rise up against a tyrannical government was maybe realistic during a time when there was little difference in the way civilians and government forces were armed. But today ?

After a week, the civilians would run out of ammunition, and then, what ?

The idea that a modern, post-WWII, democratically elected western government could one day turn into a tyrannical, fascist dicatorship is absurd.
I mean, after what europe and the rest of the world had to endure during WWII, do you really think it could happen again ?
ill go at it again.
i think the civilians in this country could defeat the armed forces.
why? not all the armed forces would take up arms against us, first off.
second, we have access to not just guns and ammo.....oh, and we wouldnt run out of ammo in a week......i know all sorts of people that load their own, so ill be good there.
black powder, fertilizer, tnt-all anti armor options.

i could go back and forth about this for hours.....oh, and there is a militia about two hours from me that have their own tanks



edit: and as far as having a couple handguns and some rifles.........no:
https://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f180/parkercustoms/gunshow001.jpg
https://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f180/parkercustoms/gunshow002.jpg
https://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f180/parkercustoms/gunshow003.jpg
https://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f180/parkercustoms/gunshow004.jpg

Last edited by Parker (2008-03-19 07:15:36)

FEOS
Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate
+1,182|6838|'Murka

B.Schuss wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:

Change the second ammendment? Thats blasphemy! If it worked 200 years ago it should still work the same today, because guns, as we all know, have not changed at all.
Changes in technology do not equate to changes in principle.
oh really ? What do you think your chances would be in a rebellion that featured citizens with handguns and a couple of rifles against a professional army with jets, helicopters, tanks, artillery and the like ?

The idea that an armed population would be able to rise up against a tyrannical government was maybe realistic during a time when there was little difference in the way civilians and government forces were armed. But today ?

After a week, the civilians would run out of ammunition, and then, what ?

The idea that a modern, post-WWII, democratically elected western government could one day turn into a tyrannical, fascist dicatorship is absurd.
I mean, after what europe and the rest of the world had to endure during WWII, do you really think it could happen again ?
You didn't at all counter my point. Changes in technology do not equate to changes in principle.

As far as the US goes, the Constitution would have to be completely thrown out for your scenario to occur, so the comparison is moot.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein

Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7141|US

B.Schuss wrote:

The 2nd Amendment doesn't differentiate between regular citizens and members of the militia, because no such difference existed at the time.

Today, however, the US has a standing army, it has well-organized law enforcement agencies, and also the national guard.
Today, not every citizen must a soldier. You have the most sophisticated war machine on the planet. No one can match it.

From my point of view, the 2nd amendment acknowledges the right of individuals to own a firearms solely in the capacity as a member of a regulated militia ( for example the National Guard ), and for the specific purpose of defending the state.

How one can conclude from the text that today, everyone is allowed to own a handgun ( perfectly useless as a military weapon ), regardless of wether that individual is actually involved in a "well-regulated militia" is beyond me.
There is a legally defined militia in the United States

US CODE, TITLE 10 wrote:

311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
The military, law enforcement, and the National Guard are all government agencies.  The founding fathers were trying to limit the government to specific uses and abilities.  It makes no sense that they would give power to the government to restrict it.

The right to keep and bear arms is a right of "the people."  The phrase "the people" is used elsewhere in the Constitution and Bill of Rights to denote the general population.  Nowhere is "the people" tied to a narrower group.

A hangun is "perfectly useless as a military weapon"...?  That's news to me.  Perhaps I should tell my commanding officer that.  The higher-ups must have been operating under false assumptions for the last 200+ years! /sarcasm
There is a reason the military issues hundreds of thousands of M9 pistols...
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7268|Cologne, Germany

and how long do you think those tanks would hold up against Apaches, A-10's and regular M1's ?

I 'd agree that you might have a chance if large parts of the military switched sides, but what kind of scenario are we talking about here anyway ?

I simply can't see a democratically elected US government turn on its own citizens out of the blue. For what reason ?
Give me a realistic scenario, and we'll talk.
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6821|The Gem Saloon

B.Schuss wrote:

and how long do you think those tanks would hold up against Apaches, A-10's and regular M1's ?

I 'd agree that you might have a chance if large parts of the military switched sides, but what kind of scenario are we talking about here anyway ?

I simply can't see a democratically elected US government turn on its own citizens out of the blue. For what reason ?
Give me a realistic scenario, and we'll talk.
im gonna make a thread about this specifically, cause this is the second thread that this has happened in.
gimme a minute and ill have it up.
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7268|Cologne, Germany

FEOS wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

FEOS wrote:


Changes in technology do not equate to changes in principle.
oh really ? What do you think your chances would be in a rebellion that featured citizens with handguns and a couple of rifles against a professional army with jets, helicopters, tanks, artillery and the like ?

The idea that an armed population would be able to rise up against a tyrannical government was maybe realistic during a time when there was little difference in the way civilians and government forces were armed. But today ?

After a week, the civilians would run out of ammunition, and then, what ?

The idea that a modern, post-WWII, democratically elected western government could one day turn into a tyrannical, fascist dicatorship is absurd.
I mean, after what europe and the rest of the world had to endure during WWII, do you really think it could happen again ?
You didn't at all counter my point. Changes in technology do not equate to changes in principle.

As far as the US goes, the Constitution would have to be completely thrown out for your scenario to occur, so the comparison is moot.
what kind of principle are we talking about ?
B.Schuss
I'm back, baby... ( sort of )
+664|7268|Cologne, Germany

RAIMIUS wrote:

The military, law enforcement, and the National Guard are all government agencies.  The founding fathers were trying to limit the government to specific uses and abilities.  It makes no sense that they would give power to the government to restrict it.

The right to keep and bear arms is a right of "the people."  The phrase "the people" is used elsewhere in the Constitution and Bill of Rights to denote the general population.  Nowhere is "the people" tied to a narrower group.
well, if the government doesn't have that power, how come that there is already gun control legislation in place ? Or are you denying that?
This isn't about if the government can enact gun control legislation, only about to what extent it may do so without violating the 2nd amendment.
I must admit, though, the US law about the militias is news to me. How come that is never mentioned in the debates ? Sounds like it would serve as a very good argument for gun lobbyists. or maybe it doesn't ?

RAIMIUS wrote:

A hangun is "perfectly useless as a military weapon"...?  That's news to me.  Perhaps I should tell my commanding officer that.  The higher-ups must have been operating under false assumptions for the last 200+ years! /sarcasm
There is a reason the military issues hundreds of thousands of M9 pistols...
those are issued as sidearms, or secondary weapons, in the case of officers as a historic tribute to the higher rank they hold. When I said "perfectly useless as a military weapon" I was simply refering to the fact that you'd be in big trouble if you had to fight a war with sidearms only. You'd be bombed into oblivion within seconds, probably.

Let's put it this way: if the intention of gun lobbyists was to ensure that the members of the militia are prepared for a future conflict by providing them with assault rifles, locked away in a safe, but ready to use if the need arises, I'd have nothing against that. Switzerland has been doing that for ages, and those weapons are almost never touched except for training purposes.

But we are not talking about really providing assault rifles for the militia, or are we ? This is about handguns. Self-defense weaponry, really.

So the question remains: what kinds of weapons does the 2nd amendment cover, and for what purpose ?

Based on the information that I have now received from RAIMIUS, I am all the more convinced that the 2nd amendment is about allowing the militia to sufficiently prepare themselves for a future conflict according to their designated role, and not about providing handguns for self defense for all americans. The swiss model, if you will.
Parker
isteal
+1,452|6821|The Gem Saloon

B.Schuss wrote:

Based on the information that I have now received from RAIMIUS, I am all the more convinced that the 2nd amendment is about allowing the militia to sufficiently prepare themselves for a future conflict according to their designated role, and not about providing handguns for self defense for all americans.
there arent any true militias here anymore....at least not in the terms you are thinking.

what we now call militias are people that own A LOT of land, have minimal education, and have a fucking ton of firearms/destructive devices.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6956|Global Command

Parker wrote:

B.Schuss wrote:

Based on the information that I have now received from RAIMIUS, I am all the more convinced that the 2nd amendment is about allowing the militia to sufficiently prepare themselves for a future conflict according to their designated role, and not about providing handguns for self defense for all americans.
there arent any true militias here anymore....at least not in the terms you are thinking.

what we now call militias are people that own A LOT of land, have minimal education, and have a fucking ton of firearms/destructive devices.
Not true. There are organized groups.

Mostly useless, but they exist.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard