Thread: What does the Second Amendment mean to you?

In my mind it means the citizens should be able to own guns to be able to form a militia incase we have to defend our selves from out gov't. In this case should also be capable of buying weapons with proper licenses that can compete against out military incase our gov't turns them on us. It is to protect us from tyrants period. How can we protect out selves with a bolt action gun? or even a semi auto? Now this is worst case scenarios countries divided as citizens are at war.

My meaning is you touch my damn gun you may leave with it, but after you check out of the hospital and arrest me.

Originally Posted by jay_steel

In my mind it means the citizens should be able to own guns to be able to form a militia incase we have to defend our selves from out gov't. In this case should also be capable of buying weapons with proper licenses that can compete against out military incase our gov't turns them on us. It is to protect us from tyrants period. How can we protect out selves with a bolt action gun? or even a semi auto? Now this is worst case scenarios countries divided as citizens are at war.

My meaning is you touch my damn gun you may leave with it, but after you check out of the hospital and arrest me.

Not trying to be a smart ass, but do you really believe you have a chance against the United States Military? If that's what it came to?

Also, our government has nuclear and biological weapons, which are also arms. Should we have access to them as well?

We have the right to collectively possess arms in group settings (militia) and individually possess them. I imagine they thought we should have access to an equivalent rifle that the general solider in the military uses. Today that would be the M-16.

I want to shoot Azza in the ass with my shotgun !

Originally Posted by hoyle21

Not trying to be a smart ass, but do you really believe you have a chance against the United States Military? If that's what it came to?

Also, our government has nuclear and biological weapons, which are also arms. Should we have access to them as well?

we do have access, you can get the beans to make ricen. Also bioligical weapons are against geneva convention treaties. jus sayn

This is a subject that has way more mystery than necessary. A tiny amount of research clears up the writing style and intent. The first part "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a justification clause. It's an explanation of why the right exists. Legally, the right given is not contingent on being used in the context of the justification clause(Columbia v. Heller). This type of clause was common at the time, so the founding fathers did not expect that one day this would seem unclear. http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

The wikipedia page actually covers most of this too. Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Also, the version ratified by Jefferson and the states didn't not include the comma in "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I believe we should be able to own military rifles. No, we couldn't defeat the US military with just that but it makes it much harder. It's doubtful they would use WMDs, mainly because they'd be destroying their own country. It would probably cripple the economy to the point the federal government would be working against themselves.

Originally Posted by hoyle21

Not trying to be a smart ass, but do you really believe you have a chance against the United States Military? If that's what it came to?

Also, our government has nuclear and biological weapons, which are also arms. Should we have access to them as well?

One person doesn't have a chance against the US military. But everybody against the US military we would win.

Originally Posted by Bowden

How do these two parts of the Second Amendment relate to each other?
What do you think the intent of the founding fathers was when they wrote the Second Amendment into the Constitution?

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.



Amendment II

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.

words are always open to interpretation, always have been and always will be. in many ways the US Constitution is very vague but take just the world "arms" as an example. the weapons of the 1700's are nothing like what is around in 2012. technically "arms" fall into the broad category of weapons that a individual soldier would use in combat. so that could be anything from a pistol to a machine gun to a RPG, etc.

Originally Posted by hoyle21

Not trying to be a smart ass, but do you really believe you have a chance against the United States Military? If that's what it came to?

Also, our government has nuclear and biological weapons, which are also arms. Should we have access to them as well?

Tell that to the north vietnamese and afghan/taliban.....i bet they would say otherwise...."you cannot defeat an enemy that is willing to die for it's cause"...

Originally Posted by s2h

Tell that to the north vietnamese and afghan/taliban.....i bet they would say otherwise...."you cannot defeat an enemy that is willing to die for it's cause"...

Apples and Oranges

Originally Posted by hoyle21

Not trying to be a smart ass, but do you really believe you have a chance against the United States Military? If that's what it came to?

Also, our government has nuclear and biological weapons, which are also arms. Should we have access to them as well?

Problem #1: The U.S. military isn't a THING, it's a force made up of people. U.S. citizens to be exact. Quite a few of the members here used to be part of that force. You'd be hard pressed to get those citizens to go to war against the rest of the citizens of this country.

Problem #2: Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons aren't considered "arms".

Originally Posted by ALBOB

Problem #1: The U.S. military isn't a THING, it's a force made up of people. U.S. citizens to be exact. Quite a few of the members here used to be part of that force. You'd be hard pressed to get those citizens to go to war against the rest of the citizens of this country.

Problem #2: Nuclear, biological and chemical weapons aren't considered "arms".

I disagree. They would do what they are ordered to do.

What is the definition of "arms"?

Originally Posted by hoyle21

What is the definition of "arms"?

Two limbs that are attached to the human torso aka your upper body.
They feature elbows, forearms, shoulders, and fingers which allow you to type.

To provide the people with the ability to defend themselves against tyranny. Government has the propensity to become a master over it's citizenry, instead of the servant of the people.

George Washington once stated it quite clearly, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquent, it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master".

Originally Posted by hoyle21

Not trying to be a smart ass, but do you really believe you have a chance against the United States Military? If that's what it came to?

Fuck yeah I do. My friends and myself shoot atleast twice a week and contantly train for shit like that. Do I wanna fight the Military???? fuck no. Am I confident I could defend my family.....hell yeah.

Originally Posted by hoyle21

I disagree. They would do what they are ordered to do.

What is the definition of "arms"?

Disagree all you want. Have you ever been part of that force? I have, as have a few of the other members here. Curious? Take a poll here and see which prior service people here would have been willing to go to war against the general populous of the U.S.

Arms are generally considered weapons able to be carried into battle by a soldier.

Originally Posted by ALBOB

Disagree all you want. Have you ever been part of that force? I have, as have a few of the other members here. Curious? Take a poll here and see which prior service people here would have been willing to go to war against the general populous of the U.S.

Arms are generally considered weapons able to be carried into battle by a soldier.

I don't want generally considered, what's the definition?

I also don't think any of them want to go to war anywhere, but they would follow orders. They always have, always will.

Originally Posted by hoyle21

I don't want generally considered, what's the definition?

I also don't think any of them want to go to war anywhere, but they would follow orders. They always have, always will.

I agree with you. I respect them but won't trust them.

Originally Posted by hoyle21

I also don't think any of them want to go to war anywhere, but they would follow orders. They always have, always will.

Exactly why I need AR's with 30rd MAGS....

Originally Posted by hoyle21

I don't want generally considered, what's the definition?

I also don't think any of them want to go to war anywhere, but they would follow orders. They always have, always will.

I want. I want. I want. If that's what you want, quit crying about it and go find it. I can find any number of definitions and post the one that supports my opinion. What good would that do?

What do you base your opinion of the troops on? You make pretty big, absolute statements yet haven't provided anything to support your claim.

Originally Posted by ALBOB

I want. I want. I want. If that's what you want, quit crying about it and go find it. I can find any number of definitions and post the one that supports my opinion. What good would that do?

What do you base your opinion of the troops on? You make pretty big, absolute statements yet haven't provided anything to support your claim.

I have numerous friends/family in all branches of the military. I have friends in 101st and 82nd. Family members fought in Fallujah. They all follow orders, it's what keeps them alive.

Also, history shows they will open fire when ordered to do so. We know the national guard will.

Originally Posted by hoyle21

Not trying to be a smart ass, but do you really believe you have a chance against the United States Military? If that's what it came to?

Also, our government has nuclear and biological weapons, which are also arms. Should we have access to them as well?

We have no chance period, but i would rather die on my feet then live on my knees.