Let us not also forget the fact that if it ever came to it where the People of this country were sick of the government's oppression and launched a revolution, I have no doubt in my mind that as much as 50% of the military in this country would side with them.
Really? Can't win against a very well armed military? Look at the Viet Cong. They beat the U.S. military's full force. To get through body armor just replace the lead bullet with say steel for example.
you're talking about soft body armor you add in a rifle plate like military and swat have you'll need something close to a cannon to make it through not saying the people cannot win against the modern us military eventually they may grow tired of fighting and surrender
You are kind of naive don’t you think. One person that planned to topple the local government could with out too much trouble. All it would take is to kill the 30% of the elected officials or their family, of a city or county and the executive (mayor).
Someone was to then leave a statement as to why s/he did what s/he did. If it was because the government policies or the cops that hurt the people. The policies would change. Cops would be held accountable for putting people into the hospital without a hell of a good reason for hurting someone.
I think a little history lesson is in order, governments can still be defeated by people with guns, see Afganistan, the russians were defeated by tribesmen with simple guns, they killed a ruskie took his ak and then proceeded to kill more. So yes the people can rebel against the government , it is just that it is more difficult and is done differently today, but yes the people can get their guns and kick the arrogant bastards out on their ears.
@Ben85paintball Neither does armed rebellions work all the time. But peaceful means seams to have worked overall better during the recent years.
However you have completely misunderstood what i said. If you want to stop tyrants and such you should do something before they get into power. Relying on militia to handle things is like giving them handicap from the getgo.
And no... militia dont help against oppressive governments (Guns dont mean shit against Fox-News for example)
@Ben85paintball That has happened even if the people did not have weapons to start with or indeed at all. Also i am not saying it does not work. I am saying its stupid, Its slow and its retarded. It is a million times better to act before your completely raped. If your forced to have a rebellion you have done to little to late and you got none else to blame but yourself for letting them take control.
@Ben85paintball "Oh did you see what they did? I bet they would not dare do that if we were stronger! Herp de derp!"
That is the most retarded reasoning iv ever heard of to be honest and i really dont think it actually works. However that is what they thought was the best option when creating the second amendment. If you ask me its better to find a way to deal with oppressive governments BEFORE they have already screwed you.
He forgot to mention the part of the 2nd amendment that states "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" He dances around the notion that people should only be allowed hunting rifles and pistols
...it IS my CIVIL RIGHT- Which is NATURAL sans even the Constitution- the Constitution merely states that this RIGHT...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON!! So! ALL YOU GODDAMN NAZIs GO BACK TO EURASIA WHERE YOUR SOCIALIST POLITICS FIRST CAME!! And as for "rebelling" and the 'impossibility' for such... There are MILLIONS of "us". As for dying: Today is a fine day in which for a man to die! A noble death is a good death- For I die fighting the NAZIs from where my father had left off...
An important point that Mr Whitehead misses in this video is that in the event of a revolt against government tyranny, the jackbooted government agents are people with families of their own. Imagine if many of these men were met with armed citizens who could potentially kill one or more of these agents each time the government ordered them to attack one of their fellow citizens. It would not take very long before many of these agents started to re-think their positions.
The second ammendment is a right given to the people in the constitution they created. This constitution then is set to guide the government which constantly tries to change it because its bad for bussiness; perhaps more commonly because it can be altered to keep corruption in power. Liberals, conservatives, in the end its just the person who proposes the bill. Armorment has been a natural right since the caveman age, the notion that my own government would see this as unjust offends me. Oppose.
ACLU: protecting the liberities they agree with and taking liberties from those they do not. Fascism is fascism whether it parades itself as Nazi, communist, liberal, or conservative. True liberty is you have the right to smoke to crack, eat yourself into a coma, use tobacco, drink alcohol and I have the right to bear no responsibility for your heatlh care, housing, "poor uprbringing" etc... Rather than those with having an obligation to those without and them having no obligation back.
I understand your view on the state of ordinance available to national and state sanctioned militia, yet I truly believe that you woefully underestimate the cunning and effective resistance of the guerilla style of warfare. Ingenuity is the mother of invention, and not all of us will lay down and lick our nuts. Some of us have solid reasons to resist, and see no other method. Humans are notorious for adapting to extreme conditions and prevailing... not all of us are spineless Mr. W.
The American people could easily rebel... we have the most advance military in the world yet and bunch of rice farmers and men with beards and turbans have stopped our military dead in tracks with a few ak 47s and rpgs...
@jsbobo36 Clueless. US military was not stopped, rather they were modestly harassed to mildly annoyed by illegal combatants who were willing to violate every law and custom of war.
Keep in mind that the US military uses weapons manufactured in the US. Rebellion with good cause would prevent those superior weapons from being manufactured, repaired, supplied, or based in the US.
@DonMeaker illegal combatants ? lol what a joke that is so that would mean the militias during the revolutionary war were "illegal combatants" what a ridiculous term that is when people are dropping bombs on you and kicking down your doors rounding people up how can you be considered and illegal combatant defending your rights as a human being that doesn't even have any logic attached to it none of the "insurgents" are terrorists their pissed of civilians with guns
@jsbobo36 Wrong bucko. First, Geneva Conventions happened AFTER revolutionary war. Second, US militia wore uniforms, fought as part of their militia, units that they were originally compelled to join by British law. Third, after the Geneva convention, fighters were required to wear uniforms "identifiable at a distance" to be legal combatants, and when they didn't, they were illegal combatants. There are other errors in your post, too. Shame on you.
@DonMeaker Regarding the "superior weapons" comment, I'd sooner take an AK-47 over an M16/M4, they're far more rugged, more reliable, can fire underwater and full of sand or mud, the 7.62x39 has superior penetration over the .223 Remington, and the accuracy is comparable at 100 yards.
So which weapon is "superior" is entirely subjective.
@frankfritter35 Please note "I shoot pistol rounds" is different than "I shoot pistols". I shoot a 400 m steel target with a .45 Colt lever action carbine. I can ring them often, not always, but after I get the range, fairly consistently. If I was to attempt to shoot one of my pistols at 400 m, for score, I would use my XP-100 in 7mm bench rest. It has a muzzle velocity about the same as a .30 Krag from a prone position braced against my leg. The 7mm BR takes down steel rams at 200m.
I think he is wrong the American people could rebel granted they would be out armed but their are far more Americans with guns than military personal ,by about 150 to1 and there would be other factors involved not all the military would be compliant in attacking their own homeland, or complacent in killing their own family and friends. I think a good portion of the military would rebel against such an order like the oath keepers after Katrina hit new Orleans.
Finally glad that this issue has been settled for good, makes me smile that no gun grabber can ever try to use an incorrect interpretation of the 2nd amendment to try to restrict our freedoms. NRA-ILA will relentlessly oppose any attempt to restrict freedom, just as the democrats try to remove freedom.
I was under the immpression (obviously mistaken) that a state law couldn't under any circumstance interfer with ones constitutional rights? Isn't bad enough the government has already over stepped their bounds by eliminating the Bill Of Rights with the Patriot Act?
Excuse my friend kenfo0, he’s been trolling on the internet for years now, so he’s had plenty of practice. Although he’s a bitter xenophobic and homophobic man with an abrasive personality, he’s mostly harmless. He’s like the village idiot of Youtube. It’s best to ignore him and he’ll either get bored and go away or become frustrated and make more of a fool of himself.
Beware poor spelling, punctuation and grammar are his favorite foods.
@yakult244 It is not off topic at all. It is clear now that you are simply a leftist whiner who thinks being a lazy,pedantic contrarian is the height of genius. It is not. It is arrogant, cowardly stupidity. Like commenting about America while claiming you live in Japan or Canada. The ACLU has little to do with civil liberties and has never acted on behalf of citizens' concerns about the 2nd Amendment. Their "interpretation" of the 2nd Amend is contrary to all evidence. Run along now...
@yak The ACLU are liars who claim to fight for Constitutional rights, but they only do so in attacking previously core American values. For example, they are quite loud about the 1st Amend when someone wants to distribute porn in libraries, but completely silent when a school says children cannot pray. You have an internet connection....take 10 minutes and research the ACLU and the 2nd Amendment. Their views are not supported by history or the writings of the Founders or even SCOTUS rulings.
@yakult244 Let me be clear, since you can't be: the ACLU, which claims to uphold the intent of the Constitution, does not such thing. They are a far left activist group that uses the courts to try to subvert the will of the People. They have NEVER advocated for the 2nd Amendment, and use a pathetically uneducated, patently false stance on it.The NRA does NOT advocate the 2nd Amendment as written. I can easily back either statement up, if your brain is not up to the simple exercise.
@yakult244 no, in what court case did the ACLU fight illegal gun legislation pro bono, as they do whenever they wish to promote a socialist viewpoint? cat got your tongue?
Forget the "one man rebellion" vs a Swat Team. THAT is a rediculous argument.
80 million civilian gun owners in the states. If 10% of current ownership alone fought, that is an army of 8 million. Tanks and airplanes need fuel. Good luck getting it around with just a tenth sized force of 8 million people shooting convoys. And for every casualty, you create another opposition.
That is an insurgency you cannot win against; people not fighting just because local warlord says so; for freedom.
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. OK it says A well regulated Militia is necessary for security of a free state. Then there is a COMMA followed by the right of people (us) to keep AND bear arms shall not be infringed. Basically it says that the Gov or a militia cannot deny a person of there right to own a firearm. Thats how I see it.
@Metallica3636 Everyone reads that differently. Its just to vague to say "aha! this is how it is!" In fact there has been court rulings both for and against the idea of this applying to normal people.
@Dasmaster1 blow it out your ass, you moron. you don't even live in America, so butt out, nancy. The SCOTUS has ruled on several occasions the 2nd Amendment refers to an individual right. No educated person can come to a different explanation, explaining your differing.
The reason why America became free is because in 1775 is because there was no gap between the arms that the people could own and the tyrants over them.
The difference between the American Farmer and and European Serf is that American Farmers had guns and could not be subdued.
@tsafa1 The reason America became successful is because of 2 world wars. The first you got wealthy the second you got wealthy and was about the only country whos infrastructure was not damaged. Since that point your "stolen" golden age has trickled down and your unable to cope with the fact that you can no longer live "The amarican dream" any more. Basically the sugar rush has gone away and now things are back to normal.
@Dasmaster1 The two world wars do no explain the successful quest for American Independence that began in 1775. Americans took their independence by force. After the Americans won the war for Independence Great Britain strictly enforced the disarmament of India, so that they would not loose that colony too. BTW... despite what you might think most Americans are doing quite will today. Far better then most people in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia. No riots in the streets here.
Oh geez. This guy just skewing the image. The second amendment says nothing about having a gun to protect your house. It deals explicit with protecting your nation against foreign invaders and oppression from the government.
Both of those are currently absurd concepts too.
So to sum it up 2nd amendment dont give you right to own a gun to protect your house. Id say its actually pretty much the opposite in a sense.
@Crow762 You think that is something new... really now there has been a fierce debate how to translate that part and no side has made any major breakthrough to be honest.
@Dasmaster1 Well the courts recently verified that in Mcdonald vs Chicago that the right to bear arms is for the people and that the states don't have the right to infringe it.
@Crow762 Keyword is "recently"... In a few years using the history of this, the court will probably rule against. All in all it just proves that the issue is up in the air and that the second amendment is pretty poorly written.
@Dasmaster1 Why are you against guns? Is it because there are more smarter liberals than republicans in the media that you think if you become a liberal you are automatically smarter and a fucking know-it-all? Look up gun control statistics, how U.K. violence went up after handgun ban, ect. and if you still believe in gun control you are one closed minded fuck.
@Crow762 The reason why I believe in gun control is because I live in a country where we don't fear getting shoot in the streets. Even if we allow gun ownership pretty much no one gets them because they are afraid.
And that is what i am against the most. People who wants guns to protect themselves because they are afraid. Be it for the government or villains but the end result is just the same. Just cowardly idiots who contribute to the problem.
@Das You're a coward and an idiot. Your argument NECESSITATES your belief police and Service members are "frightened cowardly idiots" because they carry firearms. Every man has NOT ONLY the God-given right to defend himself from ANY threat, but also the God-issued IMPERATIVE to do so. You are simply a socialist who believes the govt is your mother/father. It is frightening. You are brain-washed like a N.Korean...with obama's election, you likely say "dear leader" as well.
@kenfo0 You seam to misunderstand my character. Oh what a surprise because you people NEVER jump to any conclusions. RIIIGHT...
If i sat in a room with Hitler, Stalin and Obama and i had a gun with 2 bullets.... I would probably shoot Obama twice for being a hypocritical pancy. Also the government is not my parents. Its my servant. Its one and only reason for existence is to make life better for its people. That includes making sure they dont shoot each other.
@Dasmaster1 You have changed nothing with your bizarre, bullshit-filled post. The govt works for you, does it? What an assclown you are. Govts are SUPPOSED to do what is in the best interests of MOST of it's citizens. They do not. They serve the richest and if some crumbs fall to the peasants, that's super. Doesn't matter what country you are in. Grow up, nancy. Go live in china and peddle your "gun control is good" faggotry.
@kenfo0 Since when did i ever say anything about changing your opinion. Your a complete fucktard. I got better things to do today like watching paint dry.
You seam to think every country in the world is as corrupted as your beloved USA though which is kinda sad. I would say USA is the backwaters of the "modern world" and soon to be a coast to coast shopping mall it seams.
The Swedish government does its job decently and im generally happy with it. So is many other Europeans about there gov's.
@Das You don't speak English well. You should stick to your country's native lang: Nazi. Is it any wonder to people that a sycophantic, nazi-loving, uneducated euro-fag is a gun-grabber? 1 of the 1st things the nazis did was outlaw private gun ownership, so people couldn't stop their doors from being kicked in at night by the gestapo. This moron Dasgayboy has not one historical document, writing of the Founding Fathers, or even a basic understanding of the BoR upon which to base her argument.
@kenfo0 P.S I dont see myself as a Liberal neither do i give a damn about them. I got my own opinions and not simply borrowing someone else's like... some other people here seam to do.
@Dasmaster1 PS, you socialist euro-fag: take your nonsense somewhere else. You have no understanding of this subject matter, nor does anyone here want to hear your uneducated, whiny leftist garbage.
@kenfo0 Oh my~ Got quite the teenager here dont we.
But oh, im so uneducated aint i? Cant spell, have not read your beloved independence toilet paper and worst of all.. you say im a "leftist"... errr.... wtf is that?
To be honest i dont give a flying pink unicorn about you so shoo. Your just a troll trying to attack me instead of my arguments. Good luck with that while i undermine your entire world-view.
@Dasmaster1 your first "sentence" is not a sentence, moron. You are uneducated. You write like a moron. You make bullshit claims like "ewe doughnt spell gud", but can't back it up. YOU are the moron and troll. Your views are those of a stupid and insolent child. Your "understanding" of the 2nd Amendment flies in the face of history, the writings of the Founding Fathers and of SCOTUS rulings for 250 yrs. You are a stupid euro-fag with an out of control ego. Nothing more.
@kenfo0 *yawns* how does anything about how i spell and who watch my videos got to do with this. Your some pathetic slush scraped from the bottom of a shit barrel and you try to tell me that im a stupid "euro-fag".
Seriously half of your messages are made up of words you pulled out your arse and you say that i cant spell. What a parody you are.
My understanding is based on your misunderstanding. I dont need to know jack shit about it to notice that you dont know anything either.
@Dasmaster1 scumbag: My understanding of the 2nd Amendment is COMPLETELY in line with the Founders and history. Yours is moronic TRIPE pushed by leftists everywhere. Case closed. You have failed to make or hold a single point. Now run along you nazi fag. Go tell your fairy tales to other uneducated socialists.
@kenfo0 Errr.. "failed to make hold".... you have failed to even mention anything about it or addressing anything iv said. In fact nothing in pretty much any of your post even remotely suggest you were arguing about the right to carry guns.
You did not just miss the ball. You missed to pick up the bat and missed to take off the seatbelt and is currently stuck in the parking lot outside the stadium... Your a true failure like others can just dream of.
@Dasmaster1 I made the clear point that the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY not only regards PERSONAL ownership of weapons, but MILITARY GRADE weapons WITHOUT INFRINGEMENT. You, being a stupid, uneducated, arrogant, socialist jackass, stated on this page "tha sekind uhmendmint meens maulishaz kan hav gunz". You have failed miserably, and now spend your time prattling, lying and spamming. You are a pathetic loser.
@kenfo0 .... Ok where in the 2nd Amendment does it "Clearly" say you can have military grade weaponry? In fact how can you even claim that when the sentence is a continuation of the first which is regarding the militia...
You are not a militia so your "right" to carry arms is just a pipe dream. Perhaps you should learn your own damn language instead of bitching at me who just dont care and got a reason to care in the first place.
@Dasmaster1 NOW the stupid asshole (that's you) asks a question. At the time of the writing of the Constitution PRIVATE CITIZENS owned ARMED SHIPS, CANNON, BLACK POWDER and STATE OF THE ART RIFLES. This is KNOWN FACT, not leftist conjecture concerning commas. NEXT, ASSHOLE, EVERYTHING mentioned in the BoR are PERSONAL, NOT State rights, you FUCKING MORON. NOWHERE in the BoR are States rights spoken. NOT ONCE. WHAT NOW, you STUPID ASSHOLE? FACTS just slapped you in the face AGAIN.
@kenfo0 .... Well if you so much like those crappy muskets then why dont you go ahead and buy them. In fact people do own black powder cannons on ships too so quit your bitching. And just because they were "state of the art" back then does not mean you should have a nuke in your basement, an M1A5 in your garage and a jump jet in your lawn.
It just meant the guns back then were crap and it was just a small step up from using the stick on the ground.
@Dasmaster1 awww....now the spamming pussy has moved from "you can't own gunz" which is proven and patently false, to "ewe kaint hav nukes". Just shut the fuck up you diarrhea-mouthed socialist retard. You were just ABUSED with a factual post, so you think spamming nonsense will confuse the issue. Few are as stupid as you, fag.
@kenfo0 I knew you were going to be caught up on the Nuke. In fact its not a weapon you retard its an explosive device.
Also im curious how you put in all the swear words... Do you first write a sentence and then decide its to good and start adding random words here and there in caps?
In the end its useless you have not proven anything to anyone so stop beating around the bush and actually do something for once... I mean i have been waiting for weeks or something for you to say something......
@Dasmaster1 You failed. You have not posted a single fact. You have failed MISERABLY to mount a factual, logical, historical argument. I have embarrassed you badly, yet you continue with your stupid spam. Every subsequent post from you will now be deleted without being read. You are an arrogantly stupid, loud-mouthed loser. PATHETIC!
@kenfo0 Well bend you over a fence and let a bull have its way with you. Your not in fucking usa pal. Whatever there court says i dont give a fuck about. Especially since they are basically just going back on an earlier court ruling AGAIN. This has gone on for AGES.
If you dont even know this then trying to discuss this with you is completly null and void. Were not on the same page or on the same book.
I have supplied plenty of facts to other people but i dont care enough about you to bother..
Ignore my friend kenfo0, he’s been trolling on the internet for years now, so he’s had plenty of practice. Although he’s a bitter xenophobic and homophobic man with an abrasive personality, he’s mostly harmless. He’s like the village idiot of Youtube. It’s best to ignore him and he’ll either get bored and go away or become frustrated and make more of a fool of himself.
Beware poor spelling, punctuation and grammar are his favorite foods.
@Dasmaster1 WRONG FAGGOT. The supreme court of the US agrees with me, not you. You are a PATHETIC failure. You can't even read plain English, faggot. You have posted NOT ONE FACT. What a scummy loser you are!
@Vovk3 Well done troll. You're self-discovery has been successful. Now you have to change. As for me, I posted easily researched facts. OUCH. that had to hurt. buy-bye sissy.
I hope you understand that I wasn't being a troll. I was refering to the guy you called a troll. That's why I said "Trolls will be trolls, will be trolls". As for the fact that you just insulted me, well, that was unnecessary.
@Vovk3 Then I apologize. I get called a troll at least once a day when someone realizes they have no facts to back their position. I have had to beat down one retard after another on the issue of a rather clear policy, law and history regarding weapons ownership in the US. When it's go time, I fight. It's what I do. Your comment was to me, so I naturally assumed you meant me. Best wishes.
@kenfo0 Not a worry. The masses are ignorant and will jump to conclusions and shoddily built defenses when they feel threatened or scared. You need not fear these people, like your attitude shows. And best wishes to you as well!
@Dasmaster1 AGAIN, you FUCKING STUPID LOSER, THE SUPREME COURT has, EVEN LAST YEAR, affirmed the 2nd Amendment relates to INDIVIDUAL WEAPONS' OWNERSHIP RIGHTS, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE. But the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't understand English either, right YOU FUCKING MORON. Perhaps you should SHUT YOUR IGNORANT, MONKEY ASS and learn English, so you can read all the myriad of documents supporting my view. You have "eyem stoopid an kant reed gud". Fucking LOSER.
@kenfo0 "Supreme court this and supreme court that" So bloody what? How many times has they ruled against it i wonder? They change sides every few years if you have not noticed.
You have not even learnt how to turn off the bloody caps lock so i dont think your more educated then the average Swedish "special class" teenager. Your arguments are none existent. You rely on yelling and calling people names.
In other words your pathetic and its so fun to tease you~
@Dasmaster1 How many times has they ruled against it i wonder? They change sides every few years if you have not noticed."->> WRONG. NOT ONCE, FAGGOT. STILL no facts, pussy? Why so many posts? No boyfriends around for nut-juggling, you loser? You have yet to post ONE FACT. You simply whine "yer dumm an tha gubmintz meye daddy an eye kaint reed plane english.". STFU, scummy loser.
@Cozmolyne That is a logical fallacy. If you actually read the quote you will see it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the second amendment. It is simply an analyse of peoples mentality. So what is your point?
No, it does have something to do with the 2nd Amendment. It shows the mindset of the people who created our Constitution and how they believed that EVERY law-abiding citizen has the right to armament in times of violence or in times of peace, when their home is being invaded by madmen or their country is being invaded by madmen.
@Cozmolyne You are completely wrong. In politics people use another language then they do in public. They use that language to eliminate double meanings in words such as the one you pointed out. And they do this so that misunderstandings and misinterpretations would not occur.
If you do not know about the political language dont bother trying to decipher it.
How is this so hard for you to understand? "One" refers to an INDIVIDUAL so if Thomas Jefferson believe the 2nd Amendment is a collective right then he would not have used that word. Would you like another example? Here's an excerpt taken from an article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette written in 1789, the same year of the ratification of the Constitution: "… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
@Cozmolyne One does not refer to an "Individual". It is purely context based and can mean a bunch of things depending on what was before it. However that is kind of irrelevant since "one" is not used in the 2nd amendment.
"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."
OK then. What do you think he was referring to when he said "one"? It doesn't matter if it's not in the 2nd Amendment. Thomas Jefferson was key to creating the Constitution, that quote obviously shows he believed the right to keep and bear arms was obviously an individual right.
@Cozmolyne I dont know... Its not like i was paying you much attention since you dont seam to know what your talking about. And to be honest what Thomas Jefferson thought is also quite irrelevant since he was not the sole creator of the document (and even if he was there are innumerable reasons why he might have decided something he does not fully support).
You will make no progress beating around the bush like that...
Exactly, you don't know because there's nothing else he could've been referring to. Nice backpedal insult by the way. Oh, and it's irrelevant what Thomas Jefferson thought? Funny because 2nd Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights and ALL the Anti-Federalists demanded the Bill of Rights be put in the Constitution and Thomas Jefferson was an Anti-Federalist. (continued)
If Jefferson believed differently than the other Anti-Federalists, albeit the 2nd Amendment being a individual right or not (yet evidence shows he believed it was an individual right), then there would've been a problem. Surprise, Jefferson didn't have a problem with the other Anti-Federalists because they all believed the same thing and what they believed was that the 2nd Amendment was a individual right.
@Cozmolyne Well let me clarify. I am from Sweden thus have no knowledge about your legal documents and your political figures. I do know a bit about the second amendment (because you people cant seam to stop yapping about it).
In the end i dont know who Jefferson is and i dont care. And ones again im telling you that even IF he was a proponent of everyone and there dog having a gun does not mean he put that in an important legal document. (evidently he did not)
We keep on "yapping about it" because it's important. Thomas Jefferson and other of our Founding Fathers DID put it in a legal document: "...the right of the People to keep an bear arms, shall not be infringed".
@Cozmolyne As you so kindly pointed out with the three dots preceding the quote there are more to that sentence. Namely "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,". Now why is this important? Perhaps its because it specifies which group amongst the people receives this special protection.
Now how do we define Militia? As trained, disciplined and organised groups. Are the average household classified as this? No. Thus this special protection does not protect them
Nope, sorry. The 2nd Amendment gives the right to form a militia AND the right of individuals to keep armament and a militia is made up of CITIZENS. I gave you a quote from a newspaper article written in the same year as the Constitution and a quote from one of the key founders of the Bill of Rights. Would you like more quotes? I have more.
BTW, in America, a militiaman is ANYONE of the age of 18 or over that is legally allowed to own a gun.
@Cozmolyne Have you not yet realised that quotes and newspaper articles are meaningless... Want to know why? Because i can give you just as much quotes and news paper articles back.
That... and you are still ignoring words. It says "well regulated militia" not "militia". And i quote The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained". In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
Alright, find me ONE quote from our Founding Fathers or from a source written in the same time that says that says that the 2nd Amendment is NOT an individual right.
When you join a militia, you go through training. How do I know this? My father is a militiaman; I'm a member of his militia but am not considered a militiaman because I'M NOT 18 and therefor NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED TO OWN A GUN. My father is a CITIZEN so is EVERYONE ELSE in his militia.
@Cozmolyne So it all goes back to what i said before. The second amendment protects the right for a group within the people to own and carry guns. Meaning they are citizen yet part of the "professional" militia.
And no i will not waste my time finding a specific quote for you because im neither interested nor feel like were engaged in a serious discussion here.
If that where true, then the 2nd Amendment would've said "...the Right of the Militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Does it say that? Nope. The People are made up of CITIZENS. The 2nd Amendment give the right to ARMED CITIZENS to form a militia ALONG WITH the right of citizen to have arms. The People in contrast to the Militia.
If that where true, then the 2nd amendment would've said"being necessary to the security of a free State. (DOT, NEW SENTENCE!) The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Does it say that? Nope. That would make the ENTIRE FIRST PART of the second amendment completely REDUNDANT and quite STUPID."
The reason they put a comma there instead of a period is because they believed ARMED CITIZENS MAKE UP A MILITIA. What do you NOT understand? It is the right of THE PEOPLE (aka CITIZENS OF THE USA) of keep and bear arms and for those ARMED CITIZENS to form a militia.
@Cozmolyne Then they would not put "Well regulated" in front... But this is pointless... Did you know that "The right to bear arms" were proposed as part of the "Human right"? Probably not because it was struck down.
YOU GO THROUGH TRAINING IN A MILITIA. I KNOW THIS BECAUSE ME AND MY FATHER ARE IN A MILITIA. Oh, and who was the right to keep and bear arms stuck down by? The UN? The right to keep and bear arms is a CIVIL right, smart one.
@Cozmolyne I dont know because i did not read more about it. Just something that caught my eye when looking into the debates and such that resulted with the second amendment (and maybe more but as i said i really dont care).
OK, well, whatever it was you misread it. There's not one time when our Founding Fathers struck down the 2nd Amendment as a human right and even if they did, it's irrelevant because the right to keep and bear arms is a CIVIL right.
@Cozmolyne You dont seam to know what the second amendment actually is. Ones upon a time 12 delegates from 5 states came together to discuss inefficiencies of the Articles of Confederation. So they made a list of the problems and suggested ways to fix this.
After ALLOT of debating they decided on some stuff to amended in the constitution. Since it was the second time this happened it was called the second amendment. IE saying they struck down the 2nd amendment is moronic since its numerical.
That is the most moronic thing I think if ever heard. The 2nd Amendment is called the 2nd Amendment because it's the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution. There are 27 amendments in the Constitution.
@Cozmolyne Oh? Well sorry then but that just shows how little i care about this whole matter. Anyway it does not change the fact that when they struck down the idea of "The right to bear arms." as a basic human right there was no amendment. They were in a political debate.
Fun fact: They seriously thought that no military army could stand up to a militia. I wonder if they were wrong?
Why do you debate even if you have no idea what you're talking about? They never struck down the right to keep and bear arms, give me source that shows they did. Fun fact: apparently their militia was able to stand up to an entire military.
@Dasmaster1 Second amendment is not about protecting ourselves from foreign threats, it is for protecting ourselves from our own government should a tyrant ever take power. If you study history, you will see that tyrants can come to power in the blink of an eye. Look what happened in Europe and Asia. The second amendment keeps our government fearful of its people.
@Dasmaster1 Look at history. 6 million civilians killed by Hitler. 20 million civilians killed by Stalin in his own county. These are civilians who did not have guns to protect themselves. Stalin and Hitler are no exception, they are the norm. Hitler ran a capitalist economy and Stalin a Communist, tyrants will grow anywhere that people are not armed. The people who followed Stalin and Hitler where not monsters... just normal people doing what their govt told them to do... KILL. This is reality
@tsafa1 Again if you think that guns would help your sadly mistaken. As you said the people who followed Stalin and Hitler where people. In fact Hitler was loved by his people for his work in returning Germany from the shitter after first world war. Even if they had guns they would just protect him. Anyway guns just get people killed on both sides. That is why you should find other ways to prevent them from coming to power in the first place.
"Do American Citizens Have a Right to Own a Gun?" That's the stupidest, most ridiculous question ever asked! Free citizens, 18-80 (the militia), should be armed to the teeth! However, the subjects of a government (slaves), should never be armed! Are we subjects or citizens? Free or slave? Government takes care of its subjects. Citizens take care of themselves. There's no in between. The last I heard, the US is populated by citizens.
Here is the sad thing about guns and cars. Guns in nuts hands kill people tragically. Cars in nuts hands kill people tragically. Funny that when a nut uses a car to kill people, gun controllers say NOTHING. Like so what if some loved one dies by the means of a car. But if they use a gun, OH MY GOD, IT IS THE END OF CIVILAVATION..
As Major Dad said the to the female reported. I’m gong on peace maneuvers. She said war maneuvers. He said, attack me. She said, no, to attack a highly trained killer would be stupid. Then you will not attack, he ask. That’s right, she said. That why I’m on peace maneuvers.
Actually I live in Canada so I do have a chance since I don't live under the states law. If your smart and actually have a decent plan you could defend yourself.
@MrSPAX7 really? look at the men and women in afghanistan proudly fighting for what they believe in... american army would be desimated by a massive rebellion
@zvz2ezzvz You clearly misunderstand... and I dont believe for a second that Al Queda ever threatened to take our freedoms away. Hitler was almost capable of that.... the British army of 1700's, 1800's were capable of it. I believe that there is no rah rah sis boom bah in Afghanistan. It is not a true war theater and there is no front line. Front lines are a thing of the past. Iraq was started on a premise of a LIE just likeVietNam was started by the gulf of tomkin incident that was a lie 2
@MrSPAX7 i think you'll find he would number 1 the american people have beaten a well trained army before, the britsh, second the us army is usless agianst the one form of warfare these rebels would use gurrilla tactics and third the army is in iraq and afganistan and would need to be shiped home, its no use to have 100,000 men in another country. Also would the us army kill thousands of thier own people? the very people they are sworn to protect?
@TheAlexagius lol and when does the fantasy end? That end would come when the Military would show up.
Sorry but the days of 1776 are long over. Alexagius... this fanstasy is what the NRA is all about.. selling the dream that one day a US govt will go tyrannical and to pump up the 2nd ammendmant into an issue beyond itself. We don't need to worry about losing our 2nd ammend rights and I wish grown adults would stop talking about it like America will end up like Mad Max.
@MrSPAX7 but thats the point isn't it? if it ever gotto the state were it was needed it would be seriously fuckedup which i dought would happen but history has proved gurrilias beat proffesional armys, the veit cong in veitnam, the OSS in ww2
@TheAlexagius I dont think the typical American is willing to die for his or her country like the Vietnamese did or the Koreans in North Korea.... I dont think Americans these days would make good guerilla fighters because these last few generations had it too good.
@MrSPAX7 remember... Americans have no idea what life is like without freedom, they know nothing about oppression they know nothing about what it is like to live under a central govt that can do what it likes to it's people.
Americans don't know what freedom truly is like because they had it their whole lives. Ask a older German what life was like under the SS, look at the North Koreans who live to worship "dear Leader'" or the Chinese who can improve their quality of life but are watched
@MrSPAX7 How do you expect the few million in the military to defeat the tens of millions of armed citizens? Where would they base from? Where would they get their fuel and food from? Electricity? Water? It takes an immense infrastructure to keep the military running, to attack Americans would literally be biting the hand that feeds it. The 2cd amendment just through it's existence guards against the need for violent rebellion. Last time it was used the country was torn in two and nearly lost.
Let us not also forget the fact that if it ever came to it where the People of this country were sick of the government's oppression and launched a revolution, I have no doubt in my mind that as much as 50% of the military in this country would side with them.
kdbrown777 2 months ago
@kdbrown777 it would be more than that
TexasPatriotHuneke 2 months ago
A few SWAT teams or even a military force is a poor match for "a rifle behind every blade of grass".
huguenot67 3 months ago
John I hate to tell your wrong, Swat teams are not super human and armored can be stopped easy just ask the Afghans or mujahedin.
You are right the 2ND Amendment does give the individual the right to own a firearm. It is the only Amendment that mentions the People.
The right of the PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED..
Joe-R
Joe-R
JoeRitrovato 3 months ago
Want to know why no one attacks Switzerland?No strong army but every male must have a gun! That's gun control at its finest.
The peoples of the world being slaughtered by other groups can't even defend themselves because the government has taken away their guns.
3344utube 3 months ago
@3344utube
they could do even better by making it every citizen of sound mind and body regardless of gender
tubevideoguy762 3 months ago
Really? Can't win against a very well armed military? Look at the Viet Cong. They beat the U.S. military's full force. To get through body armor just replace the lead bullet with say steel for example.
drnogood59 4 months ago
@drnogood59
you're talking about soft body armor you add in a rifle plate like military and swat have you'll need something close to a cannon to make it through not saying the people cannot win against the modern us military eventually they may grow tired of fighting and surrender
tubevideoguy762 3 months ago
You are kind of naive don’t you think. One person that planned to topple the local government could with out too much trouble. All it would take is to kill the 30% of the elected officials or their family, of a city or county and the executive (mayor).
samten10a 4 months ago
Someone was to then leave a statement as to why s/he did what s/he did. If it was because the government policies or the cops that hurt the people. The policies would change. Cops would be held accountable for putting people into the hospital without a hell of a good reason for hurting someone.
samten10a 4 months ago
Do American Citizens Have a Right to Own a Gun?
Do I give a shit what they conclude?
Will I disarm if they say that I do not?
Nope.
dgl1962 4 months ago
I think a little history lesson is in order, governments can still be defeated by people with guns, see Afganistan, the russians were defeated by tribesmen with simple guns, they killed a ruskie took his ak and then proceeded to kill more. So yes the people can rebel against the government , it is just that it is more difficult and is done differently today, but yes the people can get their guns and kick the arrogant bastards out on their ears.
unclefixer 4 months ago
these guns in our homes kept the japanesse from invading our country. "Their would be a rifle behind each blade of grass."
1hogfan83 4 months ago
hell yeah you can well here Texas
1roiboi 4 months ago
@Ben85paintball Neither does armed rebellions work all the time. But peaceful means seams to have worked overall better during the recent years.
However you have completely misunderstood what i said. If you want to stop tyrants and such you should do something before they get into power. Relying on militia to handle things is like giving them handicap from the getgo.
And no... militia dont help against oppressive governments (Guns dont mean shit against Fox-News for example)
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
@Ben85paintball That has happened even if the people did not have weapons to start with or indeed at all. Also i am not saying it does not work. I am saying its stupid, Its slow and its retarded. It is a million times better to act before your completely raped. If your forced to have a rebellion you have done to little to late and you got none else to blame but yourself for letting them take control.
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
@Ben85paintball "Oh did you see what they did? I bet they would not dare do that if we were stronger! Herp de derp!"
That is the most retarded reasoning iv ever heard of to be honest and i really dont think it actually works. However that is what they thought was the best option when creating the second amendment. If you ask me its better to find a way to deal with oppressive governments BEFORE they have already screwed you.
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
He forgot to mention the part of the 2nd amendment that states "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" He dances around the notion that people should only be allowed hunting rifles and pistols
AlwaysReadyAK47 5 months ago
keep an BEAR!!! arms means I can walk in your lcal walmart with my gun on my side Dont like it?FUCKIN' LEAVE...GO to Mexico!!!!!
runninonempiy 5 months ago
...it IS my CIVIL RIGHT- Which is NATURAL sans even the Constitution- the Constitution merely states that this RIGHT...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED UPON!! So! ALL YOU GODDAMN NAZIs GO BACK TO EURASIA WHERE YOUR SOCIALIST POLITICS FIRST CAME!! And as for "rebelling" and the 'impossibility' for such... There are MILLIONS of "us". As for dying: Today is a fine day in which for a man to die! A noble death is a good death- For I die fighting the NAZIs from where my father had left off...
SittingMooseShaman 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
An important point that Mr Whitehead misses in this video is that in the event of a revolt against government tyranny, the jackbooted government agents are people with families of their own. Imagine if many of these men were met with armed citizens who could potentially kill one or more of these agents each time the government ordered them to attack one of their fellow citizens. It would not take very long before many of these agents started to re-think their positions.
sweetcara14 5 months ago
The second ammendment is a right given to the people in the constitution they created. This constitution then is set to guide the government which constantly tries to change it because its bad for bussiness; perhaps more commonly because it can be altered to keep corruption in power. Liberals, conservatives, in the end its just the person who proposes the bill. Armorment has been a natural right since the caveman age, the notion that my own government would see this as unjust offends me. Oppose.
Snapshot290 6 months ago
ACLU: protecting the liberities they agree with and taking liberties from those they do not. Fascism is fascism whether it parades itself as Nazi, communist, liberal, or conservative. True liberty is you have the right to smoke to crack, eat yourself into a coma, use tobacco, drink alcohol and I have the right to bear no responsibility for your heatlh care, housing, "poor uprbringing" etc... Rather than those with having an obligation to those without and them having no obligation back.
DrFrostyNutz 6 months ago
I understand your view on the state of ordinance available to national and state sanctioned militia, yet I truly believe that you woefully underestimate the cunning and effective resistance of the guerilla style of warfare. Ingenuity is the mother of invention, and not all of us will lay down and lick our nuts. Some of us have solid reasons to resist, and see no other method. Humans are notorious for adapting to extreme conditions and prevailing... not all of us are spineless Mr. W.
SuperPeoplearestupid 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
obamas gun grabbers, your tax dollars at workwww.youtube.com/watch?v=qON-Zemqs5U&feature=related
MrUSpatriot1776 8 months ago
The American people could easily rebel... we have the most advance military in the world yet and bunch of rice farmers and men with beards and turbans have stopped our military dead in tracks with a few ak 47s and rpgs...
jsbobo36 8 months ago
@jsbobo36 True, and lets not forget our national guardsmen.
They are loyal to the state, not the government.... Okay, that just sounded stupidly like communism.
What I mean't to say was that they are loyal unto themselves and their comrades, in other words, the People.
SamPD2 8 months ago
@jsbobo36 Clueless. US military was not stopped, rather they were modestly harassed to mildly annoyed by illegal combatants who were willing to violate every law and custom of war.
Keep in mind that the US military uses weapons manufactured in the US. Rebellion with good cause would prevent those superior weapons from being manufactured, repaired, supplied, or based in the US.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker illegal combatants ? lol what a joke that is so that would mean the militias during the revolutionary war were "illegal combatants" what a ridiculous term that is when people are dropping bombs on you and kicking down your doors rounding people up how can you be considered and illegal combatant defending your rights as a human being that doesn't even have any logic attached to it none of the "insurgents" are terrorists their pissed of civilians with guns
jsbobo36 8 months ago
@jsbobo36 Wrong bucko. First, Geneva Conventions happened AFTER revolutionary war. Second, US militia wore uniforms, fought as part of their militia, units that they were originally compelled to join by British law. Third, after the Geneva convention, fighters were required to wear uniforms "identifiable at a distance" to be legal combatants, and when they didn't, they were illegal combatants. There are other errors in your post, too. Shame on you.
DonMeaker 8 months ago
@DonMeaker Regarding the "superior weapons" comment, I'd sooner take an AK-47 over an M16/M4, they're far more rugged, more reliable, can fire underwater and full of sand or mud, the 7.62x39 has superior penetration over the .223 Remington, and the accuracy is comparable at 100 yards.
So which weapon is "superior" is entirely subjective.
NinjaRider777R 7 months ago
@NinjaRider777R Welcome to your AK. I expect my rifles to be accurate past 100 yards, in fact I shoot pistol rounds out to 400 meters
DonMeaker 7 months ago
@DonMeaker link a vid of this. I challenge you. A pistol at 400m? Suuuuuuuuuuure.
frankfritter35 7 months ago
@frankfritter35 Please note "I shoot pistol rounds" is different than "I shoot pistols". I shoot a 400 m steel target with a .45 Colt lever action carbine. I can ring them often, not always, but after I get the range, fairly consistently. If I was to attempt to shoot one of my pistols at 400 m, for score, I would use my XP-100 in 7mm bench rest. It has a muzzle velocity about the same as a .30 Krag from a prone position braced against my leg. The 7mm BR takes down steel rams at 200m.
DonMeaker 7 months ago
@DonMeaker ahhh crap, my bad. I mis understood. Appologies. That makes more sense. Again, sorry about that.
frankfritter35 7 months ago
@frankfritter35 Apology accepted, no harm done. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
DonMeaker 7 months ago
I think he is wrong the American people could rebel granted they would be out armed but their are far more Americans with guns than military personal ,by about 150 to1 and there would be other factors involved not all the military would be compliant in attacking their own homeland, or complacent in killing their own family and friends. I think a good portion of the military would rebel against such an order like the oath keepers after Katrina hit new Orleans.
ABGAN100 9 months ago
Finally glad that this issue has been settled for good, makes me smile that no gun grabber can ever try to use an incorrect interpretation of the 2nd amendment to try to restrict our freedoms. NRA-ILA will relentlessly oppose any attempt to restrict freedom, just as the democrats try to remove freedom.
Come and get em.
starknife 9 months ago
No freedom was ever won with a rose.
Vovk3 9 months ago
What is needed a a national right to carry law for all law abiding people
splinterman9 10 months ago
I was under the immpression (obviously mistaken) that a state law couldn't under any circumstance interfer with ones constitutional rights? Isn't bad enough the government has already over stepped their bounds by eliminating the Bill Of Rights with the Patriot Act?
outlawracer2229 10 months ago
the last set of checks and balances are the citizens of the united states of america.
Mrcherokee19 11 months ago
Excuse my friend kenfo0, he’s been trolling on the internet for years now, so he’s had plenty of practice. Although he’s a bitter xenophobic and homophobic man with an abrasive personality, he’s mostly harmless. He’s like the village idiot of Youtube. It’s best to ignore him and he’ll either get bored and go away or become frustrated and make more of a fool of himself.
Beware poor spelling, punctuation and grammar are his favorite foods.
Check his comment history or Google his name.
fr0gspwn 11 months ago
@yakult244 It is not off topic at all. It is clear now that you are simply a leftist whiner who thinks being a lazy,pedantic contrarian is the height of genius. It is not. It is arrogant, cowardly stupidity. Like commenting about America while claiming you live in Japan or Canada. The ACLU has little to do with civil liberties and has never acted on behalf of citizens' concerns about the 2nd Amendment. Their "interpretation" of the 2nd Amend is contrary to all evidence. Run along now...
kenfo0 11 months ago
@yak The ACLU are liars who claim to fight for Constitutional rights, but they only do so in attacking previously core American values. For example, they are quite loud about the 1st Amend when someone wants to distribute porn in libraries, but completely silent when a school says children cannot pray. You have an internet connection....take 10 minutes and research the ACLU and the 2nd Amendment. Their views are not supported by history or the writings of the Founders or even SCOTUS rulings.
kenfo0 11 months ago
@yakult244 Let me be clear, since you can't be: the ACLU, which claims to uphold the intent of the Constitution, does not such thing. They are a far left activist group that uses the courts to try to subvert the will of the People. They have NEVER advocated for the 2nd Amendment, and use a pathetically uneducated, patently false stance on it.The NRA does NOT advocate the 2nd Amendment as written. I can easily back either statement up, if your brain is not up to the simple exercise.
kenfo0 11 months ago
@yakult244 no, in what court case did the ACLU fight illegal gun legislation pro bono, as they do whenever they wish to promote a socialist viewpoint? cat got your tongue?
kenfo0 11 months ago
Forget the "one man rebellion" vs a Swat Team. THAT is a rediculous argument.
80 million civilian gun owners in the states. If 10% of current ownership alone fought, that is an army of 8 million. Tanks and airplanes need fuel. Good luck getting it around with just a tenth sized force of 8 million people shooting convoys. And for every casualty, you create another opposition.
That is an insurgency you cannot win against; people not fighting just because local warlord says so; for freedom.
Premier112 11 months ago
if we all have to go to washington to keep our right to bear arms i say we do it now so our children will not have to.
CREWDOG289 11 months ago
A government that fears its people will not abuse its people.
fishndoc11 11 months ago
swat directed by government the 2nd amendment is to protect against it in case it becomes over intrusive
romeoneverdies 1 year ago
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. OK it says A well regulated Militia is necessary for security of a free state. Then there is a COMMA followed by the right of people (us) to keep AND bear arms shall not be infringed. Basically it says that the Gov or a militia cannot deny a person of there right to own a firearm. Thats how I see it.
Metallica3636 1 year ago
@Metallica3636 and that is how it should be.
Shawn21769 1 year ago
@Metallica3636 Everyone reads that differently. Its just to vague to say "aha! this is how it is!" In fact there has been court rulings both for and against the idea of this applying to normal people.
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
@Dasmaster1 blow it out your ass, you moron. you don't even live in America, so butt out, nancy. The SCOTUS has ruled on several occasions the 2nd Amendment refers to an individual right. No educated person can come to a different explanation, explaining your differing.
kenfo0 11 months ago
The reason why America became free is because in 1775 is because there was no gap between the arms that the people could own and the tyrants over them.
The difference between the American Farmer and and European Serf is that American Farmers had guns and could not be subdued.
tsafa1 1 year ago 19
@tsafa1 The reason America became successful is because of 2 world wars. The first you got wealthy the second you got wealthy and was about the only country whos infrastructure was not damaged. Since that point your "stolen" golden age has trickled down and your unable to cope with the fact that you can no longer live "The amarican dream" any more. Basically the sugar rush has gone away and now things are back to normal.
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
@Dasmaster1 The two world wars do no explain the successful quest for American Independence that began in 1775. Americans took their independence by force. After the Americans won the war for Independence Great Britain strictly enforced the disarmament of India, so that they would not loose that colony too. BTW... despite what you might think most Americans are doing quite will today. Far better then most people in Europe, Asia, Africa, Australia. No riots in the streets here.
tsafa1 4 months ago
Oh geez. This guy just skewing the image. The second amendment says nothing about having a gun to protect your house. It deals explicit with protecting your nation against foreign invaders and oppression from the government.
Both of those are currently absurd concepts too.
So to sum it up 2nd amendment dont give you right to own a gun to protect your house. Id say its actually pretty much the opposite in a sense.
Dasmaster1 1 year ago
@Dasmaster1 Read the Second Amendment again, carefully this time dumbass.
Crow762 11 months ago
@Crow762 It says Militia. Not cowards with guns.
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
@Dasmaster1 Look at Metallica3636's comment fuckface.
Crow762 11 months ago
@Crow762 You think that is something new... really now there has been a fierce debate how to translate that part and no side has made any major breakthrough to be honest.
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
@Dasmaster1 Well the courts recently verified that in Mcdonald vs Chicago that the right to bear arms is for the people and that the states don't have the right to infringe it.
Crow762 11 months ago 14
@Crow762 Keyword is "recently"... In a few years using the history of this, the court will probably rule against. All in all it just proves that the issue is up in the air and that the second amendment is pretty poorly written.
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
@Dasmaster1 Why are you against guns? Is it because there are more smarter liberals than republicans in the media that you think if you become a liberal you are automatically smarter and a fucking know-it-all? Look up gun control statistics, how U.K. violence went up after handgun ban, ect. and if you still believe in gun control you are one closed minded fuck.
Crow762 11 months ago
@Crow762 The reason why I believe in gun control is because I live in a country where we don't fear getting shoot in the streets. Even if we allow gun ownership pretty much no one gets them because they are afraid.
And that is what i am against the most. People who wants guns to protect themselves because they are afraid. Be it for the government or villains but the end result is just the same. Just cowardly idiots who contribute to the problem.
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
@Das You're a coward and an idiot. Your argument NECESSITATES your belief police and Service members are "frightened cowardly idiots" because they carry firearms. Every man has NOT ONLY the God-given right to defend himself from ANY threat, but also the God-issued IMPERATIVE to do so. You are simply a socialist who believes the govt is your mother/father. It is frightening. You are brain-washed like a N.Korean...with obama's election, you likely say "dear leader" as well.
kenfo0 11 months ago
@kenfo0 You seam to misunderstand my character. Oh what a surprise because you people NEVER jump to any conclusions. RIIIGHT...
If i sat in a room with Hitler, Stalin and Obama and i had a gun with 2 bullets.... I would probably shoot Obama twice for being a hypocritical pancy. Also the government is not my parents. Its my servant. Its one and only reason for existence is to make life better for its people. That includes making sure they dont shoot each other.
And you have stomach to say "god"
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
@Dasmaster1 You have changed nothing with your bizarre, bullshit-filled post. The govt works for you, does it? What an assclown you are. Govts are SUPPOSED to do what is in the best interests of MOST of it's citizens. They do not. They serve the richest and if some crumbs fall to the peasants, that's super. Doesn't matter what country you are in. Grow up, nancy. Go live in china and peddle your "gun control is good" faggotry.
kenfo0 11 months ago
@kenfo0 Since when did i ever say anything about changing your opinion. Your a complete fucktard. I got better things to do today like watching paint dry.
You seam to think every country in the world is as corrupted as your beloved USA though which is kinda sad. I would say USA is the backwaters of the "modern world" and soon to be a coast to coast shopping mall it seams.
The Swedish government does its job decently and im generally happy with it. So is many other Europeans about there gov's.
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
@Das You don't speak English well. You should stick to your country's native lang: Nazi. Is it any wonder to people that a sycophantic, nazi-loving, uneducated euro-fag is a gun-grabber? 1 of the 1st things the nazis did was outlaw private gun ownership, so people couldn't stop their doors from being kicked in at night by the gestapo. This moron Dasgayboy has not one historical document, writing of the Founding Fathers, or even a basic understanding of the BoR upon which to base her argument.
kenfo0 11 months ago
@kenfo0 P.S I dont see myself as a Liberal neither do i give a damn about them. I got my own opinions and not simply borrowing someone else's like... some other people here seam to do.
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
@Dasmaster1 PS, you socialist euro-fag: take your nonsense somewhere else. You have no understanding of this subject matter, nor does anyone here want to hear your uneducated, whiny leftist garbage.
kenfo0 11 months ago
@Dasmaster1 and also I'm not republican if you think that because I believe in pro-choice and gay rights, which most republicans do not.
Crow762 11 months ago
@Crow762 Also i never said you were a republican or anything. I try to not have opinions of people i have never meet.
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
@Dasmaster1 you are stupid. you have no basis for your comments, other than "eye doughnt leyek gunz sew ewe shudint hav um". Run along you MORON.
kenfo0 11 months ago
@kenfo0 Oh my~ Got quite the teenager here dont we.
But oh, im so uneducated aint i? Cant spell, have not read your beloved independence toilet paper and worst of all.. you say im a "leftist"... errr.... wtf is that?
To be honest i dont give a flying pink unicorn about you so shoo. Your just a troll trying to attack me instead of my arguments. Good luck with that while i undermine your entire world-view.
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
@Dasmaster1 your first "sentence" is not a sentence, moron. You are uneducated. You write like a moron. You make bullshit claims like "ewe doughnt spell gud", but can't back it up. YOU are the moron and troll. Your views are those of a stupid and insolent child. Your "understanding" of the 2nd Amendment flies in the face of history, the writings of the Founding Fathers and of SCOTUS rulings for 250 yrs. You are a stupid euro-fag with an out of control ego. Nothing more.
kenfo0 11 months ago
@kenfo0 *yawns* how does anything about how i spell and who watch my videos got to do with this. Your some pathetic slush scraped from the bottom of a shit barrel and you try to tell me that im a stupid "euro-fag".
Seriously half of your messages are made up of words you pulled out your arse and you say that i cant spell. What a parody you are.
My understanding is based on your misunderstanding. I dont need to know jack shit about it to notice that you dont know anything either.
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
@Dasmaster1 scumbag: My understanding of the 2nd Amendment is COMPLETELY in line with the Founders and history. Yours is moronic TRIPE pushed by leftists everywhere. Case closed. You have failed to make or hold a single point. Now run along you nazi fag. Go tell your fairy tales to other uneducated socialists.
kenfo0 11 months ago
@kenfo0 Errr.. "failed to make hold".... you have failed to even mention anything about it or addressing anything iv said. In fact nothing in pretty much any of your post even remotely suggest you were arguing about the right to carry guns.
You did not just miss the ball. You missed to pick up the bat and missed to take off the seatbelt and is currently stuck in the parking lot outside the stadium... Your a true failure like others can just dream of.
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
@Dasmaster1 I made the clear point that the 2nd Amendment CLEARLY not only regards PERSONAL ownership of weapons, but MILITARY GRADE weapons WITHOUT INFRINGEMENT. You, being a stupid, uneducated, arrogant, socialist jackass, stated on this page "tha sekind uhmendmint meens maulishaz kan hav gunz". You have failed miserably, and now spend your time prattling, lying and spamming. You are a pathetic loser.
kenfo0 11 months ago
@kenfo0 .... Ok where in the 2nd Amendment does it "Clearly" say you can have military grade weaponry? In fact how can you even claim that when the sentence is a continuation of the first which is regarding the militia...
You are not a militia so your "right" to carry arms is just a pipe dream. Perhaps you should learn your own damn language instead of bitching at me who just dont care and got a reason to care in the first place.
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
@Dasmaster1 NOW the stupid asshole (that's you) asks a question. At the time of the writing of the Constitution PRIVATE CITIZENS owned ARMED SHIPS, CANNON, BLACK POWDER and STATE OF THE ART RIFLES. This is KNOWN FACT, not leftist conjecture concerning commas. NEXT, ASSHOLE, EVERYTHING mentioned in the BoR are PERSONAL, NOT State rights, you FUCKING MORON. NOWHERE in the BoR are States rights spoken. NOT ONCE. WHAT NOW, you STUPID ASSHOLE? FACTS just slapped you in the face AGAIN.
kenfo0 11 months ago
@kenfo0 .... Well if you so much like those crappy muskets then why dont you go ahead and buy them. In fact people do own black powder cannons on ships too so quit your bitching. And just because they were "state of the art" back then does not mean you should have a nuke in your basement, an M1A5 in your garage and a jump jet in your lawn.
It just meant the guns back then were crap and it was just a small step up from using the stick on the ground.
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
@Dasmaster1 awww....now the spamming pussy has moved from "you can't own gunz" which is proven and patently false, to "ewe kaint hav nukes". Just shut the fuck up you diarrhea-mouthed socialist retard. You were just ABUSED with a factual post, so you think spamming nonsense will confuse the issue. Few are as stupid as you, fag.
kenfo0 11 months ago
@kenfo0 I knew you were going to be caught up on the Nuke. In fact its not a weapon you retard its an explosive device.
Also im curious how you put in all the swear words... Do you first write a sentence and then decide its to good and start adding random words here and there in caps?
In the end its useless you have not proven anything to anyone so stop beating around the bush and actually do something for once... I mean i have been waiting for weeks or something for you to say something......
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
@Dasmaster1 You failed. You have not posted a single fact. You have failed MISERABLY to mount a factual, logical, historical argument. I have embarrassed you badly, yet you continue with your stupid spam. Every subsequent post from you will now be deleted without being read. You are an arrogantly stupid, loud-mouthed loser. PATHETIC!
kenfo0 11 months ago
@kenfo0 Well bend you over a fence and let a bull have its way with you. Your not in fucking usa pal. Whatever there court says i dont give a fuck about. Especially since they are basically just going back on an earlier court ruling AGAIN. This has gone on for AGES.
If you dont even know this then trying to discuss this with you is completly null and void. Were not on the same page or on the same book.
I have supplied plenty of facts to other people but i dont care enough about you to bother..
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
Ignore my friend kenfo0, he’s been trolling on the internet for years now, so he’s had plenty of practice. Although he’s a bitter xenophobic and homophobic man with an abrasive personality, he’s mostly harmless. He’s like the village idiot of Youtube. It’s best to ignore him and he’ll either get bored and go away or become frustrated and make more of a fool of himself.
Beware poor spelling, punctuation and grammar are his favorite foods.
Check his comment history or Google his name.
fr0gspwn 11 months ago
@fr0gspwn His already tucked his tail behind his legs and run for the hills that coward.
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
@kenfo0 Also "militia" is not personal. Your arguments fail straight out the gate. Go back and try again..
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
@Dasmaster1 WRONG FAGGOT. The supreme court of the US agrees with me, not you. You are a PATHETIC failure. You can't even read plain English, faggot. You have posted NOT ONE FACT. What a scummy loser you are!
kenfo0 11 months ago
@kenfo0
Trolls will be trolls, will be trolls.
Vovk3 9 months ago
@Vovk3 Well done troll. You're self-discovery has been successful. Now you have to change. As for me, I posted easily researched facts. OUCH. that had to hurt. buy-bye sissy.
kenfo0 9 months ago
@kenfo0
I hope you understand that I wasn't being a troll. I was refering to the guy you called a troll. That's why I said "Trolls will be trolls, will be trolls". As for the fact that you just insulted me, well, that was unnecessary.
Vovk3 9 months ago
@Vovk3 Then I apologize. I get called a troll at least once a day when someone realizes they have no facts to back their position. I have had to beat down one retard after another on the issue of a rather clear policy, law and history regarding weapons ownership in the US. When it's go time, I fight. It's what I do. Your comment was to me, so I naturally assumed you meant me. Best wishes.
kenfo0 9 months ago
@kenfo0 Not a worry. The masses are ignorant and will jump to conclusions and shoddily built defenses when they feel threatened or scared. You need not fear these people, like your attitude shows. And best wishes to you as well!
Vovk3 9 months ago
@Dasmaster1 AGAIN, you FUCKING STUPID LOSER, THE SUPREME COURT has, EVEN LAST YEAR, affirmed the 2nd Amendment relates to INDIVIDUAL WEAPONS' OWNERSHIP RIGHTS, YOU FUCKING ASSHOLE. But the Supreme Court of the United States doesn't understand English either, right YOU FUCKING MORON. Perhaps you should SHUT YOUR IGNORANT, MONKEY ASS and learn English, so you can read all the myriad of documents supporting my view. You have "eyem stoopid an kant reed gud". Fucking LOSER.
kenfo0 11 months ago
@kenfo0 "Supreme court this and supreme court that" So bloody what? How many times has they ruled against it i wonder? They change sides every few years if you have not noticed.
You have not even learnt how to turn off the bloody caps lock so i dont think your more educated then the average Swedish "special class" teenager. Your arguments are none existent. You rely on yelling and calling people names.
In other words your pathetic and its so fun to tease you~
Dasmaster1 11 months ago
@Dasmaster1 How many times has they ruled against it i wonder? They change sides every few years if you have not noticed."->> WRONG. NOT ONCE, FAGGOT. STILL no facts, pussy? Why so many posts? No boyfriends around for nut-juggling, you loser? You have yet to post ONE FACT. You simply whine "yer dumm an tha gubmintz meye daddy an eye kaint reed plane english.". STFU, scummy loser.
kenfo0 11 months ago
@Dasmaster1
"One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson
Did you see that word "one"? That's another way to say "an INDIVIDUAL". The 2nd Amendment grants a man AND a group of men the right to have a gun.
Cozmolyne 4 months ago
@Cozmolyne That is a logical fallacy. If you actually read the quote you will see it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the second amendment. It is simply an analyse of peoples mentality. So what is your point?
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
@Dasmaster1
No, it does have something to do with the 2nd Amendment. It shows the mindset of the people who created our Constitution and how they believed that EVERY law-abiding citizen has the right to armament in times of violence or in times of peace, when their home is being invaded by madmen or their country is being invaded by madmen.
Cozmolyne 4 months ago
@Cozmolyne You are completely wrong. In politics people use another language then they do in public. They use that language to eliminate double meanings in words such as the one you pointed out. And they do this so that misunderstandings and misinterpretations would not occur.
If you do not know about the political language dont bother trying to decipher it.
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
@Dasmaster1
How is this so hard for you to understand? "One" refers to an INDIVIDUAL so if Thomas Jefferson believe the 2nd Amendment is a collective right then he would not have used that word. Would you like another example? Here's an excerpt taken from an article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette written in 1789, the same year of the ratification of the Constitution: "… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
Cozmolyne 4 months ago
@Cozmolyne One does not refer to an "Individual". It is purely context based and can mean a bunch of things depending on what was before it. However that is kind of irrelevant since "one" is not used in the 2nd amendment.
"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."
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
@Dasmaster1
OK then. What do you think he was referring to when he said "one"? It doesn't matter if it's not in the 2nd Amendment. Thomas Jefferson was key to creating the Constitution, that quote obviously shows he believed the right to keep and bear arms was obviously an individual right.
Cozmolyne 4 months ago
@Cozmolyne I dont know... Its not like i was paying you much attention since you dont seam to know what your talking about. And to be honest what Thomas Jefferson thought is also quite irrelevant since he was not the sole creator of the document (and even if he was there are innumerable reasons why he might have decided something he does not fully support).
You will make no progress beating around the bush like that...
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
@Dasmaster1
Exactly, you don't know because there's nothing else he could've been referring to. Nice backpedal insult by the way. Oh, and it's irrelevant what Thomas Jefferson thought? Funny because 2nd Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights and ALL the Anti-Federalists demanded the Bill of Rights be put in the Constitution and Thomas Jefferson was an Anti-Federalist. (continued)
Cozmolyne 4 months ago
@Dasmaster1
(continued)
If Jefferson believed differently than the other Anti-Federalists, albeit the 2nd Amendment being a individual right or not (yet evidence shows he believed it was an individual right), then there would've been a problem. Surprise, Jefferson didn't have a problem with the other Anti-Federalists because they all believed the same thing and what they believed was that the 2nd Amendment was a individual right.
Cozmolyne 4 months ago
@Cozmolyne Well let me clarify. I am from Sweden thus have no knowledge about your legal documents and your political figures. I do know a bit about the second amendment (because you people cant seam to stop yapping about it).
In the end i dont know who Jefferson is and i dont care. And ones again im telling you that even IF he was a proponent of everyone and there dog having a gun does not mean he put that in an important legal document. (evidently he did not)
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
@Dasmaster1
We keep on "yapping about it" because it's important. Thomas Jefferson and other of our Founding Fathers DID put it in a legal document: "...the right of the People to keep an bear arms, shall not be infringed".
Cozmolyne 4 months ago
@Cozmolyne As you so kindly pointed out with the three dots preceding the quote there are more to that sentence. Namely "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,". Now why is this important? Perhaps its because it specifies which group amongst the people receives this special protection.
Now how do we define Militia? As trained, disciplined and organised groups. Are the average household classified as this? No. Thus this special protection does not protect them
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
@Dasmaster1
Nope, sorry. The 2nd Amendment gives the right to form a militia AND the right of individuals to keep armament and a militia is made up of CITIZENS. I gave you a quote from a newspaper article written in the same year as the Constitution and a quote from one of the key founders of the Bill of Rights. Would you like more quotes? I have more.
BTW, in America, a militiaman is ANYONE of the age of 18 or over that is legally allowed to own a gun.
Cozmolyne 4 months ago
@Cozmolyne Have you not yet realised that quotes and newspaper articles are meaningless... Want to know why? Because i can give you just as much quotes and news paper articles back.
That... and you are still ignoring words. It says "well regulated militia" not "militia". And i quote The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained". In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
@Dasmaster1
Alright, find me ONE quote from our Founding Fathers or from a source written in the same time that says that says that the 2nd Amendment is NOT an individual right.
When you join a militia, you go through training. How do I know this? My father is a militiaman; I'm a member of his militia but am not considered a militiaman because I'M NOT 18 and therefor NOT LEGALLY ALLOWED TO OWN A GUN. My father is a CITIZEN so is EVERYONE ELSE in his militia.
Cozmolyne 4 months ago
@Cozmolyne So it all goes back to what i said before. The second amendment protects the right for a group within the people to own and carry guns. Meaning they are citizen yet part of the "professional" militia.
And no i will not waste my time finding a specific quote for you because im neither interested nor feel like were engaged in a serious discussion here.
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
@Dasmaster1
If that where true, then the 2nd Amendment would've said "...the Right of the Militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Does it say that? Nope. The People are made up of CITIZENS. The 2nd Amendment give the right to ARMED CITIZENS to form a militia ALONG WITH the right of citizen to have arms. The People in contrast to the Militia.
Cozmolyne 4 months ago
@Cozmolyne Well i could as well say:
If that where true, then the 2nd amendment would've said"being necessary to the security of a free State. (DOT, NEW SENTENCE!) The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Does it say that? Nope. That would make the ENTIRE FIRST PART of the second amendment completely REDUNDANT and quite STUPID."
See?
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
@Dasmaster1
The reason they put a comma there instead of a period is because they believed ARMED CITIZENS MAKE UP A MILITIA. What do you NOT understand? It is the right of THE PEOPLE (aka CITIZENS OF THE USA) of keep and bear arms and for those ARMED CITIZENS to form a militia.
Cozmolyne 4 months ago
@Cozmolyne Then they would not put "Well regulated" in front... But this is pointless... Did you know that "The right to bear arms" were proposed as part of the "Human right"? Probably not because it was struck down.
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
@Dasmaster1
YOU GO THROUGH TRAINING IN A MILITIA. I KNOW THIS BECAUSE ME AND MY FATHER ARE IN A MILITIA. Oh, and who was the right to keep and bear arms stuck down by? The UN? The right to keep and bear arms is a CIVIL right, smart one.
Cozmolyne 4 months ago
@Cozmolyne No it was struck down by the very people who drafted the second amendment. Many founding fathers amongst them.
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
@Dasmaster1
Who exactly was it struck down by? When was it struck down?
Cozmolyne 4 months ago
@Cozmolyne I dont know because i did not read more about it. Just something that caught my eye when looking into the debates and such that resulted with the second amendment (and maybe more but as i said i really dont care).
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
@Dasmaster1
OK, well, whatever it was you misread it. There's not one time when our Founding Fathers struck down the 2nd Amendment as a human right and even if they did, it's irrelevant because the right to keep and bear arms is a CIVIL right.
Cozmolyne 4 months ago
@Cozmolyne You dont seam to know what the second amendment actually is. Ones upon a time 12 delegates from 5 states came together to discuss inefficiencies of the Articles of Confederation. So they made a list of the problems and suggested ways to fix this.
After ALLOT of debating they decided on some stuff to amended in the constitution. Since it was the second time this happened it was called the second amendment. IE saying they struck down the 2nd amendment is moronic since its numerical.
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
@Dasmaster1
That is the most moronic thing I think if ever heard. The 2nd Amendment is called the 2nd Amendment because it's the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution. There are 27 amendments in the Constitution.
Cozmolyne 4 months ago
@Cozmolyne Oh? Well sorry then but that just shows how little i care about this whole matter. Anyway it does not change the fact that when they struck down the idea of "The right to bear arms." as a basic human right there was no amendment. They were in a political debate.
Fun fact: They seriously thought that no military army could stand up to a militia. I wonder if they were wrong?
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
@Dasmaster1
Why do you debate even if you have no idea what you're talking about? They never struck down the right to keep and bear arms, give me source that shows they did. Fun fact: apparently their militia was able to stand up to an entire military.
Cozmolyne 4 months ago
@Cozmolyne Because this debate is not about the history or indeed what the amendment is but what it means.
Fun fact: Apparently the US army gets ALMOST more money then all the other armies in the world combined. The British did not.
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
@Dasmaster1
Why would the our Founding Fathers debate the meaning of something they created?
Fun fact: that's the US army today, not the US army during the Revolutionary War.
Cozmolyne 4 months ago
@Cozmolyne I was talking about our little debate and last time i checked im not a father of any kind.
Fun Fact: Well that sux for you since they expect you to stand up against them anyway.
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
@Dasmaster1
Also, watch this video here:
/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM&feature=related
Cozmolyne 4 months ago
@Dasmaster1 Second amendment is not about protecting ourselves from foreign threats, it is for protecting ourselves from our own government should a tyrant ever take power. If you study history, you will see that tyrants can come to power in the blink of an eye. Look what happened in Europe and Asia. The second amendment keeps our government fearful of its people.
tsafa1 4 months ago
@tsafa1 Read my comment again.... "and oppression from the government"
(Though i do think its a really moronic thing close to primeval reasoning.
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
@Dasmaster1 Look at history. 6 million civilians killed by Hitler. 20 million civilians killed by Stalin in his own county. These are civilians who did not have guns to protect themselves. Stalin and Hitler are no exception, they are the norm. Hitler ran a capitalist economy and Stalin a Communist, tyrants will grow anywhere that people are not armed. The people who followed Stalin and Hitler where not monsters... just normal people doing what their govt told them to do... KILL. This is reality
tsafa1 4 months ago
@tsafa1 Again if you think that guns would help your sadly mistaken. As you said the people who followed Stalin and Hitler where people. In fact Hitler was loved by his people for his work in returning Germany from the shitter after first world war. Even if they had guns they would just protect him. Anyway guns just get people killed on both sides. That is why you should find other ways to prevent them from coming to power in the first place.
Dasmaster1 4 months ago
Cant rebel against the government? Tell that to guerrilla fighters around the world.
TheMedievalMan 1 year ago
HEY TED NUGENT... SHUT THE FUCK UP AND PLAY GREAT WHITE BUFFALO!
MrSPAX7 1 year ago
"Do American Citizens Have a Right to Own a Gun?" That's the stupidest, most ridiculous question ever asked! Free citizens, 18-80 (the militia), should be armed to the teeth! However, the subjects of a government (slaves), should never be armed! Are we subjects or citizens? Free or slave? Government takes care of its subjects. Citizens take care of themselves. There's no in between. The last I heard, the US is populated by citizens.
xbones101 1 year ago
@xbones101 Militias will have no chance vs a military. No chance in hell
MrSPAX7 1 year ago
Here is the sad thing about guns and cars. Guns in nuts hands kill people tragically. Cars in nuts hands kill people tragically. Funny that when a nut uses a car to kill people, gun controllers say NOTHING. Like so what if some loved one dies by the means of a car. But if they use a gun, OH MY GOD, IT IS THE END OF CIVILAVATION..
tock101 1 year ago
i want a gun :-I
Michael27545 1 year ago
@Michael27545 I want gun control!
MrSPAX7 1 year ago
As Major Dad said the to the female reported. I’m gong on peace maneuvers. She said war maneuvers. He said, attack me. She said, no, to attack a highly trained killer would be stupid. Then you will not attack, he ask. That’s right, she said. That why I’m on peace maneuvers.
tock101 1 year ago
"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."
fuckcodepink666 1 year ago
@fuckcodepink666 Just one small part of a much BIGGER document than the 2nd amendmant
MrSPAX7 1 year ago
To defend and hunt. We can't depend on our government to protect us they abuse the power.
iRHAPEzombiies 1 year ago
@iRHAPEzombiies defend what? You have no chance if you face the American Military.... no chance
MrSPAX7 1 year ago
@MrSPAX7
Actually I live in Canada so I do have a chance since I don't live under the states law. If your smart and actually have a decent plan you could defend yourself.
iRHAPEzombiies 1 year ago
@iRHAPEzombiies ok So Ill start learning how to fly an F22 raptor now or a Apache attack helicopter.
you could not defend yourself against the trained military of the USA.
MrSPAX7 1 year ago
@MrSPAX7 really? look at the men and women in afghanistan proudly fighting for what they believe in... american army would be desimated by a massive rebellion
zvz2ezzvz 1 year ago
@zvz2ezzvz You clearly misunderstand... and I dont believe for a second that Al Queda ever threatened to take our freedoms away. Hitler was almost capable of that.... the British army of 1700's, 1800's were capable of it. I believe that there is no rah rah sis boom bah in Afghanistan. It is not a true war theater and there is no front line. Front lines are a thing of the past. Iraq was started on a premise of a LIE just likeVietNam was started by the gulf of tomkin incident that was a lie 2
MrSPAX7 1 year ago
@MrSPAX7 i think you'll find he would number 1 the american people have beaten a well trained army before, the britsh, second the us army is usless agianst the one form of warfare these rebels would use gurrilla tactics and third the army is in iraq and afganistan and would need to be shiped home, its no use to have 100,000 men in another country. Also would the us army kill thousands of thier own people? the very people they are sworn to protect?
TheAlexagius 1 year ago
@TheAlexagius lol and when does the fantasy end? That end would come when the Military would show up.
Sorry but the days of 1776 are long over. Alexagius... this fanstasy is what the NRA is all about.. selling the dream that one day a US govt will go tyrannical and to pump up the 2nd ammendmant into an issue beyond itself. We don't need to worry about losing our 2nd ammend rights and I wish grown adults would stop talking about it like America will end up like Mad Max.
MrSPAX7 1 year ago
@MrSPAX7 but thats the point isn't it? if it ever gotto the state were it was needed it would be seriously fuckedup which i dought would happen but history has proved gurrilias beat proffesional armys, the veit cong in veitnam, the OSS in ww2
TheAlexagius 1 year ago
@TheAlexagius I dont think the typical American is willing to die for his or her country like the Vietnamese did or the Koreans in North Korea.... I dont think Americans these days would make good guerilla fighters because these last few generations had it too good.
humility is not our strong suit.
MrSPAX7 1 year ago
@MrSPAX7 remember... Americans have no idea what life is like without freedom, they know nothing about oppression they know nothing about what it is like to live under a central govt that can do what it likes to it's people.
Americans don't know what freedom truly is like because they had it their whole lives. Ask a older German what life was like under the SS, look at the North Koreans who live to worship "dear Leader'" or the Chinese who can improve their quality of life but are watched
MrSPAX7 1 year ago
@MrSPAX7 How do you expect the few million in the military to defeat the tens of millions of armed citizens? Where would they base from? Where would they get their fuel and food from? Electricity? Water? It takes an immense infrastructure to keep the military running, to attack Americans would literally be biting the hand that feeds it. The 2cd amendment just through it's existence guards against the need for violent rebellion. Last time it was used the country was torn in two and nearly lost.
guamsst 1 year ago