{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Editado por Forge Fan92:
3/30/2013 3:51:00 AM
49
People here don't understand the 2nd Amendment
I want to clear something up. First off, here's the 2nd Amendment, word for word exactly.
[quote]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.[/quote]
Not only does it talk about guns, but also about militias. Little armies of the citizens of the state, not country, whose purpose is to fight the federal government if they went tyrannical. Cool. Do we still have them? Well, sort of. The people is kind of the militia. Everyone should have their guns to defend themselves from the government.
But it says "a well regulated militia". "Regulated" doesn't include everybody. It's organized. There's a clear line. So do we really have the right to bear arms anymore? The Supreme Court has ruled so. What does the Flood rule?
Also, according to that Amendment, the people use guns not in self defense, but in group, statewide defense, from the federal government.
EDIT: Clearly the majority of the Flood rules the militia part holds no significance and was thrown in for no reason. Case closed.
-
I'm British and I don't really understand something. If the issue is a dangerous or treacherous and unrepresentative group or single individual comes to rule the US then why don't you/your government take measures to ensure these people can't get in to power rather than have the right to exclude them from it with force?
-
6 RespuestasNational Guards = Militia, FYI
-
You do know that everyone who is 18+ in age=Militia right?
-
13 RespuestasDoesn't the fact that we have the second amendment (or any other ones, really) tell us that worrying about a tyrannical government is entirely pointless? I mean, if the government really wanted to take over our lives entirely, wouldn't the Constitution become entirely meaningless? The way I see it, it's like when people talk about a zombie apocalypse. It's a fantasy. But like all fantasies, it starts to become problematic when we treat it as if it is reality.
-
The government doesn't want citizens to be armed
-
1 RespuestaThe issue is that a conservative SCOTUS has interpreted the 2nd amendment differently.
-
Editado por Quantum: 4/1/2013 10:18:20 PMI agree. People should have the right to keep both upper limbs, and have the ability to arm bears with small arms. I therefore propose a resolution: 1. Ban arm amputations. This freedom shall not be infringed. 2. Extend civil liberties to bears and release current US government stockpiles of small arms. Distribute weapons in the local population.
-
Here's the deal: A militia that can actually fight against the military would need comparable weapons without regulation. That means that citizens should have the right to fully-automatic weapons. Not only do I support this, but I also believe that vehicles like Abrams tanks should be available to the public. There should be very clear and ruthless punishments in the event that such rights are abused. This would allow the responsible to carry power while those who aren't, or live in lives of crimes, immediately face punishments (like death).
-
1 RespuestaEditado por KaoticKaiman: 3/30/2013 4:18:14 AMOP, I want you notice something. You see that second part of the amendment you know that other part of the sentence? It's says, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Notice how the 2nd amendment has two parts separated by a comma. It clearly states a militia is necessary and that the people have a right to bear arms.
-
3 RespuestasYep you are only allowed to use your weapon if the federal government is threatening you and you are in a organized group to take down the tyrannical government but you cant use your gun to protect yourself from people breaking into your house at night. Thats what you sound like op.
-
4 Respuestas[quote]Not only does it talk about guns, but also about militias. Little armies of the citizens of the state, not country, whose purpose is to fight the federal government if they went tyrannical.[/quote] Lol, no. The primary purpose of militias is to provide support to the professional troops in times of war so as to maintain the "security of [our] free state", the problem is that we haven't had a war on American soil in 150 years. Also, in practical use militias end up becoming walking threats and people bring in their own ideals and paranoia about the government, which might make the regulated bit tough. For all intents and purposes I'd say that the police and National Guard fill in the militia role nowadays. That might not have been their intended purpose, but that's the way it is.
-
5 Respuestascan you into English, OP? Well regulated means well functioning. not well restricted. because words had different meanings in 1791 than they do in 2013. plus an analysis of the amendment in English language terms reveals that it shows an individual right and two separate clauses. also, Dick Act of 1903. every male between 18-45, that is a fit, law abiding citizen is a militia member.
-
2 Respuestas0/10 Your trolling is pathetic.
-
3 RespuestasEditado por Gruntzilla24: 3/29/2013 10:21:37 PMFighting the Government: [b]What gun nuts imagine its like: [/b] Common people storming Washington D.C., AR-15s and American flags in hand. Shooting down helicopters, pistol whipping Navy SEALs, and storming into the White House shouting "Victory!" [b]What logical people know its like: [/b] "Yeah guys, lets all overthrow the government!" -------- FA-BAM DRONE STRIKE Societies aren't an etch a sketch. You can't just shake it and get a new one. Stop the bullshit fantasies.
-
The amendment assumes that the people have firearms easily available and can use them properly, which is where owning them comes into play.
-
I always liked to think that part of what they meant was that the people should have weapons fit to defend not only themselves but their property and even homeland, police ourselves in a way. Maybe it's an archaic idea but the independence and self-reliance of it are appealing.
-
29 RespuestasLittle armies ... citizens of the state ... organised ... well regulated. Sounds like the police force.
-
There is a comma, which separates the militia from the people.
-
7 RespuestasThe whole shebang was concocted in an era when colonists were afraid of the overseas regime (from which many of them came in the first place) that defended them and demanded taxation for it. Then again, I don't think we represented them in parliament and so our laws were foisted on them without their say-so; a fair quibble. But yeah. The 'right' to bear arms comes from the fear of the overseas power from which America was born, and is therefore entirely redundant today, and has been since the day America became an independent nation without our control.
-
The SCOTUS doesn't have a history of making nonbullshit decisions. All you talking about the government's tyranny should be the first to question the SCOTUS's authority.
-
4 RespuestasIt's not like the 2nd amendment was a great defense when the Patriot Act passed, or all the other shit in the last 12 years passed. It's redundant. It did nothing. It stopped nothing. Hell, even the controversy behind these decisions didn't last very long. To protect the amendments, you need a well informed, intelligent, critically cynical public. America has none of these 3 traits, and guns will do nothing to save the rights of its citizens as a result. You don't protect rights with civilian owned guns. You protect rights with protest, civil disobedience, and rational thought. America is not a dictatorship, the 2nd amendment is really in the case of a "what if" scenario that is so incredibly unlikely, that it may as well protect us from an alien invasion as well. The point is: even the 2nd amendment is worthless if the public is unwilling to stand up for the rest of the amendments.
-
None of those rights matter if people believe the US government can never do anything bad.
-
49 RespuestasEditado por Section Ratio General: 3/29/2013 5:23:53 AMMost people that keep saying that Obama is taking their guns away have the wool pulled over their eyes by the NRA. Also, that amendment was made during a time when literally everyone and their grandma owned a squirrelgun (aka a musket). An "arm" back then was basically any type of weapon. If I literally translated it today, that would mean I would be able to legally own weapons of mass destruction, or any weapon that I can use for chemical warfare. It's still an "arm". Yet, I can't. The militia of the USA is basically the National Guard, which they probably aren't whining about it as much as gun-toting and paranoid citizens that think Obama will take their guns away. Edit: Also: [quote]Also, according to that Amendment, the people use guns not in self defense, but in group, statewide defense, from the federal government.[/quote] No one raised up their guns to the federal government when the Patriot Act passed. Chances are, people aren't going to raise up their weapons to Obama since there is no threat of tyranny at all.
-
1 RespuestaWe don't have to be part of a "well regulated militia" to have the right to bear arms. So yes the people of America still have the right to bear arms.
-
I already knew this.
-
>Sees that he doesn't understand most of the posts. >Nothing to do here.
