{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Editado por Jim the Admin:
12/10/2013 3:53:55 AM
44
How do you interpret the 2nd Amendment?
[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]
So, how do you personally interpret the quoted text?
[spoiler]I'm not going to link this because it's, you know, the bill of rights and most everyone should know their rights anyways. At least, every American should know these rights.[/spoiler]
-
"We don't want to get fucked in the ass by a potential British counterattack."
-
Editado por Ad Hoc: 12/10/2013 10:38:31 PMI interpret it as "People have the right to own firearms in order to form a well regulated militia", but it's really outdated. The founding fathers couldn't predict the kind of weapons we have now. Excuse me while I go down to the store and buy a rocket launcher. It's meh second amendment right.
-
1 RespuestaAny limitation on what guns people carry is infringement. It would be like me saying: [i]You get to have ice-cream, but only vanilla, and you don't get toppings. [/i] I have now infringed on your right to have ice-cream.
-
[quote][quote]A well regulated Militia, [/quote] Meaning that citizens can't just have total freedom with guns. As for the rest its pretty obvious.
-
4 RespuestasI don't. I just sit back and watch you Americans argue about a piece of paper all day long.
-
3 RespuestasVery outdated. Weaponry and the physical defence of liberty is as constant as the notion of free speech.
-
7 RespuestasWhile the population can't/shouldn't be able to buy tanks/ heavy weaponry. IMO the people should be well armed enough that the government would be scared to do anything that hurts the welfare of it's people in a huge way, (dictatorship, internment camps)
-
9 RespuestasOutdated. If you think you can stop an Abrams with your AR-15.... Well... Good luck.
-
14 RespuestasClearly Obama doesn't give two shits about constitutional liberties so this argument, while relevant, is invalid.
-
Vague as -blam!-
-
16 RespuestasKind of outdated. I can't picture people these days working together in a militia. I could never see them effectively fighting against any military or police force. There's only one purpose for a gun and I'm pretty sure in most cases conflicts can be resolved without a shot being fired.
-
4 RespuestasThe right of the army to have guns?
-
1 RespuestaToo vague.
-
1 RespuestaCitizens owning guns is 100% necessary. Also that last hash tag. Hue
-
1 RespuestaI interpret it as this. YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWW *FIRES PISTOLS IN THE AIR* GAWD BLUSS AMURIKA!!!!!!1!!!11!!!!!!!11!!!!!!!!
-
1 RespuestaPeople shall have the right to arm themselves as they see fit, should a well armed militia ever be needed.
-
19 Respuestasempowering local militias under the assumption that they're necessary for a free state. not a direct commentary on the allowed abilities of the individual.
-
I'm just gonna go ahead and say this before someone that doesn't know what they are talking about, try's to say something. [url=http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703964104575334701513109426?mobile=y]The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the second amendment that we can have guns without having a militia[/url]
-
The people will be able to arm themselves so that they can form an effective militia for their state.
-
"A free State" could mean A.) one of the states in the Union B.) a literal state of being or C.) occasionally entire countries are referred to as "states". So it's pretty open to interpretation. Well-regulated militia blah blah blah, well that just says "Hey! If you want to be your own country you'd better have an army!" And finally, the right to keep and bear arms... I'm not sure what "people" they're talking about. The people in the militia(which seems more likely), or all the people of the world(somewhat less believable). To me, personally, it seems like the passage is either referring to the militia (which the former statements have been about, it only makes sense) or the "State" referred to in the above passage. Honestly, I'm not sure I care because I don't want to own a firearm.
-
It's kind of obvious. A well regulated Militia. Military personnel as well as States having their own Military style groups. The second part plain as day says, "We! The People! Have a right to Keep and Bear arms! That right shall not be infringed upon"
-
Nobody should have guns, guns have potential to kill people, so we should ban anything that can kill people. ... Oh wait wrong one.
-
3 Respuestas[quote]Militia: Refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government[/quote] Militias are essential to preserving the security of the nation when attacked domestically. In order to guarantee the effectiveness of these brave men, women, and even children they must have access to weapons and they can't be taken away. This right to self-preservation along with maintaining weapons can not be denied
-
6 RespuestasI believe that it entitled all citizens (of sound mental health) to keep and bear firearms. Although, when this was written guns shot one bullet a minute, and there wasn't a police force in every town.
-
1 RespuestaITT: People who think the personal nature of humanity changes in under 300 years.
-
I believe that any reasonably sane and responsible person should be able to own firearms of all types, but, of course, some people don't like having personal freedoms.
