Question about the second amendment

[Witty]

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


How does this relate to personal gun ownership?

[NYCSPITZ]

A well regulated Militia, and the right of citizens to keep and bear Arms, are necessary to the security of a free State, and shall not be infringed


Reworded 4 u...meaning the above has nothing to do with gun ownership but the right to use mechanical force against possibly immoral forces

[Sharp]

It is from the 1780s lol

[Destroyer]

at the time of its writing, it may have seemed necessary, as this was before the existence of the armed forces of the united states, to have a group of men who could be armed and ready to assemble at a moment's notice. What does it mean in today's timeline? nothing.

[veritas]

I can't wait for you to explain how it means nothing for today.

Please enlighten us.

[Sharp]

ITT V explains the necessity of just the 'well regulated militia' phrase of the Constitution

[Destroyer]

it means nothing because we have a regulated militia called the armed forces
and if a time comes when they fail to stop an invading force, all of the armed citizens will mean nothing, because as armed as they could be, they wont have tanks, or jets, or nuclear missiles. But the other people will. Thats why it means nothing today to claim the right to bear arms has anything to do with the need to form an active militia from citizens.

[veritas]

Well....Could we just use drones? Like Obama does?

[veritas]

And is your argument that the average man shouldnt have weapons because the government now pays men to have weapons and work for it? Is that it?

[Chyeahhh!!!]

What does it mean in today's timeline? nothing.

oh explain this little gem please

[Code Black]

Clearly the founders' knowledge didn't make it as far into the future as they wanted....

[Chyeahhh!!!]

Destroyer, so you're saying if Martial Law was unlawfully implemented to disarm the citizens of America and Posse Comitatus was overridden you mean to tell me that the modern day Militia would not protect the rights or should not protect the rights of your dumb ass and everyone else?

[Chyeahhh!!!]

it means nothing because we have a regulated militia called the armed forces
and if a time comes when they fail to stop an invading force, all of the armed citizens will mean nothing, because as armed as they could be, they wont have tanks, or jets, or nuclear missiles. But the other people will. Thats why it means nothing today to claim the right to bear arms has anything to do with the need to form an active militia from citizens.


LMFAO

I will not dignify this response as a coherent excuse to engage in regards to said subject matter.

the rest of you may continue

[Larold]

Destroyer you better have a good answer for your outrageous boast

[Destroyer]

um, i already answered
lots of lip and chin in this thread

[Chyeahhh!!!]

yea....it's a few folks in this thread who remind me of the guy who bends over and squeals like a pig in Deliverance without hesitation when it comes to there rights. Me and many others are counting on people like you to keep things busy when the roundups come

[veritas]

Jude: does the military personally protect your family?

Is there an armed battalion assigned personally to your house?

[Larold]

Well that would be going against the third amendment James

[Destroyer]

veritas, if you learn to read, youd see that i was responding to the original question, as in what that part of the second amendment (referring specifically to the general militia portion) means today, which has absolutely nothing to do with one's right to personal protection, which i have said nothing about

[veritas]

But you then said that since there is an armed forces there is no need for us to own guns. Right?

[Destroyer]

no, i said since we have armed forces, there's no need to own guns for the purpose of forming an armed militia

am i speaking a different language?

[uh-oh]

Yes. You are speaking the language of idiot.

The armed forces arent a militia. A militia is by definition citizens who take up arms and fight as an army. The minute its professional its not a militia anymore.

For there to be a militia it has to be made up of citizens, therefore citizens have the right to bear arms dummys

If the us army somehow gets steamrolled best believe im gonna be yall queda in the hills of appalachia making ieds and sniping any chinamen or russian i see.

[Larold]

The oldest nigga is also the dumbest

[uh-oh]

I mean syrians have the syrian army. Why would they need to arm themselves??????

[Destroyer]

yeah, im sure you will singehandedly succeed where the entire us military failed

sadly, it's morons like you having guns that makes normal people want to take away the right to bear arms

[Destroyer]

you can make legitimate arguments all day for the right to bear arms to protect oneself against people that would stand to do them or their loved ones harm. I agree with the right to bear arms. But to suggest, in 2016, that the second amendment must exist for the purpose of forming an armed militia on the fly, is just idiotic.

[uh-oh]

If you think i have aspirations of singlehandedly defeating a nations military you would be correct. If you think i thought it plausible you would be incorrect. I would just rather die fighting than be a prisoner or any of the other unfortunate outcomes that befalls the conquered.

Me owning guns to protect myself and fight a make believe war you created have absolutely no effect on your life. None. You have no right to ask me to give up the right to own them.

[Larold]

When seconds matter, the police take minutes to get there.

Protect yourselves

[Destroyer]

nor have i, and nor would i
i assume you posted before reading my above post

[~RustyGunZ~]

So destro should we be allowed guns?

[Destroyer]

i think on more than one occasion in this very thread i've made it obvious that i think that we should for the purpose of home and self defense, but not to form a militia

[uh-oh]

Why not?

[Destroyer]

its just not feasable that that need would ever arise today

[uh-oh]

its just not feasable that that need would ever arise today

Lets go back to your make believe scenario that somehow the entire us military is finished. Every base, and all the military structure has been bombed and finished.

There will still be millions of americans, and the point of any war is control of the region whether directly or through some form of vassal scenario where they install someone to rule.

The militias would then take up the fight to reinstall america. They arent made up on the fly, they already exist in every state. Im not a part of a militia but i could then join and be given directives.

The same way an afghani villager isnt taliban. He joins and is given objectives.

The point of the taliban or al qaeda isnt to build ships and planes and come and destroy america, it is to kill the invading force, and do whatever is necessary to get the invading force to leave so you can re institute your way of life.

The militias would be no different. We wouldnt be trying to defeat russia or china or whoever, just make there governance impossible here so we could reclaim our sovereignty.

If you think that is stupid and unfeasible thats fine, but like i said, i would rather die fighting. The second amendment makes perfect sense.

[veritas]

Jude: the ability to form a militia is bc we have the right to bare arms. We don't have the right to bare arms just to form a militia. The second amendment really gives us the right for both. As one is a logical consequence of the other.

And why would we not need a militia now a days?

[uh-oh]

And hey lets say liberals get there way. The second amendment is abolished. You can still have a pistol or shotgun for home defense. Then time passes and more liberal reforms come through and we cut military spending and disband a ton of our forces because you know its just not necessary. Then some more liberal reforms go through and hey we cant have pistols anymore or shotguns because it was barbaric in 2016 but now in 2050 it doesnt make sense to own a gun we got policebots protecting us all.

Now russia or china moves.

Do you see why its a problem?

Everything is fine. Nothing needs changed.

[Chyeahhh!!!]

this wiggas gunbar pass has been indefinitely revoked

[Pharaohs Army]

Regarding gun laws-- It all seems arbitrary. And they don't enforce laws already on the books.
I don't think it's safe if any ol' citizen could buy a rocket launcher on Amazon
But it's also ridiculous and crazy that New York state limits you to a pistol with 7 bullets. As if that's enough.. if multiple home invaders come in.. who prolly don't obey the gun laws.

Gotta be some middle ground.

Like so many of these mass shooters shouldn't (by already existing laws) have had a gun at all... But, guess what. Friends and relatives gave them. Kinda hard to stop that. Unless you banned guns which is not realistic. They exist. All over.

Funny thing is gun manufacturers have made a killing from fear-mongering about Obama takin 'yer guns. Granted some Democrats agendas do scare gun owners, but it is certainly exaggerated. Gun manufacturers laughing all the way to the bank.

I'm gonna look up the exact wording of amendment#2...
I'm more concerned about #4 being decimated (too late probably)... but still a fan of all of the bill of rights.

[Useless]

Stfu witty

[Mike Wrecka]

Uh oh making destroyer look like a moron itt

[Destroyer]

Yeah thanks for weighing in trump wrecka because your opinion is worth a lot

[Mike Wrecka]

Lmao you thought that a militia and an army are the same thing. That just shows how uninformed you are. There are active militia in every state.

You also said that a militia could never actually impede an invading army. Which is completely false. It's called guerilla warfare. it worked quite well for the Vietmanese. All of our planes and bombs didn't mean shit.

And Militia turned the tide of the Revolutionary war, right on this soil , against the strongest military in the world at the time. U can't fight what u can't see


An invasion is incredibly difficult. We have a large population in this country. An invading army would have to patrol every area of every state. And we would vastly outnumber them. Now while your there holding ur latte it will be a piece of cake for a Korean to take over destroyers block but an armed militia using guerilla warfare can actually hold its own.

Now ofcourse an invasion is highly unlikely. but not out of the realm of possibility. .

[Batty]

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Fighting tanks with pistols is an extreme case, but yeah, I'd rather at least try that shit then just get steamrolled and shit lol.

But yo, forreal... if some Hurricane Katrina shit happens again and in your area, you better be ready.

That's the type of shit you need your own response team for, real talk.

[Destroyer]

Lmao you thought that a militia and an army are the same thing. That just shows how uninformed you are. There are active militia in every state.

You also said that a militia could never actually impede an invading army. Which is completely false. It's called guerilla warfare. it worked quite well for the Vietmanese. All of our planes and bombs didn't mean shit.

And Militia turned the tide of the Revolutionary war, right on this soil , against the strongest military in the world at the time. U can't fight what u can't see


An invasion is incredibly difficult. We have a large population in this country. An invading army would have to patrol every area of every state. And we would vastly outnumber them. Now while your there holding ur latte it will be a piece of cake for a Korean to take over destroyers block but an armed militia using guerilla warfare can actually hold its own.

Now ofcourse an invasion is highly unlikely. but not out of the realm of possibility. .

just read your last sentence to see how irrelevant your opinion is
I never said a militia was the same as the armed forces. I said at the time of the writing of the second amendment, militias were necessary, now, with the existence of the armed forces, they're unnecessary. Granted, yeah, if the Koreans invade the US land, (never happen in a million years, not just unlikely, impossible) maybe it would be nice to have an armed populace. But we already have that for other reasons. We don't need a militia. And LMAO @ "there's a militia in every state." Yeah, and they're all idiot rednecks who oppose the American govt. That's your evidence for why militias are needed for the good of the American people should a war break out on our own soil? Go jerk off to some trump YouTube vids, idiot.

[anime_boners]

How does this relate to personal gun ownership?

it is a 200+ year old document created in a world entirely different than today's world.

it's had amendments added, removed, edited time and time again.

but many of our politicians are in the pocket of the NRA, and so this particular amendment is cannot be touched.


welcome to America where are on the verge of putting Donald fucking Trump in the white house.