13036450, I don't disagree with what you said and it dovetails with what I said.
Posted by Buddy_Gilapagos, Tue Jun-21-16 03:25 PM
I don't think the second amendment intended for PEOPLE to carry around weapons for personal safety.
In fact, when the second amendment was written people didn't keep arms in their home. They kept them at militia depots.
So I think it is clear though that it intends for people (the 2nd amendment references PEOPLE not STATES) to have access to arms in order to fight the national government or foreign government but what type of weapons do you need to best fight governments? At least guns as powerful as the government have, assault weapons.
In fact, I think a good argument can be made that the 2nd amendment did intend for us to have access to RPGs and other serious weaponry because that's what would be needed to fight off the government, just that we don't have the right to walk around carrying them for personal protection.
>yes, at the state level
>in case the national (federal) govt over-extends itself
>... thats not the right for every single individual to bear
>arms
>its individuals who are part of a regulated militia
>(in today's day and age that would be the state's national
>guard)
>what y'all are arguing is the re-interpretation of the second
>amendment by the supreme court
>and very recent too
>
>so, no.
>
>perhaps we need to go back to the letter of the law
**********
"Everyone has a plan until you punch them in the face. Then they don't have a plan anymore." (c) Mike Tyson
"what's a leader if he isn't reluctant"
|