In pictures: US gun-blessing ceremony

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The 2A guarantees individuals the right to keep and bear arms. Unless a citizen is as strong as Superman, he would not be able to carry (bear) things like cruise missiles etc. So, it is apparent that the 2a was not intended to guarantee an individual right to monstrous sized weapons.

So then, how is the militia aspect relevant if the constitution doesn't protect the right of citizens to have weapons of defense that the government has? At the time of writing, the citizens had the same weapons available to the central gov. So the militia is relevant to why someone should have an Ar-15, yet if the feds want to come after them, they are going todo it with f-22's and other tools of war

Founders couldn't have predicted where we would be today, maybe?

[spence]

Originally Posted by zimmy

So then, how is the militia aspect relevant if the constitution doesn't protect the right of citizens to have weapons of defense that the government has? At the time of writing, the citizens had the same weapons available to the central gov. So the militia is relevant to why someone should have an Ar-15, yet if the feds want to come after them, they are going todo it with f-22's and other tools of war

Founders couldn't have predicted where we would be today, maybe?

What's even funnier is his assertion that you're not entitled to nukes or tanks because you can't "bear" them because they're too heavy

Back in the day a state militiaman was supposed to have a rifle, bayonet and rucksack...not much else.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

What's even funnier is his assertion that you're not entitled to nukes or tanks because you can't "bear" them because they're too heavy

Back in the day a state militiaman was supposed to have a rifle, bayonet and rucksack...not much else.

What's even funnier than that is that you and Zimmy are convinced that you are right. This despite the fact that I can go legally buy these weapons which you think should be unattainable due to wording you have interpreted in the constitution.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

What's even funnier than that is that you and Zimmy are convinced that you are right. This despite the fact that I can go legally buy these weapons which you think should be unattainable due to wording you have interpreted in the constitution.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So because you can buy them now, but you couldn't in 1995, and you can't buy a DAU 19 or rpg today, makes it funny that we are convinced we are right. You must have done great with properties of equality in school

Didn't do great with reading comp, I bet . We think the wording allows the government to make them unattainable, not that the wording itself makes them unattainable.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

What's even funnier than that is that you and Zimmy are convinced that you are right. This despite the fact that I can go legally buy these weapons which you think should be unattainable due to wording you have interpreted in the constitution.🤡
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yea, people being able to legally buy these weapons and then shoot up schools is freaking hilarious.

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by zimmy

So then, how is the militia aspect relevant if the constitution doesn't protect the right of citizens to have weapons of defense that the government has? At the time of writing, the citizens had the same weapons available to the central gov. So the militia is relevant to why someone should have an Ar-15, yet if the feds want to come after them, they are going todo it with f-22's and other tools of war

Founders couldn't have predicted where we would be today, maybe?

Zimmy, your beating your head against the proverbial 2A wall, I've used that argument to no avail many times. Logically back then there was more of a level playing field between a large group of colonialists and either their old (UK) government or their newly formed government, an armed militia could make a difference. Back then that logic worked because of the equality of weaponry, it doesn't work today. I don't care how many hand gun owners, shotgun owners, deer rifle toting militia or ever AR15 owners you put up against our military or any modern military; you loose 100 out of 100 tries.

Then I'd like to see how many pick up those weapons to fight our newly formed tyrannical government and who is calling them to arms, the entire argument is flawed. Oh don't get me wrong I believe in the 2A, but taking it to the extreme as weapons of mass destruction get more and more advanced is just not making sense IMHO. Love to hear the logistical argument for forming this constitutionally given right to bear arms and form this militia. Is the NRA going to send out an email to all you owners telling you the time has come to pick up arms to eliminate what they feel is an overreaching government?

I understand this country was founded on principles and a constitution protecting our individual freedoms, but do you think that evolving with the times isn't something these same forward thinking gentlemen would have felt essential if this country was to survive? Back then women had no rights at all, why have we given them any, if that is the way our founding fathers believed it should be. I'm certain many of those same founding fathers owned slaves, why have we given them freedoms they didn't deserve back when that document was penned?

Zimmy this is a circular argument, it never changes, the arguments remain the same, start at point A and you will eventually return there.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Nebe

Very good comrade. In communist Rhode Island , you don’t ever retire, you just keep working to support the state workers who retired at age 45!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is not fair. Remember plenty retire at 45 than move to another job in the system to grab another 10.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

I understand this country was founded on principles and a constitution protecting our individual freedoms, but do you think that evolving with the times isn't something these same forward thinking gentlemen would have felt essential if this country was to survive? Back then women had no rights at all, why have we given them any, if that is the way our founding fathers believed it should be. I'm certain many of those same founding fathers owned slaves, why have we given them freedoms they didn't deserve back when that document was penned?

And more rights were correctly granted in time.

The default of human history has been tyranny, slavery, and oppression. Freedom (even whittled away as suggested by the Nebster), beats the alternative. The Constitution is a road map on how to guide the country forward, to maintain some level of Freedom and Liberty. They even created a mechanism of the people to amend and replace parts of the Constitution. How prescient.

Originally Posted by Got Stripers

Zimmy this is a circular argument, it never changes, the arguments remain the same, start at point A and you will eventually return there.

Yep, there is room for compromise but it is not being given room. If you banned AR15s tomorrow, what would it change? If you had a reliable and unusable solution to prevent unstable people from having access to ARs, would it not be better? How can you get their without violating other people's rights?

[Got Stripers]

Originally Posted by JohnR

And more rights were correctly granted in time.

Yes, we as an evolving society, realized that not allowing women the same rights (power isn't even close) as men, was wrong. With the help of another forward thinking man, good old Abe understood that enslaving your fellow man is wrong; moving to change the thinking of the times. We have changed John, our society has made an unimaginable leap since our forefathers penned the constitution; that span of time is why thinking must change.

As difficult as times might have been when my parents (rest their soles) entered adulthood, at least you shared the values of your neighbors, your community and a common purpose always seemed to be at hand.

Oh and by the way, for those militia rights die hards, who is coordinating this move to arms, better have some very special IT skilled, capable of hacking all government servers types ready in the wings, because guess who's watching and listening to you. Cell phones, oops guess again, they will be listening. Oh I know we all are equipped with ham radios and communication and coordination will NOT be an issue; this entire argument is comical.

And the come back to the above paragraph, is this is why the 2A was written and there Zimmy we get back to point A; isn't it fun?