Those who believe the 2nd amendment doesn't protect ownership of a military grade weapon should reread the text:
"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."
Now ask yourself these 2 questions...
-
If a "well regulated militia" is necessary to secure freedom, then who are they securing it from? There are only 2 possible answers- either from an invading foreign government, or from their own government.
-
If this militia is to stand any chance of preserving freedom against a government army wielding military grade weapons, what kind of weapons will this militia need? There is only 1 answer- military grade weapons... much like the CANNONS individuals were allowed to own in early American society.
Now, for those who believe the Founding Fathers didn't know our day, didn't know our guns, and so 2nd amendment protection doesn't extend to modern automatic weapons...
Ask yourself...
Does the 1st amendment protect your freedom of speech, of the press, of religion, of assembly... on the internet? A modern platform unforeseen by the Founding Fathers?
The answer, of course, is yes. Changing times don't nullify your freedom.
If you disagree with the 2nd amendment, then just say so. If you don't like it, try to repeal it. After events like school shootings, I may disagree, but I get it- I'm not making an argument for or against guns right now.
But let's forget this silly notion that our right to bear arms is limited only to those guns that render the 2nd amendment completely useless.
9
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
6 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.
There's a lot of folks who can't get their noodles around what that amendment bluntly and clearly says. Nor will they bother to find out what the definitions are - so they make their own up and then cram down the throats that this means the government has the right... which is stupid on its face and in its entirety.
Paisley_Pirate
Level 6
Apr 19, 2019
0
The most irritating is when they act like the W2nd amendment is about hunting.
Second Amendment, I'm with you entirely on. Even though Oregon is trying to tell us how many bullets we can have at one time.
First Amendment... I'm not so sure we have that in major left-leaning states.
The rights that can't be erased are being buried in garbage legislation and biased court rulings.
SpaceWillie2000
Level 6
Apr 19, 2019
1
Yes, and that ought not to be the case.
Military grade hardware is an invention of modern nonsensical creative historians.
All weapons are generally made with a foresight of military service. The scope of the 2A was never viewed to have limits.
SemiAutomatic weapons existed along with weapons of "war" during the 1780s.
CodeNameZebra
Level 6
Apr 19, 2019
1
The average citizen had better firearms available than the government troops during the Revolutionary War. THAT is what 2A really means.
@Paisley_Pirate I would probably say that's always been the case.
Cost is less of a factor for civilian ownership.
Right. The way I read the 2nd Amendment, fully automatic weapons should be available to any citizen that wants and can afford one. The second amendment was written in the event it became necessary to over-throw a tyrannical government. They felt that if it came to a war between the government and the citizens the citizens should be able to win that conflict.
Notestine
Level 6
Apr 19, 2019
2
I use the Puckle Gun argument against any gun control advocates arguments, usually shuts them up.
SpikeTalon
Level 10
Apr 19, 2019
1
Be part of the movement!
Welcome to the community for those who value free speech, evidence and civil discourse.Create your free account
Share this post
Related Groups More
American Freedom
357 members
Categories
Slug does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.