I get it. So hypothetically, you want to own a tank? Ok. Whats the difference between buying a tank and building a tank?
No, I don’t want a tank. I certainly do not believe that anyone should be able to build or buy one. I just can’t believe that some of you actually would want to live in the type of world where people can do this. I prefer to not wish for the apocalypse.
There are about 1,000 privately owned tanks in America
Well, I would like to see some evidence to support your claim. Without any evidence, my assumption is that they are no longer operable in the traditional sense.
For your viewing pleasure
And you left out Chicago , Louisiana , Mississippi, Alabama , along with gun control democratic States WHY ?
I am not talking about amending the Bill of Rights. I don’t think our National Codes, our convictions about Due Process, the slippery slope of vigilanteism or any of the other consequences of putting the 2nd above the 1st or the idea of a commitment to the “rights” of others. I don’t think you believe that either.
We the People must learn to live by the principles and the intent and today’s context of the founding documents. Instead we tend to pick and parse to fit our Me the People tendencies right now. We are, through current vogue, tending to focus more on unlawful gun proliferation and our individual and personal safety issues- all real- when the 2nd may have been aimed more at an overbearing government and a threat of insurgence or extra-national attack. Well Trained Militia is barely spoken of today- because we are not a trained militia. We try to prevent guns from going to irresponsible hands but we are mostly all responsible people- until the moment we are not. Many in the police departments around the country have weighed in against vigilanteism and the undependability of heros with guns. for every example of it working out well there is another example where it did not.
I rarely if ever bring a gun to the city. I am trained and fluent inthe use of my weapons but never want to be in a crowd when a gun appears, in the moment, to be a fall back plan or a solution. I have killed and I will NEVER forget it and will never be positive that there wasn’t another path. Since I stopped carrying many years ago I reflect that, for whatever reasons, my life has contained much less violence. That works better for me and those around me I think.
In theory WE are the State! A disengaged population provides all the necessary fodder to raise a dictator. Not atypically, for instance, our president was elected by just under 24% of the registered voters in this country. The turnout for last midterms was even fewer voters who bothered to come out. That doesn’t even address the fact that we can’t make the time to be a part of the nomination process and way to frequently the primary decisive edge appears to be m o n e y. A working class person stands 0 chance of a major office today (and yesterday). I contest your only Two Options idea.
If you chose to not carry, that’s totally within your purview. My whole point is that you can’t legislate a right; you either have it or you don’t. In my opinion, the 2A is incredibly clear, shall not be infringed. I think what people are beginning to realize, is that WE are the militia.
you absolutely can.
Although the Heller decision adopted the broader, individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Court made it clear that the right to possess a gun continues to have a number of significant qualifications or restrictions. The Court indicated that the Second Amendment continues to allow for limits on guns like the following:
•Not allowing everyone to possess a gun. The right can be withheld from felons and the mentally ill, for example.
•Not allowing guns to be carried everywhere. Laws forbidding people from carrying firearms in “sensitive” places, such as schools and government buildings, remain valid.
•Certain restrictions on the sale of guns. Laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms continue to be allowed.
•Banning certain types of guns. The Second Amendment does not protect guns that are not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. (The Court endorsed the “the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”)
•Outlawing concealed weapons. Laws prohibiting concealed weapons probably remain valid.
Those are subjective ruling based upon the justices own prejudices. Now where in the second does it outlaw specific firearms or where they can be carried. I will concede that felons shouldn’t have access give their propensity to break the law,.
you just violated your own rule.
Well regulated means…regulated…regulations…rules. Rules are written. By people appointed to write rules.
I see where you are confused, maybe this will help.
doesn’t matter they are all to be “well regulated” hence see 53/above.
it doesn’t mean “anybody”
Again, I think we are just going to disagree here.
I love how progressives attempt to cite the Constitution but refuse to acknowledge that language in the 1700s was different.
You need the context of the phrase “well regulated” during the time that “well regulated” was written into the 2A. The context has changed over time.
This is what it meant then:
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.
1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”
The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
That is the most bad-ass answer. #wordbullets
You should not agree to disagree so quickly - especially against a card-carrying political activist like @SteveSPHR he probably comes here to learn how we argue in order to train his little OFA twinks.
Duly noted. again, great post.