Bring your guns to DC

[Whoha]

When nuclear weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have nuclear weapons.

[Lonestar]

The whole point of individual gun ownership is so that we can stand ready to overthrow the government in case it get's too uppity.

Hooah 2nd Amendment.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Lonestar
The whole point of individual gun ownership is so that we can stand ready to overthrow the government in case it get's too uppity.

Hooah 2nd Amendment.

Or it could be to make up for small penises.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Or it could be to make up for small penises.

...Ted ****ing Nugent has a small penis?

[snoopy369]

One reasonable interpretation of the 2nd amendment (reprinted here )

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.

might be that it is permissible to restrict certain arms, while not restricting arms as a general category. There's no question that, IF the founding fathers had been aware of WMDs or similar, they'd have not included them - and it's clearly against state interest to permit owning a WMD. Thus it is clear that the intent of the founding fathers was to have a rule that was not strictly worded but instead indeed was left open to interpretation by the modern and/or local polities.

Now, honestly, if you interpret the 2nd amendment to mean "right of the People to keep and bear Arms for their own self defense and for the hunting of game in permitted areas", which is probably a reasonable interpretation given the militia part and the obvious assumption of hunting from the time period, then the followup question of course is, wouldn't handguns still fall under such protection - and it's possible even assault rifles, given that if anyone is to suggest forming a militia, it's going to be using assault rifles...

[Elok]

Originally posted by Lonestar
The whole point of individual gun ownership is so that we can stand ready to overthrow the government in case it get's too uppity.

Hooah 2nd Amendment.

That's even dumber than the militia argument. The same arguments I made against Iraq as proof of militia efficacy apply, and a lot more. We've got far too few troops over there, and they don't understand local politics enough to know what's going on. They're also under orders to act with restraint.

None of those things would be the case if the U.S. Gov't. got tyrannical and faced resistance at home. The U.S. resistance couldn't just wait for the occupiers to go home and lay low to encourage them to do so. Nor would the government be struggling to rebuild an infrastructure it recently demolished. And it would be quite capable of infiltrating the resistance. So insurgency tactics would be of little use--and as for head-on warfare, that's a joke.

[Lonestar]

Doesn't detract from that's what the intent of the founders, buddy.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Lonestar
Doesn't detract from that's what the intent of the founders, buddy.

Obviously, the founders predicted that the government would wield weapons that are far beyond what an individual or milita can ever hope to have.

And obviously, the founders predicted that the governments would have the technological means to monitor its population very effectively.

As a result, obviously they saw militias as an efficient way to topple such a government.

[Dr Strangelove]

Actually the founders agreed to let the states keep their militias so they would sign the friggin' Constitution.

[Lonestar]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Actually the founders agreed to let the states keep their militias so they would sign the friggin' Constitution.

the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

So, the gun ban was unconstitutional.

[KrazyHorse]

Lonestar, do you agree that the 2nd amendment also makes any other restrictions on ownership of weaponry illegal? Does it prevent the government from outlawing the ownership of nuclear weapons?

[Perfection]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Because the difference between a printing press able to reach a few hundred people and requiring a huge investment on the part of the person running it and the internet where you are able to reach hundreds of millions of people instantly and with very little investment on your part is precisely the type of difference between personal arms and nukes.

No it isn't.

(I suspect sarcasm, but you could be an idiot)

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by snoopy369
it is permissible to restrict certain arms, while not restricting arms as a general category. There's no question that, IF the founding fathers had been aware of WMDs or similar, they'd have not included them - and it's clearly against state interest to permit owning a WMD. Thus it is clear that the intent of the founding fathers was to have a rule that was not strictly worded but instead indeed was left open to interpretation by the modern and/or local polities

What a bunch of mind-reading bull****...

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Perfection
No it isn't.

Why not?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Perfection
(I suspect sarcasm, but you could be an idiot)

Actually, I'm pretty sure you're the idiot.