1 Like
Did he live?
So you know what a comma is?
The 2nd amendment is the right to bear arms AND the right to a well regulated militia.
Tally up casualties and letâs talk.
Despite the cumbersome grammar, it is generally understood that there are two independent clauses. However, it is difficult to imagine that they have no relation to one another since they are in the same sentence, and Article 2 has no other words in it.
Teh RKBA is not to be infringed, that much is clear. The necessity of a RWM to the security of a free state is also pretty clear EVEN THOUGH that is stated as an opinion rather than a guarantee or a collective right. All else, including the relation of one clause to the other, is subject to interpretation.
Donât lecture me about commas, though. Iâm hardly your opponent here.
It wasnât understood that way until an NRA funded SCOTUS threw out 200 years (give or take) of history and changed basic sentence structure.
EITHER:
The WRM is the collective of arms-bearers, in which case there is not nearly enough regulation, seeing as how crazies can get guns and the NRA likes it that way.
OR:
The WRM is the Armed Forces, in which case thereâs no way the collective arms-bearers are going to be given access to the sort of weaponry to keep the Forces in check.
One thing is clear, the most vocal mindset of the NRA gunhumpers is that regulation is tantamount to infringement. Perhaps a definition of these two terms is warranted.
Yet they seem pretty muted about Bombs, Nukes, Flame Throwers, âMachine Gunsâ etc
No, he didnât make it.
We talk about gun control and rights to bear arms. Fine. Have your guns. How about instead you deal with your racial issues, your political division, lack of social programming, poverty, incarceration rates, access to mental health services and all the other shit that contributes to violence in general?
I agree.
I am however against bump stocks, as used in the shooting.
But let me state this to any anti-gunners: the only way to collect guns from citizens is by police and government wielding guns, which means youâre not anti gun youâre just anti-your-neighbor-having guns. It is about control. Not safety. If safety was paramount these anti gunners would be anti-whoever used them. And since ours government is so truthful, restful and righteous⌠do you really all want them to be the only one with guns? 
Tung, Saddam, Pot, Ghaddafi, Hitler and Stalin, etc all loved a centralized government only being the ones who have weapons. 
So why do you carry a gun for the Government?
Well regulated militia and all.
Itâs ok to go after potheads with guns, tanks, helicopters, battering rams, concussion grenades, pepper spray bombs etc. but if it happens to people who have arsenals of deadly weapons all of a sudden itâs a tyrannical gov. 
You act like Iâm not against that.
Thereâs no reason to use war equipment on people without such equipment.
An intelligent person might call it escalation of force.
Although I could give a fuck about pepper spray, flashbacks etc. All temporary.
I say legalize weed and lock up those who wonât hand over their guns and let them fill up the private prisons for awhile. Gun owners always acting like theyâre proctecting everyoneâs freedoms, what a crock of bullshit.
Or we can just he like WA and legalize weed and let people own guns if they want.
1 Like
I donât have a problem with gun ownership. Canadians have a lot of guns. We just have very strict laws to go with them like you need a license to get a gun. We donât allow loaded, public or concealed carry. Storage and transportation is strictly regulated. People suffering from mental illness canât have guns. Etc etc etc.
This nonsense that militias can take on governments is such a load of horseshit. What century do you think you live in Boro?
1 Like
We should make it legal for everyone to have nukes so we can launch one at KJU before he launches one at us! SAVE LIVES!!! Nukes donât kill people, people kill people.