2A

[Stripped Rights]

I don't mean assault rifle when I use the letters AR.

 

[rsm]

I don't mean assault rifle when I use the letters AR.

so you mean Armalite Rifle?

having to get a government tax stamp to exercise our 2A rights is an infringement.

 

[Stripped Rights]

so you mean Armalite Rifle?

having to get a government tax stamp to exercise our 2A rights is an infringement.

Not sure could be. I just mean AR 15 type shit. IDGAF what anyone says there should be restrictions on what types of weaponry average idiots can possess. Especially considering how dumb the average person is. No matter what you own you and your cronies could never stop our tyrannical government if it came down to it so that little argument is out the window.

 

[CrazyNutz]

Something I am afraid of is people that haven't learned how to safely handle firearms from an early age.

I'm much more concerned about mentally/emotionally unstable people getting access to guns.

Realistically these are the people doing the mass shootings. I'm ALL FOR sensible legislation to help prevent these folks from gaining access to firearms.

 

[rsm]

Not sure could be. I just mean AR 15 type shit. IDGAF what anyone says there should be restrictions on what types of weaponry average idiots can possess. Especially considering how dumb the average person is. No matter what you own you and your cronies could never stop our tyrannical government if it came down to it so that little argument is out the window.

nope. just as 2A states.

and about not stopping our tyrannical government, the Taliban seemed to have done well. so did BLM riots.

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

 

[Stripped Rights]

I'm much more concerned about mentally/emotionally unstable people getting access to guns.

Realistically these are the people doing the mass shootings. I'm ALL FOR sensible legislation to help prevent these folks from gaining access to firearms.

100%. I was only referring to the, I know it sounds bad but, "normal" population. The stable people.

 

[Stripped Rights]

nope. just as 2A states.

and about not stopping our tyrannical government, the Taliban seemed to have done well. so did BLM riots.

Fuck the second amendment then if you want to be like that. Common sense should tell you that not everyone should be able to own fuckin bombers and battleships. FFS.

 

[rsm]

Fuck the second amendment then if you want to be like that. Common sense should tell you that not everyone should be able to own fuckin bombers and battleships. FFS.

Emotional? Triggered? That's not how it works.

Wrong again.

Merchant ships had the same cannon as warships, in the early decades of the Republic.

The authors of the Constitution experienced tyranny, and they needed citizens to rise up against it. As you said, what good would citizens be against the US armed forces; unless they both had the same weapons? Which is why 2A doesn't limit citizens' right to keep and bear any arms.

Simple. Unless you want to make it unnecessarily complex which is what enables infringements.

 

[YabbaDabbaDoo]

Somebody's hero here....

 

[Stripped Rights]

The authors of the Constitution experienced tyranny, and they needed citizens to rise up against it. As you said, what good would citizens be against the US armed forces; unless they both had the same weapons? Which is why 2A doesn't limit citizens' right to keep and bear any arms.

In your last post you said it's not about a tyrannical government but now you're saying that we need the same weapons as them to stop them. One or the other which is it?

Besides that as I said we could all own tanks, bombs, and battleships, whatever and we'd still get our asses kicked. No way we'd stand a chance against our government because they'd call in favors from other countries militaries. We wouldn't just be fighting our military. We'd be Fuckt. So as I said not every average idiot should be able to possess any type of weaponry.

 

[rsm]

In your last post you said it's not about a tyrannical government but now you're saying that we need the same weapons as them to stop them. One or the other which is it?

Besides that as I said we could all own tanks, bombs, and battleships, whatever and we'd still get our asses kicked. No way we'd stand a chance against our government because they'd call in favors from other countries militaries. We wouldn't just be fighting our military. We'd be Fuckt. So as I said not every average idiot should be able to possess any type of weaponry.

where did I ever say it's "not about tyranical government"? I only brought it up because you did when you stated citizens could not confront the US military - (which is why I mentioned the Taliban) - and why the authors of the Constitution didn't restrict any arms from citizens, in fact quite the opposite - the Authors wanted citizens to have the same weapons as any military in the world.

My point is unalienable rights and infringements from modern tyrants aka our ruling parasites attempting to limit, restrict and deny certain arms from citizens - just as you are.

 

[Stripped Rights]

where did I ever say it's "not about tyranical government"?

Here's your post.

Looking back I see what happened. When I read the highlighted sentence I switched "about" and "not" by accident so it expressed something different to me than what you meant it to say. Sorry about that you never said "it's not about tyrannical government."

the authors of the Constitution didn't restrict any arms from citizens, in fact quite the opposite - the Authors wanted citizens to have the same weapons as any military in the world.

That's fine and dandy but as I said in my last post even with the same weapons I don't think we would stand a chance because our government would just get assistance from other countries militaries and we'd be screwed. So if that's the case as I believe it is, then there's no sense in allowing any average dumbass to possess ARs and bombs and shit because we wouldn't be able to stop our government. So what the founding fathers intended concerning restrictions is null and void. If we stood a chance of defending against a tyrannical government I'd think differently.

 

[rsm]

Here's your post.
View attachment 219928
Looking back I see what happened. When I read the highlighted sentence I switched "about" and "not" by accident so it expressed something different to me than what you meant it to say. Sorry about that you never said "it's not about tyrannical government."


That's fine and dandy but as I said in my last post even with the same weapons I don't think we would stand a chance because our government would just get assistance from other countries militaries and we'd be screwed. So if that's the case as I believe it is, then there's no sense in allowing any average dumbass to possess ARs and bombs and shit because we wouldn't be able to stop our government so what the founding fathers intended concerning restrictions is null and void. If we stood a chance of defending against a tyrannical government I'd think differently.

I see I wasn't clear; my point was that Taliban, BLM etc. didn't have any problems defying or stopping our tyrannical government with limited weapons and lack of military intelligence; neither will armed US citizens, though it would be easier if citizens had access to the same weapons as 2A intended.

I'm actually not worried about armed insurrection against a tyrannical US government, it's more the zombie hordes of woke losers; if the zombie horde gets here, I'm prepared; if government tyranny gets to epic levels, I'll be long gone; got my exit strategy planned and ready to go.

I'm indifferent, I don't plan to fight or take up arms against the US government, I plan to leave the country - better chance at survival.

 

[Stripped Rights]

I see I wasn't clear; my point was that Taliban, BLM etc. didn't have any problems defying or stopping our tyrannical government with limited weapons and lack of military intelligence; neither will armed US citizens, though it would be easier if citizens had access to the same weapons as 2A intended.

I'm actually not worried about armed insurrection against a tyrannical US government, it's more the zombie hordes of woke losers; if the zombie horde gets here, I'm prepared; if government tyranny gets to epic levels, I'll be long gone; got my exit strategy planned and ready to go.

I'm indifferent, I don't plan to fight or take up arms against the US government, I plan to leave the country - better chance at survival.

So then you don't need any of the weapons we're talking about. Problem solved/debate over.

 

[rsm]

So then you don't need any of the weapons we're talking about. Problem solved/debate over.

you missed where I said 2A lets us have any arms?

 

[Stripped Rights]

you missed where I said 2A lets us have any arms?

No I didn't. You said you don't need those weapons because you'll move first.

 

[rsm]

No I didn't. You said you don't need those weapons because you'll move first.

after the clarification that 2A says we have the right to all weapons

 

[Stripped Rights]

after the clarification that 2A says we have the right to all weapons

But possessing certain weapons would be pointless in regards to the founding fathers intent so nobody needs the grenades, bombs, jets whatever. Thus making 2A pointless and proving it should be abandoned.

 

[rsm]

But possessing certain weapons would be pointless in regards to the founding fathers intent so nobody needs the grenades, bombs, jets whatever. Thus making 2A pointless and proving it should be abandoned.

pointless according to who? not 2A

 

[Stripped Rights]

pointless according to who? not 2A

Pointless according to everyone that couldn't tame our government with equal weaponry if the shit hit the fan. And as I said making the founding fathers intentions null and void.