Why there the second amendment is a farce believed by fools

Isn't OP the same guy that said Congress could repeal the 2nd Amendment?

Why yes it is. His arguments here have just as much weight as they did in that thread.

 

They are not. You brought up your ability to maintain your weaponry.

 

The second amendment could easily be repealed if needed. That said there is no reason because it has already been repealed and you have no clue. Can you buy any arms needed to protect yourself from the government?

Nope.....................thus the second amendment has been gutted and you have no clue

 

I saw the first movie once and the sequel not at all. Even at that I realized it was a Russian invasion story at least in the first one. Oh and by the way The Russian army refused to fire on the Russian people during Gorbachev's take down. Russia in essence had it's own version of England's 'Glorious Revolution' which if memory serves ousted Charles II England's last Stewart King.

 

Thanks for the disinformation. Transforming mad shooters into mad bombers isn't an improvement.

 

Yes, government is powerful and can kill you if it chooses.

It usually doesn't choose to mow down whole communities with heavy arms

 

The government has gutted the second amendment to make sure that you can NOT BEAR ANY ARMS OF CONSEQUENCE.

 

yeah I still do. whos going to take it from me? you?

 

Now is when you say that your Daddy is bigger than his Daddy

 

no it isnt. Im not a beta male. Im asking who here thinks they are going to take my guns? The answer is simply none of you. I will keep my guns and you will sit there and do absolutely nothing about it.

 

LOL in your mind someone wants your guns.......................Dude this is a delusion, neither you or your guns are important to anyone.

Sorry to have to break this to you

 

You keep challenging me with that same stupid question, and I keep responding that I don't give a rats ass about your weaponry.
You also maintain that you will keep your weapons and that nobody can take them away, yes? The point being is that you are full of
horse manure. Get it yet.

 

really then why are you spending post after post infatuated with them?

 

no i said aliens could take them...remember. But gun grabbers....never on their best day.

 

It is rather silly isn't it. The gun is a fetish symbol of the fweedumb americans sat on their soft fat asses and watched stripped from them incrementally in response to their own fears.

 

Well, as long as we can still be paranoid about someone taking them.

 

Aliens cant really take them either...I was only joking. As you know the distances involved between star systems will prevent aliens from ever coming here or us there.

 

As an owner, and a permitted to carry owner who grew up with guns, I find the hysteria laughable.

 

And yet the Taliban is still fighting the US over 10 years latter..

 

You have the default position wrong. The default position is the people can have arms, though some have interpreted it as arms one can bear (which should include bazookas, RPGs, grenades, and shoulder fired missiles, e.g.) If the government wants to restrict some arms it is the government's onus to prove that their action can be interpreted as constitutional. It is not the responsibility of the individual to prove their owning such and such a gun is constitutional.

 

All CAPS adds nothing to the veracity of your claim.

 

Odd isn't it, how we get into bed with these groups in our global occupation efforts and then they come back to bite us in the arse.

 

Yes, I have read the constitution.
You are correct that the 2nd amendment has little to do with hunting and target practice, but it has a lot to do with self defense, especially against the federal government -- hence necessary for the security of a free state..... not a free union.. The militias were allowed because the states needed some back up protection against the union. But it also made sense that a non-intrusive union that had the responsibility for the common defense be able to call up the various militias to fight anything that might be threatening the union, including foreign powers. The right of the people to bear arms is separate from the right of the states to form a militia.

 

I was exaggerating a bit with the "zero" connection. But the states' rights to have a militia and an individual's right to bear arms are two separate things. States have a right to a militia as being necessary for a free state (not a free country.) States can have militias whether or not individuals have a right to own weapons.

 

Two separate things in the same sentence? Name another place in that document where the framers did that.
According to the 2A they COULD have a militia without weapons but it would be pretty pointless