Godlike Productions - Conspiracy Forum
Users Online Now: 2,540 (Who's On?)Visitors Today: 2,459,864
Pageviews Today: 3,336,761Threads Today: 713Posts Today: 13,850
10:56 PM


Rate this Thread

Absolute BS Crap Reasonable Nice Amazing
 

The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY

 
mrmuffins69

User ID: 28433365
United States
12/18/2012 03:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
Here is the language of the Second Amdendment to the U.S. Constitution:

"Amendment II

A 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."



Note the language that this militia is "necessary to the security of a free state". This means that this militia is ABLE TO DEFEND AGAINST FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC ENEMIES IN WARFARE...ie, be able to defend against a modern army of the day.

The original meaning of the language "well regulated" here basically means "properly trained and equipped." Also, the original meaning of the term "militia" is basically "every able bodied male who could serve in the army."

Thus, putting this Amendment into "modern" language, it is saying:

"A properly equipped and trained population of able-bodied men, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20078449


This is the start of the civil war in America. MSM and your Government are flat out calling for your guns. Whatever side you stand on this, know one thing, this will get bloody. Before you say that there has already been blood shed, that will pale in comparison to what is to come. Check your fucking Government now. Tell them who the boss is. We the people. We the people are.


Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.

George Orwell
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27205820


Remember in the 1st U.S. Civil War, both the Federal Government, and the Peoples of the States in rebellion against that Federal Government, both sides used every weapon that was known to man at that time. All of them, and even invented new ones.

The State Legislatures of the States in "Rebellion" against the standing U.S. Government asserted that they had the 'order' by the People of their State to fight against what those People understand in their own opinions that the then standing U.S. Goverment was a Tyrant and in a state of Tyranny... and those people chose to take up arms against said U.S. Government, Those People used every known weapon available in their own perceived fight against tyranny. They used their understanding of the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as it was intended to be used.

That self same U.S. Constitution also provided Article One, Section Eight -- Congress shall have the power to.... :

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" -- Article One, Section Eight.

And under Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation..."

One must come to understand the ENTIRE U.S. Constitution, all its Amendments, and in fact all Treaties that the U.S. Congress over time have Approved of. Doing any thing else is to work against the U.S. Constitution, either ignorantly or willingly.

Remember, both the North, and the South their States, and their peoples were both of the opinion that they had correctly Interpreted and understood the U.S. Constitution. This disagreement brought on the U.S. Civil War, that killed a half a million American troops, and countless civilians.

Both sides used every known weapon and invented new ones.

So, yes, in the next US Civil War we can well imagine that nuclear weapons will be used by both sides of the battle, as well as chemical weapons and biological weapons.

Civil Wars are essentially a Fight to the Death.

Get your heads out of the pot-smoke, alcohol confused, drug dumbed down mental case and become very very sober about all of this.

There are in fact External forces working overtime within the USA to bring to past as Second U.S. Civil War. These will call it a "Revolution", it will be the end of the USA as we now and have ever known the USA, and the People.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27972246


over 600,000 killed in civil war that number today would mean over 6 million, we dont have a clue what will happen in the future but i seriously doubt they will use nuclear weapons. keep in mind the rest of the world will be watching
mrmuffins69

User ID: 28433365
United States
12/18/2012 03:18 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
Here is the language of the Second Amdendment to the U.S. Constitution:

"Amendment II

A 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."



Note the language that this militia is "necessary to the security of a free state". This means that this militia is ABLE TO DEFEND AGAINST FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC ENEMIES IN WARFARE...ie, be able to defend against a modern army of the day.

The original meaning of the language "well regulated" here basically means "properly trained and equipped." Also, the original meaning of the term "militia" is basically "every able bodied male who could serve in the army."

Thus, putting this Amendment into "modern" language, it is saying:

"A properly equipped and trained population of able-bodied men, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20078449


This is the start of the civil war in America. MSM and your Government are flat out calling for your guns. Whatever side you stand on this, know one thing, this will get bloody. Before you say that there has already been blood shed, that will pale in comparison to what is to come. Check your fucking Government now. Tell them who the boss is. We the people. We the people are.


Power is not a means, it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.

George Orwell
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27205820


Remember in the 1st U.S. Civil War, both the Federal Government, and the Peoples of the States in rebellion against that Federal Government, both sides used every weapon that was known to man at that time. All of them, and even invented new ones.

The State Legislatures of the States in "Rebellion" against the standing U.S. Government asserted that they had the 'order' by the People of their State to fight against what those People understand in their own opinions that the then standing U.S. Goverment was a Tyrant and in a state of Tyranny... and those people chose to take up arms against said U.S. Government, Those People used every known weapon available in their own perceived fight against tyranny. They used their understanding of the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution as it was intended to be used.

That self same U.S. Constitution also provided Article One, Section Eight -- Congress shall have the power to.... :

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" -- Article One, Section Eight.

And under Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States:
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation..."

One must come to understand the ENTIRE U.S. Constitution, all its Amendments, and in fact all Treaties that the U.S. Congress over time have Approved of. Doing any thing else is to work against the U.S. Constitution, either ignorantly or willingly.

Remember, both the North, and the South their States, and their peoples were both of the opinion that they had correctly Interpreted and understood the U.S. Constitution. This disagreement brought on the U.S. Civil War, that killed a half a million American troops, and countless civilians.

Both sides used every known weapon and invented new ones.

So, yes, in the next US Civil War we can well imagine that nuclear weapons will be used by both sides of the battle, as well as chemical weapons and biological weapons.

Civil Wars are essentially a Fight to the Death.

Get your heads out of the pot-smoke, alcohol confused, drug dumbed down mental case and become very very sober about all of this.

There are in fact External forces working overtime within the USA to bring to past as Second U.S. Civil War. These will call it a "Revolution", it will be the end of the USA as we now and have ever known the USA, and the People.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27972246


over 600,000 killed in civil war that number today would mean over 6 million, we dont have a clue what will happen in the future but i seriously doubt they will use nuclear weapons. keep in mind the rest of the world will be watching
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20779525
United States
12/18/2012 03:21 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
what the frenchie said about being united is right, all men equal UNITED one nation under GOD LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. that doesnt say oh hes black or hes mexican forget him, it says united. and the only way this country would ever truely be free, hell the world for that matter is to put aside petty nothings and stand united, for years they have been playing devide and conquer tactics amongst us all, we are all quilty really. the fools fall for this, then they take prayer out of school, that way you slowly take away things that have the word god in it, like the pledge of allegiance, that reminds us all, if we truly want to be free, we must stand united, with our huge numbers and force. then there isint an army in the world that could stop you.
Éireann
Eisteacht le gra!

User ID: 13372649
United States
12/18/2012 03:25 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
Oh I love you, OP! Great post! Bravo!

yay

bkiss
Éireann~

Eisteacht le gra! ~ArunaLuna (Translation from Gaelic: "Listen to Love!")

"And I sincerely believe, with you, that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." - Thomas Jefferson, from a Letter to John Taylor written in 1816

"Unfortunately, it is in the nature of man to tinker - even with immutable truth. Thus, we must be ever vigilant... - James Munford

“It is a sad fate for a man to die too well known to everybody else, and still unknown to himself.” - Francis Bacon

"Better the illusions that exalt us than ten thousand truths" - Aleksander Pushkin
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
I do not give negative Karma. I believe that all opinions are worthy of debate and discussion. Free speech is essential to the growth and advancement of each individual and all of Humankind.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 03:35 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
And what modern army do you think semi-automatic rifles and handguns will be much use against?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25007705


If that's the case, then why the heavy push to disarm us? You know, since we can't be effective against a modern military and all.

Here's a protip. When it comes to guerrilla warfare, house to house fighting, it would drag any modern military into a fight that is the equivalent of a meat grinder. Doesn't matter if the weapons are semi-autos, full auto, or 22's.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19701857


As responder above noted, even an army of men equipped with AK-47s and semi-autos can give a modern army fits in guerrilla warfare, and even win (see Afghanistan, etc).

But I agree with you that semi-auto rifles and handguns are not enough. And guess what? The Second Amendment recognizes the right of the people to have MORE ADVANCED WEAPONS than this.

As I have shown, the original intent of this amendment was to recognize that the people have the right to be armed AS A MODERN ARMY OF THE DAY, in order to be able to defend themselves a foreign or domestic enemy army.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20078449


I would purpose the introduction of a U.S. Constitutional Amendment that explicitly includes both the Air Forces as well as the Space forces... as they are in fact completely currently omitted from the U.S. Constitution itself.

The Navy and the Army.. are the military forces explicitly dealt with in the current U.S Constitution.

Why have we not absolutely demanded of Congress, that is to say our own individual Two U.S. Senators, and One U.S. House Representativeness, in an overwhelming super majority of the People of the States and the People as a whole as U.S Citizens? Why Not limit the Power of the Federal Government in its use of Air Force military powers and even Space military force powers.

When are the U.S Citizen going to come to know how to remove a U.S. Senator and/or a U.S House Representative as well as many know how to play Call of Duty (or pick your favorite Game). Until the People get completely educated as to the fullest legal and yes, U.S Constitutionally sound ways to remove both U.S. Senators and U.S. House Representives, the People might as well have their hands in the ground or willingly hypnotizing those that would eat them for lunch in open rebellion against the very thing they really want to defend, the U.S. Contitution.

It is not time to stay ignorant, it is not time to be a pot head or a booze swiller, nor high on cocaine, herion, or crystal method, nor any SSRIs, nor any other psychtropic drug in 'recreational' use.

Get your heads out of your ass, dear, People of the USA.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20779525
United States
12/18/2012 03:36 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. that is the pledge of allegiance, i would just like to point out that if any of you have spoken these words, in school or other, and you are a libtard, you have broken your allegiance and are not of use to the "republic" that is all of us under god in this great nation, the nation they have been dismantling brick by brick for years, as a libtard you have helped them do this. the republic is all men women and children that indeed want to be free in this great nation. thats why this pledge is there, telling you to stand up for your fellow man. not to undermine his freedoms, his right to self defense, to defend his family, home, property, and fellow man. this stands for the second ammendent, and everything else this great country stood for on its birth. its the second ammendment and so much more really.
Sneetch

User ID: 14967850
United States
12/18/2012 03:36 PM

Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
I don't know if it was mentioned yet, but I love it when some anti-gun tard says "Hurr but back then they were talking about muskets, not semi-autos of destuction!"

Uhh newsflash you idjuts, muskets WERE cutting edge military technology at the time. The populace was as armed as the god damned military was.

Hell, I wouldn't mind having an Abrams in the garage and a couple silos for some ICBM's on the farm. In fact, I would hold myself much more responsible for them them my government surely would.
We were meant to live for so much more, have we lost ourselves?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 03:40 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
Yup I just bumped another thread explaining this same thing yesterday. And it's the truth, whether people like it or not.

gun ownership is a right guaranteed to every citizen in the constitution. even children are allowed to wield a gun if the citizens must form a milita, or if the child is defending their family. I would love to see people talking about mental health and depression/SSRIs rather than gun control.
 Quoting: SteamrolledGobias


The Staw-Man and the Red-Herring is the "Guns".. its about much more than just Guns.. people..

SIT UP, STAND UP.. since so many are awake and still laying around on their beds playing with their dicks and pussies.

THe MSM and its Mockingbird puppet masters, want you so focused on Guns, so much tunnel vision that you cannot see that the Peoples weapons are now totally worthless in the full by any determined mercanry army sent in by a Government to hire them to use the nuclear, biological, and chemical weaons, the war aircraft and missiles.. against any the oppose it... and the People will by the end for the very first month, be eating radiological ashes, breathing vile chemicals in the air, and too sick to even think about picking up a stone let alone a gun.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 20779525
United States
12/18/2012 03:42 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
Yup I just bumped another thread explaining this same thing yesterday. And it's the truth, whether people like it or not.

gun ownership is a right guaranteed to every citizen in the constitution. even children are allowed to wield a gun if the citizens must form a milita, or if the child is defending their family. I would love to see people talking about mental health and depression/SSRIs rather than gun control.
 Quoting: SteamrolledGobias


The Staw-Man and the Red-Herring is the "Guns".. its about much more than just Guns.. people..

SIT UP, STAND UP.. since so many are awake and still laying around on their beds playing with their dicks and pussies.

THe MSM and its Mockingbird puppet masters, want you so focused on Guns, so much tunnel vision that you cannot see that the Peoples weapons are now totally worthless in the full by any determined mercanry army sent in by a Government to hire them to use the nuclear, biological, and chemical weaons, the war aircraft and missiles.. against any the oppose it... and the People will by the end for the very first month, be eating radiological ashes, breathing vile chemicals in the air, and too sick to even think about picking up a stone let alone a gun.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27972246

did you know the majority of the japanese didnt agree to the surrender? and kept fighting even after?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 28997948
12/18/2012 03:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
WTB:

Nuclear weapons so I can at the very least nuke the capital when the politicians become dicks.


That should make sense according to your reasoning right?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22089462


Why does every super-douche come from the Netherlands? You guys are super sell-outs. I have hundreds of fulfilled prophetic dreams, and thousands of the yet-future. I can tell you: The Netherlands is NO FRIEND to America.
IssueX

User ID: 14348632
United States
12/18/2012 03:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
WTB:

Nuclear weapons so I can at the very least nuke the capital when the politicians become dicks.


That should make sense according to your reasoning right?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22089462


Why does every super-douche come from the Netherlands? You guys are super sell-outs. I have hundreds of fulfilled prophetic dreams, and thousands of the yet-future. I can tell you: The Netherlands is NO FRIEND to America.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 28997948


again, the 2nd ammendment is not about the right to go hunting

it is about the right of the people to hit the 'reset' button if need be on a government which has become a tyranny

it is about the power of the people being equally matched to the standing army of the time

otherwise, it becomes a replay of Hitler invading Poland with state of the art machine guns and tanks, and Poland defending itself with a cavalary
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 04:12 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
"...shall not be infringed" means that no law - passed by ANY court or Congress or ANYBODY - can EVER limit the RIGHT of the people to posses *military* arms.

THAT was the intent, and THAT is the LAW of the Second Amendment.

Period.

There is no other intent and there are no "laws" that can change it.

Any "law" that attempts to infringe on those rights is "unconstitutional," to coin a phrase :P and therefore, null and void.

What you sheeptards don't realize is that the BANKERS have already overthrown this country and canceled the Constitution.

You get it? The war is already lost. The very DAY, the VERY MINUTE that the U.S. military took delivery of a weapon of greater power than the average Joe could buy, the United States of America was lost.

Don't you get it?

NONE of you are going to "rise up."

NONE of you are going do ANYTHING because you have already lost.

The entire system you perceive as "government" is utterly false. A sham. A ruse.

It is merely a curtain hung by the BANKERS who direct nearly every thought in your head and ever goal in your life.

Until you can truly see the extent of the prison, you can never effect your own escape.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30244563

And yes, unfortunately, this even includes those 'deemed by authorities to be mentally ill or insane.' This also includes the convicted felony who has served his time.

Never forget that it is in fact only Might that Defends Right. You have no Right if you cannot Defend that right successfully by any that would take it away from you via what ever methods they try.

The is only ONE that is Almighty, only One... and there can be only One, and it is not Human, and it is not ET/Alien.

The One, the Few, the Many, and the All.

There is only one that is ALL MIGHTY that can and will successfull Defend its own RIGHT.

"Mine eyes have seen the coming of the glory of the LORD..."

That is the Almighty GOD... "

The Hymn of the Republic... have we forgotten that, these we people of this constitutional democratic Republic of the United States of America?

1. Constitutional
2. democratic
3. Republic

Of the individual States' constitutional democratic Republics, and their Federation we term the the United States of America.

Are we a Federation, or a Nation? Or are we both?

All those born with the boundaries of this Federation, are Natives of the Land, and in that sense a New Nation unlike any other Nation that has ever been on this Planet in known History. Race and ethnic, and even religion have absolutely nothing to do with it, we are One People.. all born on this Land, hence One Nation... And by god, we should all be Nationalists and not Internationalists.

As long as e-Voting, (And god forbid, such terrible ideas as internet Voting) and e-Voting machines exist that can be remote controlled, then the democratic part of this Constitutional Democratic Republic will be dying of aggressive Cancer, and nearly dead.

Oh, and the 1st Amendment, We The People, individually and collective, both, are in fact THE PRESS... and what we all write, and broadcast are is the fruit of our Pressing...

We The People are the Wine Press.. under the All-Mighty Wine Press.

We are THE PRESS.. not the 'offical press' or the 'officially licensed journalists and offically sanctioned media'. We the People are THE PRESS.

It is time we got up off that bed, and sit, and then stood up, and put the full press on the Courts as well.
Perseus -]+[-
User ID: 691183
Greece
12/18/2012 04:13 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
And what modern army do you think semi-automatic rifles and handguns will be much use against?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25007705


If that's the case, then why the heavy push to disarm us? You know, since we can't be effective against a modern military and all.

Here's a protip. When it comes to guerrilla warfare, house to house fighting, it would drag any modern military into a fight that is the equivalent of a meat grinder. Doesn't matter if the weapons are semi-autos, full auto, or 22's.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19701857


As responder above noted, even an army of men equipped with AK-47s and semi-autos can give a modern army fits in guerrilla warfare, and even win (see Afghanistan, etc).

But I agree with you that semi-auto rifles and handguns are not enough. And guess what? The Second Amendment recognizes the right of the people to have MORE ADVANCED WEAPONS than this.

As I have shown, the original intent of this amendment was to recognize that the people have the right to be armed AS A MODERN ARMY OF THE DAY, in order to be able to defend themselves a foreign or domestic enemy army.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20078449

if the worst happen you have a more near example to see
what will happen...Syria, and more, many of the heavy army weapons will come to the hands of the people from military
men who also want to defend the constitution

this civil war, IF become reality, it will be very harsh
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 21160675
United States
12/18/2012 04:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
Professionalization of the military is the worst disaster to befall America. Now Americans do not see it as their duty to bear arms. They do not believe themselves capable anymore than they're capable of conducting surgery.

Bring back the draft, cut the active military and return america to a culture where every able bodied man knew and embraced his responsibility to defend the country.

Do not trust the professional military. They are week mindwashed men who can be bullied into nearly anything. I've served 9 years, I now what I'm talking about.
MarkinAZ

User ID: 20006444
United States
12/18/2012 04:38 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
The simple truth is a group of young soldiers under orders to "go round up" this X or Y or Z group of citizens in the country/city/whatever - are probably going to be fairly green kids. They may not like or agree with this kind of an order. But being young, they obey it anyway or face serious consequences.

An armed citizen group has the ability to say to these young men - do you really want to risk your lives in carrying out your orders? While I might not be able to get many - we would get some. And among that group might well be YOU, or YOU or even YOU! If nothing else that possibility makes them think long and hard about what they're doing, what they've been ordered to do and whether or not their following what they know to be an evil and deeply wrong "order" is worth risking their young lives to obey??

The same group of citizens, unarmed, are no match at all for even a modestly armed cop or two. Under those circumstances you, your family, and your friends would quickly find themselves in a boxcar headed to a "camp" and then to death shortly thereafter.

Don't think it can happen in a "modern" and "civilized" world? The same thing was said by the Germans as they were being indoctrinated by Hitler and his cronies and soon they were seeing their friends and neighbors carted away - many never to be seen alive again!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 04:44 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
And what modern army do you think semi-automatic rifles and handguns will be much use against?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25007705


If that's the case, then why the heavy push to disarm us? You know, since we can't be effective against a modern military and all.

Here's a protip. When it comes to guerrilla warfare, house to house fighting, it would drag any modern military into a fight that is the equivalent of a meat grinder. Doesn't matter if the weapons are semi-autos, full auto, or 22's.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19701857


As responder above noted, even an army of men equipped with AK-47s and semi-autos can give a modern army fits in guerrilla warfare, and even win (see Afghanistan, etc).

But I agree with you that semi-auto rifles and handguns are not enough. And guess what? The Second Amendment recognizes the right of the people to have MORE ADVANCED WEAPONS than this.

As I have shown, the original intent of this amendment was to recognize that the people have the right to be armed AS A MODERN ARMY OF THE DAY, in order to be able to defend themselves a foreign or domestic enemy army.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20078449


I notice just how effective the guerillias of Japan and Germany were after the extreme carpet firebombings of their cities and the nuclear bombs used on Japan. Notice had hard those peoples continued to fight as guerilias after all the fire bombing and atomic bombs were waged against them.

We have not seen since WWII the full power of any of the super-powers' military force because it has not been used. It has been limited.

Had the USA, et.al, gone into Afghanistan (and Iraq) with Ten Million troops on the ground and massive firebomb carpet bombing every city and village of Afghanistan, that war would have been over in a year. Period.

Pray to your God, gods, or goddesses that such modern military weapons are never used in full force application in a full and total war. The death total will be in the billions. Make no mistake.

Then the guerillia will fight with sticks and stones.

You know when a government feels like it is being successful in serving its Masters, its People, when the term 'terrorists' and 'freedom fighters', and 'rebels', and 'insurgents' are not being used in wide currency, but rather the mere term, "Criminals".

Remember too folks, the Geneva Convention is more worthless now than every since the day the ink dried on it. It is a treaty and treaties tend to get broken, again and again.

The UN and may know this, has no certain Military of its own. The UN will go away or the UN will change its charter and become the largest military power this Solar System has ever seen. A One World Army, Navy, Air Force, and Space Force, and the peasants will faint with fear.

Should the US Military ever fail to the point that the USA itself in all its Territories and States be overwhelmed.. semi-automatic weapons and pee shooters to kill Bambi with will be of very little aid.

As Americans we have to remember and understand that this nation could be itself carpet bombed with nukes, chemical weapons, and biological weapons in an all out attack against it... should the US Military ever seriously fail to defend this nation. And 9-11-2001 was a picnic.

We need to be sober as hell, Americans.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 30244563
United States
12/18/2012 04:45 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
If the country passes a law banning military type weapons then it is your duty as law abiding citizens to follow that law. If not, guess what, your a f'ing criminal.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18625087


I'll be a criminal and you'll always be a coward hoping the government will protect you.
 Quoting: maelstrom 30235606


Your a idiot. If you don't abide by the law then GTFO
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18625087


lol.... "shall not be infringed."

Unconstitutional laws are null and void.

Just sayin.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 30244563
United States
12/18/2012 04:46 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
Professionalization of the military is the worst disaster to befall America. Now Americans do not see it as their duty to bear arms. They do not believe themselves capable anymore than they're capable of conducting surgery.

Bring back the draft, cut the active military and return america to a culture where every able bodied man knew and embraced his responsibility to defend the country.

Do not trust the professional military. They are week mindwashed men who can be bullied into nearly anything. I've served 9 years, I now what I'm talking about.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 21160675


Same here. Propaganda is #1 priority WITHIN the military.
IssueX

User ID: 14348632
United States
12/18/2012 04:47 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
The simple truth is a group of young soldiers under orders to "go round up" this X or Y or Z group of citizens in the country/city/whatever - are probably going to be fairly green kids. They may not like or agree with this kind of an order. But being young, they obey it anyway or face serious consequences.

An armed citizen group has the ability to say to these young men - do you really want to risk your lives in carrying out your orders? While I might not be able to get many - we would get some. And among that group might well be YOU, or YOU or even YOU! If nothing else that possibility makes them think long and hard about what they're doing, what they've been ordered to do and whether or not their following what they know to be an evil and deeply wrong "order" is worth risking their young lives to obey??

The same group of citizens, unarmed, are no match at all for even a modestly armed cop or two. Under those circumstances you, your family, and your friends would quickly find themselves in a boxcar headed to a "camp" and then to death shortly thereafter.

Don't think it can happen in a "modern" and "civilized" world? The same thing was said by the Germans as they were being indoctrinated by Hitler and his cronies and soon they were seeing their friends and neighbors carted away - many never to be seen alive again!
 Quoting: MarkinAZ


very wise post

my dad lost family members in France in WWII. Ironically it was the most intelligent and well educated who were most in denial: doctors, university professors, intelligentsia

Germany had been one of the most advanced nations, a center of science and culture, it was unthinkable that they could descend into barbarism, that so many German youth could be brainwashed into carrying out inhuman orders, yet it happened

clappa
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 30244563
United States
12/18/2012 04:50 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
If the country passes a law banning military type weapons then it is your duty as law abiding citizens to follow that law. If not, guess what, your a f'ing criminal.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18625087


Remember, everything the Nazis did was LEGAL.

Think about that.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1144869


If the country passes a law banning military type weapons then it is your duty as law abiding citizens to follow that law. If not, guess what, your a f'ing criminal.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18625087


Remember, everything the Nazis did was LEGAL.

Think about that.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1144869


How is it that people seem to think it is OK to take away more constitutional rights? First off, the MSM reported that he used two pistols, then, once the president decided he was going to wage war on the Constitution it became "he used an assault riffle".

If, by the way, you allow our guns to be taken away, you are the Fuckin' criminal. Time and Time again throughout history, once guns are taken from the people, their governments have ran them over.
 Quoting: 0311INFANTRYSIR

Your paranoid and have no idea what your talking about. Go back to your single wide in the woods, trim your mullet, and then crack open a Schlitz
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18625087


You didn't wait very long to break out the Ad Hominem, shill-bot.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 22089462
Netherlands
12/18/2012 04:52 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
WTB:

Nuclear weapons so I can at the very least nuke the capital when the politicians become dicks.


That should make sense according to your reasoning right?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22089462


"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." – Tenche Coxe



But you trust nukes in the hands of the psychopathic Satanic ruling jewish Illuminati banksters.

Why not the people, as opposed to the Illumati????
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20078449


So you are in agreement that people should be able of buying nuclear weapons?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22089462


Stop being daft. A government body possessing nukes is no argument for complete disarmament of it's people.

I don't believe governments should have ever possessed nukes in the first place. But your argument is not one we are talking about. We are talking about arms a person carries (hint, hint, guns).
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 19701857


So depleted uranium slugs and RPG launchers should be available to all?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 18012248
United States
12/18/2012 04:55 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
WTB:

Nuclear weapons so I can at the very least nuke the capital when the politicians become dicks.


That should make sense according to your reasoning right?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 22089462


"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." – Tenche Coxe




But you trust nukes in the hands of the psychopathic Satanic ruling jewish Illuminati banksters.

Why not the people, as opposed to the Illumati????
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20078449


The above highlighted statement by the "OP" tells me everything I need to know about him.

My guess is that if enough guns and weapons and nukes were in your hands your first target would be the Jews.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 04:56 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
Thanks Piers; but, you are wrong: the United States Supreme Court has held that the right to keep and bear arms is an "individual right"....
 Quoting: Elsabiades... 28025858


A proper citation to that assertion definitely needs to be made. Where in the volume of the U.S. Supreme Court Decisions is your assertion to be found? In other words Linky Poo, but not of any ordinary website and blog, but rather that of the official U.S. Supreme Court?

Many assert many things. But in matters of this import, it is fitting and proper that such citations be made provided to the readers of this thread and such sorts of threads.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27972246


Oh, by all means (I had thought that even a fool living in a cave was familiar with) Distict of Columbia v. Heller.....
 Quoting: Elsabiades... 28025858


I do thank you, but not you chiding mood. I was familiar with it.. Strokes however are like that if you are lucky enough to even live after one, you tend to discover there are holes in what you used to remember. It is a miracle that I can even write... there are times speaking is very difficult. But I thank you again for your citation.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 1367896
United States
12/18/2012 05:16 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” – Thomas Jefferson
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 20078449


Yet you patriots so adamant of having guns so you can fight against a corrupt government did nothing about 911 or the bank bailouts or its intentional crash. Cowards who just want to keep their toys but don't truly care what they are for.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 29330683


fuck you cheese dick stay out of it doesn't have anything to do with Canada. Mind your own fucking business, and go pound some more cheesr up your ass. Your french genes are showing
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 05:22 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
Thanks Piers; but, you are wrong: the United States Supreme Court has held that the right to keep and bear arms is an "individual right"....
 Quoting: Elsabiades... 28025858


A proper citation to that assertion definitely needs to be made. Where in the volume of the U.S. Supreme Court Decisions is your assertion to be found? In other words Linky Poo, but not of any ordinary website and blog, but rather that of the official U.S. Supreme Court?

Many assert many things. But in matters of this import, it is fitting and proper that such citations be made provided to the readers of this thread and such sorts of threads.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 27972246


Oh, by all means (I had thought that even a fool living in a cave was familiar with) Distict of Columbia v. Heller.....
 Quoting: Elsabiades... 28025858


The decision (as reported by Wikipedia's entry @ [link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

Decision

The Supreme Court held:[43]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

(3) The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition – in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute – would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.

The Opinion of the Court, delivered by Justice Scalia, was joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. and by Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr.[44]

[link to en.wikipedia.org (secure)]

====================
I, this poster, further would share these:

It should be noted those what were in fact by the understandings and definitions of the Lexicons of Political Science (as of perhaps 1776-1789 vintage) properly labeled as "Nationalist" or "Anti-Federalists" decided to be 'Orwellian" in naming their 'party' and given themselves by the name "Federalists".

This twist left the true (according to the then Political Science Lexicons of the day) to be required to take on another label to describe themselves with, because the term "Federalist" had been co-opted by the Anti-Federalists. So the former federalists took on the term "The Anti-Federalist" reflecting that they were in opposition to the Orwellain co-opting of the term, which had then become promoted and megaphoned by the Newspapers and Magazines.. so these countered by taking on the Label and Name, "The Anti-Federalists".

This is all confusion, and the confusion was caused by the 'real' anti-federalists who, being as wolves in sheep's clothing told everyone they were Federalists.

We find that such methods of changing the meanings of words and terms to become exactly the opposite of what they had been in prior times a result of the techniques of Neural Linguistic Programming or as it was understood at the time by the term, "Occult" methods of covert psychological operations.

We find the same sort of thing in the so called parties, the Democratic party and the Republican party...

Both parties played off of the foundational usage of the phrase, "a constitutional democratic republic" of the Political Science's Lexicon, but in a warped and bended fashion. So that if one thinks, 'democratic' it is very likely today your mind will almost automatically think of the Democratic Party, and if you use the term 'republican' many may wonder almost automatically that you are referring to "The Republicans -- as of the Republican Party". This is part of how the methods of psyops have been used for centuries. The Sheep ( and even the Goats) are spending most of their time eyes to the grass and eating, or sleeping, or just basking in the sun-light.

Understand that in today's terms, the Federalist is a Nationalist, who essentially is working to turn the State Republics into mere administrative arms of the Central National Government. The Anti-Federalists in todays usage would be those that call upon the Sovereign Rights of the individual State Republics. It is confusing and a mess. No wonder people watch American Idol, and the NFL, its simpler to understand.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 05:24 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
For people living under a rock: District of Columbia v. Heller; 138 U.S. 2783 (2008) held that the right to keep in bear arms was an individual right.....
 Quoting: Elsabiades... 28025858


Thank you also..

I have provide some of the text of this case a few posts above.

Those that live in bright sun-light might have been somewhat disabled by such things as life threatening strokes.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 05:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
And what modern army do you think semi-automatic rifles and handguns will be much use against?
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 25007705


The Vietnamese and the Afghanis may be better suited to answer this question.
 Quoting: Evil Cretin


Perhaps the Iraqi are in a much better position to answer that even further.

But then what of the Syrian?
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27794780
United States
12/18/2012 05:25 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
Take a Dump! Full of it!
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 05:28 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
We really need to stop calling it "gun ownership" and start calling it "Arms ownership."

Then, maybe people will start to see the truth.

I think, perhaps, the popular transition to calling it "gun" ownership was initiated by agents of the BANKERS in order to confuse the issue and begin the overthrow.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 30244563


Indeed.
Anonymous Coward
User ID: 27972246
United States
12/18/2012 05:32 PM
Report Abusive Post
Report Copyright Violation
Re: The right to bear arms (2nd Amend) is specifically intended for DEFENSE AGAINST MODERN ARMY
The OP is putting his own twist on the 2nd amendment. The same is done with the bible.
 Quoting: Anonymous Coward 18625087


How has he done that? By quoting the people that wrote it?
 Quoting: Evil Cretin


Just as some Christians will twist the Sermon on the Mountain in such a fashion to claim otherwise than what it simply says, 'Feed the hungry, cloth the naked, heal the sick, help the poor." and turn Christianity into a Zealot and Militant, "Kill the Infidels" doctrine.

News








We're dropping truth bombs like it's the end of days!