RE: Gun owners?
September 7, 2015 at 2:00 pm
(This post was last modified: September 7, 2015 at 2:13 pm by Whateverist.)
(September 6, 2015 at 10:20 pm)brian1570 Wrote:(September 6, 2015 at 10:08 pm)Minimalist Wrote: Actually when it was written it referred to the state militias...a phrase which oddly is still there but gun nuts seem unable to read. Probably learned that kind of cherry-picking from their fucking bibles!
Granted they were talking about a musket and a bayonet not an assault rifle.
Yes the 2a gets misunderstood allllll the time down here in the south. But the musket and bayonet thing....that was of the time period. So that was equal to what the military had. So to me it only makes sense for the most part what the military carries, we can carry. And yes fully auto firearms are legal though the process to acquire them is hellacious.
It is precisely what gun nutters think is the purpose of the 2nd amendment which concerns me.
We needed a militia when the standing army was non-existent or insufficient. It was always expected to take commands the same as the military from a lawfully elected government.
But gun nutters talk of the 2A as if its purpose were to allow citizens to overthrow the government if it got out of line. This is so absurd on so many levels. So rather than accept the result of a lawful election, each individual is given a veto power in the form of a gun? Crazy. And how exactly are they expected to overthrow the government? Just start shooting police, service men and elected officials? Clearly not a rational justification for guns and I'm against arming anyone who thinks like this.
