nerv14
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 27, 2009
- Messages
- 601
- Reaction score
- 42
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
good answer1. All small arms and light support weapons that can be carried and operated by a single infantryman, which are tactical in nature (ie not WMDs).
2. All weapons suitable for purposes of self-defense. (ie handguns, knives).
3. All weapons suitable for sporting purposes. (ie shotguns, deer rifles.)
I suppose I could put up with having to get a permit for light support weapons, like SAWs and LAWs. It's a compromise...
While I disagree with SouthernDemocrat on almost everything, he is right about one thing: the Founders intended the Militia (ie all armed citizens, per many quotes I've posted before) to be the cornerstone of America's defense, and did not intend for us to have a large standing army such as we have today.
G.
I am just thinking how I wish the Second Amendment was specific enough to be taken literally, by having your list, or at least saying that "arms" in the second amendment were only "normal arms."
Also, it is important to remember that when this country was created, there was no real inherent advantage that professional soldiers could have over normal citizens with guns. But today, we need planes, destroyer, aircraft carrieers and nukes to stay competitive. We have no way to defend ourselves from another nation just bombing us to destroy our economy (or something else short of invasion) with just a civilian army.
but I agree, in that with a heavy armed population, there is no real way to be invaded. (unless there was some insane types of biological or radiation weapons)
That's a misinterpretation. It is clearly obvious you are doing all you can to avoid my posts, you don't respond to anything. The 9th amendment does not say that one right can not infringe upon another. The 9th amendment says that the People have more rights that just those enumerated by the Bill of Rights, and that those rights are equally reserved by the People. The government may not infringe upon the rights of the individual, and our rights are not limited to those listed in the Bill of Rights
That's the meaning of the 9th. It's backed by writings by the founders, try reading the anti-federalist papers. For the love of all that is holy, quit regurgitating your lie about the 9th amendment, about the literal nature of the Constitution, and all the other BS arguments you've made which don't hold up to logic and reason.
Heres the 9th amendment. lets look at it in its actual form.
Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
Since in the Constitution people have a right to life (in how I can't yell fire in a burning building) however, the 9th amendment also says that those rights can't be used to deny my other rights. I have a right to freedom of speech, however that right would violate the rights of others to life.
Am I missing something?
Don't worry, im not a complete Constitution trasher (compared to most people anyway) but this condridiction is interesting. we should at least aknowedge this