Does the 2nd protect access to weapons of war? That’s not the question.

By your logic, the 1st Amendment shouldn't apply to telephones, nor computers.

 

Since you think the Constitution should be amended why dont YOU start with your congressmen and get an initiative going. Mind you...even if you WERE able to get it passed in congress...you wont...you would still have to get it past 2/3 of the states...and you REALLY wont.

Ya know what is SUPER tragic? For all the bullshit and blather...you dont REALLY give a **** about any of this. 10k deaths a year...the vast majority of them occurring in the majority minority communities that are created by the rat politicians you vote for...killed by thugs using handguns, shotguns, and virtually none of the 'weapons of war' that people like you typically pee yourselves over...and you say nothing. Do nothing.

Because you dont actually give a **** about them.

At all.

 

The Leftists want to ban guns so the government can exercise more control over the People.

 

I really don't care much about your pompous judgments made here. The reps and senators running the country over the years listen to those who pay the bills of their campaigns. And senators representives are the ones who have the power or responsibilities to run our country. They have done a poor job. Putting the blame on the victims, the American everday people, for the corruption and failures of our representatives is just plain victim blaming.

 

"Freedom of the Press" meaning written language. Not just news agencies. Originating how words where pressed onto paper like giant stamps. (printing press) These were replaced with smaller versions (typewriter) and later digital versions(keyboard)
And at the time of its writing it was clear that it intended to include written language.

 

I'm not a victim.

 

It's important to not adopt a victim hood mindset but also acknowledge simple facts of reality. You pay the cost of their failures.

 

Not when it comes to the Democrat's failure to ban guns. I benefit greatly from that.

 

More so women and the old who are incapable of defending themselves using physical means.

But intent to do harm is still bad even if they fail at it.

 

Its quite obvious what you do and dont care about. You care about mindlessly promoting anti-gun rhetoric that targets law abiding citizens that arent a threat to you, and completely ignore the violent **** that you and your rat party have caused.

 

every hard core gun banner as well as most of the sheep that bleat in support of the gun banners' mantra for "Sensible gun laws" are leftists. Some are your moderate abortion craving soccer moms who might well not be marxists, socialists, woke cancel culture clowns but they aren't the leaders. The leaders of the gun ban movement are invariably hard left. Example Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center-he's well known as being far far left. Kamala is the most leftwing nominee the Dems have ever pushed and the most leftwing senator in the senate in 2019.

 

You don't know what you are talking about.

I'm pro-gun. I think every citizen should receive gun training in school as a graduation requirement so that people grow more accustomed to them and comfort able around them. This would help protect law abiding citizens or more so help them protect themselves, reduce crime, and prevent mass shootings. Shooters usually target people or areas that are disarmed and people cannot fight back. In an armed area, they would be dead before too many people died.

 

works for me but I disagree with your claim concerning VM-he knows what he is talking about

 

And, thus, at the time of its writing, it was clear it was intended to include weapons suitable for service in the militia.

 

Like I said earlier...everything you bleat on about involves law abiding citizens that arent the problem. You dont give a **** about the people actually killing and using guns illegally.

You are the problem.

 

I didn't create the topic of the thread. It's not about criminals abusing guns. It's about the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens and militia under the constitution.

I have always supported the police and putting criminals in jail. And arming law abiding citizens.

 

I saw what you posted. the Constitution doesnt need changed and the Militia is as needed now as it was then. Maybe more so, what with all the scumbags in this country trying to impose globalism and communism, trying to eliminate or police forces, and causing rioting in our cities.

 

Your position is a bit opaque. You started out in the thread by talking about nuclear weapons and the Second Amendment, which is usually an argument used by people who want to justify violating people's Second Amendment rights.

If you are one of the good guys, that's great news though. We can always use more good guys.

 

If private citizens are not allowed to possess Nuclear Weapons that is a restraint on their freedom to do so.

There is a problem in the minds of many who go on about ‘freedom’. Freedom as and of itself is already there, already in existence for everybody. What defines the concept of ‘freedom’ is the concept of restraint or constraint, either internally or externally constructed.

Nobody struggles for freedom, they struggle against constraints

 

Where and when has freedom ever included a right to have crew-served weapons?

 

I think you miss the point of my post.
Let me put it another way, people are at liberty to possess ‘arms’ but there comes a point where that liberty is constrained somehow.
Freedom is defined by constraint.

 

The right to keep and bear arms has never included crew-served weapons.

Free people have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

So if a person has crew served weapons how would that be stopped?

By constraints of some kind.

Their freedom would be stopped.

 

What evidence do you have that freedom includes a right to have crew-served weapons?

 

I don't need such evidence. Freedom and rights are two different things.