I understand the concept. Someone has to get in and drive that tank. That person is vulnerable to a bullet. Unless their goal is complete destruction of everything, an armed populace has a chance. If they want to come to my house and take me into custody.....then they can pay for that privilege.
but someone you might know could well shoot those in the tank since they cannot live there forever. Tanks without infantry are very vulnerable
Ir would be devastating to my argument if you quoted anybody who wrote the Bill of Rights stating that "keep and bear arms", as was approved in the 2nd A, means "own weapons" Do that (with link and reference), and your case will be made. Don't, and you will have proven your statement is B.S. I can't make it any simpler for you....
Oh yes... I was in a convoy from Camp Caldwell (KMTB) to Anacaonda (US Air Base) just west of Ba'quba and we came across a tank stuck on a bridge that had outrun its Infantry support. We dismounted and held back the bad guys until some Apaches and Kiowa Warriors showed up. The M1 was stuck, isolated on the bridge until we showed up. I don't think they had any weapons which could attack the tank. But they stopped it cold.
Tankers don't stop and dismount in hostile areas. They keep rolling over and blowing up people and things until they get back to their lager areas.
absurd? Clearly, you have no understanding of the arsenals that private citizens were able to procure, limited only by the fortunes they had access to; private citizens not infrequently, had arsenals that rivaled standing armies. for instance private individual sometimes possessed fully outfitted And armed Men-of-War sailing vessels tat today would be the equivalent to owning a fully armed aircraft carrier. These individuals a times operated under a letter of mark and engaged in Privateering on the be half of the entity issuing the letter of mark which enabled them to prey on commercial shipping of the time.This practice existed through the Civil War. so, yes, Walmart would not have the arms to supply a similar private army, private armies do exist and in fact are at time operating under contract to the Federal government, in places such as and Afghanistan.
SUNOFA GUN!!! I wondered what that was!!! That's a Guided Missile Cruiser in my neighbor's driveway!!!!
Straw man. I did not say that the Second Amendment negates the use of guns for private purposes. My position is that the Second Amendment says nothing one way or the other about that issue. Do try to address the argument that is being made rather than the one that no is making.
And yet you know that at the time of the Constitutional Convention, there was a clearly recognized, long standing right to own and uses arms for private purposes, such as defense and hunting, yes?
it says the right of the people (citizens) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. what were you claiming?
Armed mobs are not armies. Armies always defeat armed mobs. It is beyond absurd to demand that everyone have access to modern high-capacity arms without the responsibility of having to be trained in their use.
Actions involving armies being used against civilians never end well. From Kent State to My Lai and from Tianmen Square to the Boston Massacre, military engaging civilians is bad news. On your unrelated issue of the American right to own and bear arms, may the 2d Amendment always remain strong... along with the rest of the Bill of Rights!
What constitutes being? trained?not a single liberal that suggests a training requirement as a condition for anything related to gun ownership has ever defined what constitutes what satisfies that requirement when I have posed the question of what such training would specifically entail. If you think you can, enlighten me. Start with identifying the objective of such a training requirement other than regurgitating a feel good statement. I have over 65 years experience with firearms and would stack my Knowledge against anyone, yet at the same time, I am always learning more. .. my education never stops, but that is my choice.
there is no argument. the second amendment is a negative restriction on a federal government that was never given any power to interfere with what small arms private citizens could own, use, keep, bear, carry. Nothing more nothing less. And anti gun leftwing advocates want to pretend that the second amendment allows their schemes.
Claiming it doesn't make it so. Are you unable to address the historical evidence which shows that phrase had a military meaning when the Second Amendment was written?
even if that is true-there is no evidence whatsoever, that that founders did not think citizens had a natural right of self defense and the right to own arms for that reason. You gun banners pretend that a military reason somehow negates a private right to own firearms-a position that is both specious and completely unsupported by any authority. If you read the Cruikshank decision, it clearly points to that fact-that the second recognized a right that the founders believed citizens had prior to the establishment of any government.
I've argued that the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about the use of guns for private purposes one way or another. That's not negating anything. That's being neutral. It's clear you don't want to address the historical and linguistic evidence which undermines your claims about the meaning of "keep and bear arms". Noted. As for Cruikshank, I found this analysis by a historian interesting: "The final nail in that theory was Cruikshank. In that case the individual rights theory was floated by one of the judges who first heard the case, but it was abandoned by the government and rejected by the Supreme Court when the case was finally heard. Rather than adopt a neo-abolitionist point of view and embrace the individual rights view, the Court embraced the views of the Democrats who opposed incorporation and viewed the Second Amendment as a right of the states." https://blog.oup.com/2006/07/the_second_amen2/
intelligent people understand that if a militia is to be effective-those who MAY be called up need to possess arms. You ignore several other issues that destroy the nonsense that the second amendment doesn't protect an individual right. What was the RIGHT that pre-exists the government that was discussed in CRUIKSHANK? BTW do you claim that the founders-or the language of the constitution-intended that the federal government had any power restrict arms usage, ownership etc by private citizens acting in their private capacities? that's a simple YES OR NO answer
