3
11

[–] brother_tempus 3 points 11 points (+14|-3) ago 

Yes ... the amednment does not exclude any arms, so yes eletrical weapons, grandes, rpgs, cannons, tanks .. they are all legal.

Rememeber, Article One, Section 8 outlaws a government-controlled standing army unless in times for emergencies and no longer than 2 years.

We see this in the presedencies of the Founders 9 Wshington, Jerffferson, Adams, etc ... ) .. when something came up, they stood up and army and when the emergency was over , they disbanded it.

The interim was meant to be covered by the people ( the militia ) and so the people to effect their duties to fight against any enemy ( both foreign and domestic ) has the requirement to be just as armed as the standing army needs to be.

0
6

[–] CarlosShyamalan 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

Well to be fair the US has been kept in a constant state of emergency ever since, so the standing army is justified.

1
1

[–] brother_tempus 1 points 1 points (+2|-1) ago 

War is the health of the State .... The Founderd understood this when they fought the army of the King

0
2

[–] setitimer 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

Rememeber, Article One, Section 8 outlaws a government-controlled standing army unless in times for emergencies and no longer than 2 years.

That is not what it says, at all. The actual clause is "The Congress shall have Power To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."

This says nothing about emergencies, and does not say that the army can only be in existence for two years. What it says is that Congress is responsible for creating the army, but cannot fund the army for longer than two years at a time. This was intended to maintain civilian control over the Army by making it dependent on Congress for its funding. In actual practice, Congress appropriates money for all of the armed forces on an annual basis.

In context, the reason for this clause is to prevent a system like Britain had at the time, where the King raised the armies and levied taxes for it. The Framers of the Constitution wanted to avoid this, so they ensured that the Congress was responsible for maintaining the armed forces, not the President.

3
-3

[–] brother_tempus 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago 

Yes it does as we see u the document and in the actions of the Founder Presidents

Your attempt at revisionism is noted

1
-1

[–] Uma_Thurman 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Someone that spells as badly as you do does not reassure me that everyone should own killing machines.

1
0

[–] brother_tempus 1 points 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Someone that spells as badly as you

Ah the attack on the messenger .. the hallmark of the intellectually impotent who cannot debate the topic

3
-1

[–] HappyExile 3 points -1 points (+2|-3) ago 

What? God you teally have no fucking clue what you are talking about do you? Usually you bitch and moan about originalism, but the second that originalism doesnt suot you you just abandon it.

0
3

[–] sozcaps 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

What exactly are you trying to get across here, other than being an angry angry man?

0
8

[–] tame 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Not a lawyer or an American, but I believe 'arms' is short for 'armaments' and refers to weaponry of any kind, does it not?

I mean, your Second Amendment doesn't say "firearms", does it? It just says "arms"?

[–] [deleted] 0 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
8

[–] thewarp 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

Or a flamethrower. There's funny gaps in state laws all over the place.

For an example, I've read that in california you can't have a man-portable flamethrower that propels fire more than 3 feet. That restriction does not apply if it isn't man portable, which leaves you free to build a giant flammenwerfer on your roof.

0
0

[–] farwind 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I prefer my +1 sword.

0
0

[–] tame 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

I would suggest a mangonel, personally.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] bishopolis 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

/Nothing/ can be considered as obvious, here.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
5

[–] zedoriah 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

^^ This. If it's legal for civilians to use then it's legal for all civilians to use. Police are civilians.

0
1

[–] setitimer 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

That's how it should be, but in a number of states it is not. New York for example prohibits citizens from owning magazines that hold more than seven rounds, rifles with any kind of "assault rifle" feature, etc, but makes no such prohibitions for police. Retired police are also exempt from those laws.

3
-3

[–] sozcaps 3 points -3 points (+0|-3) ago 

Even if people are untrained, sick, delusional, clinically insane, suffer from dementia, what have you? Everyone in the country having a gun on them makes it a better and safer country? Is that the idea?

1
-1

[–] bishopolis 1 points -1 points (+0|-1) ago 

yes. Like warzones, known for their safety with all the guns about, an armed citizenry is a very safe citizenry.

0
2

[–] gatordontplaynoshit 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago 

I'm still waiting for my bear arms.

0
1

[–] Balrogic 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Pfft, you don't even have the right to have a fucking pocket knife. Right to bear arms is a joke.

0
0

[–] runbikebeer 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

Sure you can. You just have to carry it around in one of these. :)

http://smile.amazon.com/Praise-Start-Deluxe-Through-Backpack/dp/B00F0ZGM02

0
0

[–] NotAnUndercoverCop 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

4
-4