WHEN THE 2ND AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN, CIVILIANS HAD THE SAME WEAPONS AS THE MILITARY THAT WAS THE INTENT! | image tagged in guns | made w/ Imgflip meme maker
share
2,909 views, 77 upvotes, Made by Penysturn 9 months ago guns
Add Meme
Post Comment
reply
8 ups, 2 replies
With the possible exception of cannons
reply
8 ups, 2 replies
Leaving aside security clearances and classified military technology, there's really nothing stopping you from owning your own personal Main Battle Tank.

Except you likely couldn't afford it, you probably don't know how to drive it, chances are good that your yard isn't big enough to hold it, and they're not exactly "street legal".
reply
5 ups, 2 replies
True, but I was referring to people in Colonial times probably not owning their own cannons.
reply
6 ups, 2 replies
I know, I was being... analogous.
reply
5 ups
Oh
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
I hope you get better soon :)
reply
2 ups
i.imgflip.com/24ml9p.gif (click to show)
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Is that fact?
reply
3 ups, 3 replies
I don't know for sure. I'm just assuming the average citizen in the late 1700s didn't really have a use for their own personal cannon.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
Ah, assumptions.
Just checking.
reply
3 ups, 1 reply
I admit it's an assumption. I don't know much about the type of weaponry owned by American colonists, except for muskets.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
I own a rocket launcher. Some call it a potato gun.
But it's pretty cool when you light the tato on fire.
reply
1 up
I use one to shoot gophers!
I shoot the critters straight at the bums of passing libtards!

Won't be any Hitlary in 2020 if I can help it!
reply
0 ups
Lol... "tato"
reply
1 up
Shooting redcoats
reply
0 ups
It would have been the lack of black powder for a personal cannon. The colonists were always short of the stuff.
reply
1 up
reply
1 up, 3 replies
My gawd, you kids eat way too many tidepods. Stay in school.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment as stated is to preserve the power of the nation belongs to "the PEOPLE" and not the government. The people have the right and the power to resist if the government became tyrannical.

So YES, the intent is to allow "citizens" to own whatever the military has, if they can afford it. For example, if a rich billionaire decides to have his own personal private militia with tanks, jets, etc.. the 2nd amendment grants him that right.

Now, just because you have the right to "own" these things, doesn't mean the government cannot "ban" companies from selling them, under the same rights to preserve them from selling to other foreign nations.

FACT is, the 2nd amendment has already been chipped away through the years and has all but eroded away. Civilians today with AR-15s cannot really resist the government shall the government decides to take over like 1930 Germany. Americans are already at the mercy of the government, they have surrendered their right to freedom (as so you pompously used the term "liberty" in the other thread).

This is why you liberals are such dingdongs. You preach and preach about liberty? About the flag? When you are surrendering it piece by piece to the government machine. You call for a big government and a police state, yet crying hard about "liberty" to burn the flag.

Stop eating tidepods and bath salts.
reply
4 ups, 3 replies
1. I am not a kid
2. I don't eat tide pods
3. Nowhere in my comment did I say that early American citizens weren't allowed to own their own cannons. My point was that they probably didn't, since they didn't have the need for one on a regular basis, like they had the need for a rifle on a regular basis.
4. Yes, I preach about liberty, because it matters to me
5. I never once called for a police state, so you're just plain lying about that
6. Yes, American citizens have the freedom to disrespect the flag
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
I KNEW IT!!! 3 years of taking the opposite side your on and I finally know why :) Its okay my liberal brother, I know you are clean on the inside!
reply
2 ups
Lmao! XD
reply
0 ups
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 2 replies
reply
4 ups
Such as...?
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Well I guess you didn't have anything to back up your claim. Just running your mouth.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
No problem

*looks at my own post history*

Nope, nothing there to suggest I eat tide pods or am in any way intellectually deficient.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Nice logic. You claim I eat tide pods, then when I say I don't, you claim my lack of stupid comments means I can't read very well. If I can't read, how could I type those comments in the first place?

Nice try, troll. Either come up with some proof or kick rocks.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 2 replies
1 up
I'm just pointing out what stupid logic you use.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
That IS what it says. Literally.

Coincidentally, thet IS also what it means.
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Exactly. Most people don't understand we are a nation called "United States of America." It is one nation of united 50 independent sovereignty, each a free state and should actually have their own regulated militia drafted from the citizens.
reply
0 ups
Actually the USA is a Federation. This "Nation" nonsense is Civil War Unionist propaganda bs. I'm a New Yorker, not a United Statian.

From Nanavut, all the way to Chile, and all in between, even, EGADS! Mexico - ALL Americans. In fact, the first place called America was South America. The North was so dubbed later. We're just the guys that live on the second floor.

Regardless, as the U.S. Constitution Preamble states:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

That IS what it says. Literally.

Coincidentally, that IS also what it means.

Maybe my Ingles is lacking, so maybe someone can explain to me why this is being argued over?
If those words, and the 2nd Amendment's, don't apply, why debate them?

Simple.
Scrap them.
Write a new one.
This time chucking this human rights crap in favor of the more important guns ones, which need them more, obviously.

#onlygunlivesmatter
reply
4 ups
where do you think the military recruits from
reply
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
3 ups
reply
4 ups, 3 replies
reply
2 ups, 3 replies
You are correct, though, they weren't shooting at each other with those guns. A smaller population with a more locally oriented society also means that society is more tightly knit, and psychosis is more likely to be recognized because everybody knows everybody else.
reply
1 up
Yeah, but not ALL loonies were burnt at the stake.
It simply wasn't "cool" back then to do so - at least not to Anglos. The rest was fair game. And legal.

The current fad is a current fad because IT IS a current fad.
Given the attention that media - with a helpful assist from the phony the right/left bots of social media as seen here - dolllop on it, coupled with lonely maladjusted kids from ever smaller families, said fad is not going away anytime soon, no matter how many more guns THEIR 2nd Amendment toting parents (these guns weren't made on Snapchat, ya know) add to the stockpile.

Because maths.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
It's also worth noting that people with disorders tended to die in childhood back then.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Nice euphemism for "Burnt at the stake as witches" or "Thrown out to be beggars on the streets" ya got there *wink*
reply
1 up
That just as much.
reply
0 ups
Even if they wanted to kill 20 kids going to school, you won't achieve that with a breech loading musket. Now today, Americans can do it with ease with the latest modern weaponry....
reply
[deleted]
2 ups, 2 replies
reply
1 up
If you want to stop HIV transmission, stop all romantic films!
reply
0 ups
See what I did there?
reply
1 up
To be fair, the types of schools we have today did not exist in the 1700s. The population was also significantly smaller, so any schools that existed, which were mostly for what we would term middle school age students did not have many people in them.
reply
3 ups
the problem of this country is not guns.It's people who spend too much time with guns and less time with books. If u listen to too much CNN or FOX NEWS then you will never develop your own thoughts on anything. 1st is the most important because it lets people have free speech. That free speech means everyone is entitled to have their own point. Someone can say that guns are important for self-defense. Others might argue that so much fire power can never be required. After all what kind of self defense are we talking about? The most powerful country in the world cannot defend itself so that civilians have to pick up arms? Or is it defense from our own government?
Some even seem certain that the country is going to fail and they have to prepare for life on the run. I don't think people in failed countries would have such thoughts.
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
Right, let's give people fighter jets!
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
2 ups
reply
1 up, 1 reply
The intent wasn't for all to have equal weapons.

I apologize if i'm missing the point.
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
It's ok, some people don't understand things.
No need to apologize
reply
2 ups
"We live on a placid island of ignorance in the midst of black seas of infinity, and it was not meant that we should voyage far." -H.P. Lovecraft, the Call of Cthulhu
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
This surge of politics seems to have poisoned you.
reply
2 ups, 1 reply
Politics have always been around, always been poisonous.
You just never noticed, little guy. :/
reply
1 up, 1 reply
I did say "surge".
reply
0 ups
And I said
"Politics have always been around, always been poisonous.
You just never noticed, little guy. :/
replyflagSpelling-Fascist1 up"
reply
1 up
well said
reply
1 up
reply
0 ups
Some memes deserve two ups instead of just one.
reply
0 ups
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
1 up, 3 replies
And to think the founding fathers would feel the same way if things were the same way then as they are now...
reply
[deleted]
4 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 2 replies
A synonym for arms is weapons. It doesn't say guns, rifles or AR-15s. It also doesn't define the age of "the people." So passing a law stating you have to be 21 to buy an AR-15 is not denying anyone's constitutional rights. Also, "the people" isn't clear about which people: citizens, voters, every person in the US?
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
[deleted]
0 ups, 1 reply
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Dude, read wtf I said: "To take it so literally after 200 years." I didn't say it was a metaphor and I didn't say it was not literal. It's open to interpretation, which is why the Supreme Court keeps having to go back and redefine wtf it's talking about. Try to keep up, bro.
reply
[deleted]
0 ups
reply
0 ups
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Does anyone pretending to debate this fake bot issue even KNOW what the Second Amendment says?

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Is everyone's Google app broken?

A

well

regulated

Militia,

being

necessary

to

the

security

of

a

free

State,

the right of

the people

to keep and bear Arms,

shall not be infringed."

It's like everyone learned their history from those movies where the British Army has British accents, but the colonists speak modern New Yorkese, and Americans are an actual native race originated here, and not back in their homeland of Britain form whence they came.

THERE WAS NO USA NATION, NO PROFESSIONAL STANDING MILITIA (Army, ya dingbats), SO THEM FARMERS WERE RECRUITED FOR THE ARMY WHEN NEEDED.
reply
1 up, 1 reply
Britain from*

The Second Amendment sought to rectify the situation by establishing what, class?

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

G-G-Git it?
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
The basis for it is also contained in the Declaration of Independence, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
reply
0 ups, 1 reply
Which we essentially do with every election, as so designed.

To think a bunch of rather unprepared Brits who threw off the most powerful entity on earth would need a permission slip to do so ever again defies logic, history, and reality.

That the Confederate States failed to accomplish this renders the option null and void
- a lesson their descendents should catch up with, tho doubt they ever shall.
reply
[deleted]
1 up, 1 reply
reply
0 ups
reply
0 ups
First, we have a standing army, which the founding fathers would not have approved of. Second, our federal government has more power today than the founding fathers could have ever imagined possible in a republic. The basis for the second amendment can be found in the following statement of the Declaration of Independence, "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
reply
1 up
reply
0 ups
Read - "who moved my cheese" and then we can talk.
Flip Settings

Created with the Imgflip Meme Generator

IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
WHEN THE 2ND AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN, CIVILIANS HAD THE SAME WEAPONS AS THE MILITARY; THAT WAS THE INTENT!
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
Feedback