Guns

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".

I know, I was being... analogous.

I hope you get better soon :)

Is that fact?

Ah, assumptions.
Just checking.

I own a rocket launcher. Some call it a potato gun.
But it's pretty cool when you light the tato on fire.

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!

Shooting redcoats

It would have been the lack of black powder for a personal cannon. The colonists were always short of the stuff.

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.

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!

That IS what it says. Literally.

Coincidentally, thet IS also what it means.

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.

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

where do you think the military recruits from

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.

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.

It's also worth noting that people with disorders tended to die in childhood back then.

Nice euphemism for "Burnt at the stake as witches" or "Thrown out to be beggars on the streets" ya got there *wink*

That just as much.

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....

If you want to stop HIV transmission, stop all romantic films!

See what I did there?

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.

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.

Right, let's give people fighter jets!