Local gun shops see spikes in AR-15 rifle sales after school shooting

[Ghostpanther]

Correct me if I am wrong but wasn't one of the conditions for the 2nd amendment originally that is was only gor people part of an organised miltia?

It is debatable as to what the meaning is if they were talking about only within the confounds of a militia or individual, or both. However for application today and thus the exercise of such, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment could be valid grounds for a citizen to claim the right to self defense apart from a militia. I think it was the... the right of the people to keep and bear arms... is where they get it as a right separate from a militia. I think it means both. But each can be a separate right.

[Mistame]

Well if you want a well regulated militia to fight the government you need to fight so civilians can have the following.

Way to go from 0 to hyperbole.

It's a long list it seems your second amendment is being destroyed by big government, we clearly need to give civilians access to all of these so they can be on equal footing. Let's not forget nothing says patriotic like wanting to slaughter the armed forces.

Both government and the military serve the people. Your point is moot.

It is debatable as to what the meaning is if they were talking about only within the confounds of a militia or individual, or both. However for application today and thus the exercise of such, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment could be valid grounds for a citizen to claim the right to self defense apart from a militia. I think it was the... the right of the people to keep and bear arms... is where they get it as a right separate from a militia. I think it means both. But each can be a separate right.

While the wording certainly is a point of contention, there is no way to legitimately read it in a way that makes the "militia" portion a condition. The "meat" of the amendment is, "the right of the people..." Additionally, when considering the language at the time it was written, many Constitutional experts note that "well-regulated militia" is probably the equivalent of "law-abiding citizens", where "well-regulated" refers to self-regulation (those capable of lawfully regulating themselves) as being government-regulated would be at odds with the Constitution, and "militia" refers to citizens capable of taking up arms should the need arise. That's doesn't dismiss restrictions on large-scale weapons (RPGS, etc), but does protect the people's right to personal arms.

[JohnBrown1917]

Way to go from 0 to hyperbole.

Good luck revolting without that stuff lol

[Mistame]

Good luck revolting without that stuff lol

What a retarded thing to say. We wouldn't need to "revolt". Both the government and military serve the people. Even in the most insane scenario in which the government becomes tyrannical or is taken over by a foreign body, etc, the military's primary responsibility is to protect the nation (Read: The citizens).

[Amerrol]

Any European having trouble understanding the Americans weapon zeitgeist, just think of mass immigration on Europe instead. No matter how many bad things happen, they will hold into the good or possible good outcomes.

Ha, that's such a good analogy.

[Priestiality]

What a retarded thing to say. We wouldn't need to "revolt". Both the government and military serve the people. Even in the most insane scenario in which the government becomes tyrannical or is taken over by a foreign body, etc, the military's primary responsibility is to protect the nation (Read: The citizens).

Wishful thinking. The military is trained to do one thing: follow orders.

[Ghostpanther]

While the wording certainly is a point of contention, there is no way to legitimately read it in a way that makes the "militia" portion a condition. The "meat" of the amendment is, "the right of the people..." Additionally, when considering the language at the time it was written, many Constitutional experts note that "well-regulated militia" is probably the equivalent of "law-abiding citizens", where "well-regulated" refers to self-regulation (those capable of lawfully regulating themselves) as being government-regulated would be at odds with the Constitution, and "militia" refers to citizens capable of taking up arms should the need arise. That's doesn't dismiss restrictions on large-scale weapons (RPGS, etc), but does protect the people's right to personal arms.

Well said. I certainly can not disagree with your points.

[Mistame]

Wishful thinking. The military is trained to do one thing: follow orders.

So you think that if the government told the military to round up their families and friends, they would? Please.

[Stormdash]

The language of the Amendment was from a frankly superior time vis a vis vocabulary and grammar. It was written eloquently and consistent with the common usage of phrases at the time. In 21st century-ese it says, roughly "because skilled civilians might be needed to defend their state and community, the right of those civilians to keep and bear the arms they might need to use shall not be infringed". There is an orgy of evidence that the Framers absolutely meant for firearms to be an individual liberty interest protected in the Bill of Rights, and that the militia purpose means they clearly understood it meant having weapons approximately of the type that would be used by regular military.

[Draco-Onis]

Way to go from 0 to hyperbole.



Both government and the military serve the people. Your point is moot.

Your whole premise is that you need guns to fight a tyrannical government it's not hyperbole so much as the premise is entirely idiotic. I am fine with saying you want to defend yourself and your family or that you like guns but this whole fantasy that people who shoot themselves in the foot every gun convention are going to take on the US armed forced is laughable.

[Stormdash]

In the kind of civil breakdown for that dystopian scenario to emerge, I think you'd find a pretty broad cross-section of the US armed forces on the other side, civilian law enforcement as well.

[Draco-Onis]

In the kind of civil breakdown for that dystopian scenario to emerge, I think you'd find a pretty broad cross-section of the US armed forces on the other side, civilian law enforcement as well.

In this scenario a tyrant has gained power, he has destroyed the constitution, has enough popularity and influence to neuter the other branches of government. Why would they not to do so with the full support of US armed forces and law enforcement? I mean this tyrant is one smart and resourceful of a guy to overturn every safeguard of our founding founders but he would forget about support from the armed forces?

[Whitedragon]

its pretty amazing how people in america are like "strict gun regulations would reduce the amount of children (and adults) that die every single fucking day in this country by huge margins, but... BUT... i like guns, and those lives arent more important than my like of guns"

But It wouldn't.... Some of the worst areas for shootings and gun related death are areas that have made VERY strict gun ownership standers.... Not to mention that largest chunk of deaths due to guns in the US are suicides which would still happen even if guns where banned. Also lets bring up that fact that knife's account for more deaths in the US then guns. Oh but you don't want to hear that you just want dem evil gunz gone...

[Mistame]

Your whole premise is that you need guns to fight a tyrannical government it's not hyperbole so much as the premise is entirely idiotic. I am fine with saying you want to defend yourself and your family or that you like guns but this whole fantasy that people who shoot themselves in the foot every gun convention are going to take on the US armed forced is laughable.

My whole premise? You're projecting or something. In fact, I haven't seen anyone actually mention "taking on the government", aside from comments like yours. You're bringing up nonsensical rhetoric from fringe fools to make a non-point.

In this scenario a tyrant has gained power, he has destroyed the constitution, has enough popularity and influence to neuter the other branches of government. Why would they not to do so with the full support of US armed forces and law enforcement? I mean this tyrant is one smart and resourceful of a guy to overturn every safeguard of our founding founders but he would forget about support from the armed forces?

"The People" are not just civilians, they're also the military, law enforcement, etc. Government, by its very existence, serves every citizen, including those it employs.

[Stormdash]

In this scenario a tyrant has gained power, he has destroyed the constitution, has enough popularity and influence to neuter the other branches of government. Why would they not to do so with the full support of US armed forces and law enforcement? I mean this tyrant is one smart and resourceful of a guy to overturn every safeguard of our founding founders but he would forget about support from the armed forces?

So he's a wizard? The armed forces aren't sworn to the President or any Great Leader. They are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. That includes 2A.

[Draco-Onis]

So he's a wizard? The armed forces aren't sworn to the President or any Great Leader. They are sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution. That includes 2A.

This is a tyrant who has broken all the safeguards of the constitution for this scenario to happen that means the congress and the judicial branch have bowed down to his will and that he has enough popularity and power to do it. So this scenario is from people who have zero understanding of our government and constitution nor have any idea how tyrants retain power. It doesn't matter how you look at it the entire premise is moronic.

[Stormdash]

This is a tyrant who has broken all the safeguards of the constitution for this scenario to happen that means the congress and the judicial branch have bowed down to his will and that he has enough popularity and power to do it. So this scenario is from people who have zero understanding of our government and constitution nor have any idea how tyrants retain power. It doesn't matter how you look at it the entire premise is moronic.

The safeguard in question is that the military he needs to impose his will is made up of Americans who joined the military in the first place because it kept the country from being led by people like him. I mean, if your hypothetical basically runs on magic what's the use in addressing it? No, the 2nd Amendment wouldn't be any use against Thanos, but so what?

[Draco-Onis]

My whole premise? You're projecting or something. In fact, I haven't seen anyone actually mention "taking on the government", aside from comments like yours. You're bringing up nonsensical rhetoric from fringe fools to make a non-point.



"The People" are not just civilians, they're also the military, law enforcement, etc. Government, by its very existence, serves every citizen, including those it employs.

I don't think you know the conversation you jumped into.

- - - Updated - - -

The safeguard in question is that the military he needs to impose his will is made up of Americans who joined the military in the first place because it kept the country from being led by people like him. I mean, if your hypothetical basically runs on magic what's the use in addressing it? No, the 2nd Amendment wouldn't be any use against Thanos, but so what?

The other branches of government are the safeguards by the founding founders, the other branches of government can impeach or bring down the president but this tyrant has as you put it magically passed all that. It's not my hypothetical it is the premise of people who say they need guns to protect themselves from a "tyrant" that may arise. You are right they may as well be preparing for the arrival of Thanos.

[Mistame]

I don't think you know the conversation you jumped into.

I don't think you realize that you're trying to counter an argument that was never made. What's worse is that you're using the same logic to counter it. What makes the "anti-government militia" argument so insane is that there would never be a scenario in which it would be necessary. Every single branch of government exists to protect the people and the Constitution. If any single branch went sour, the other branches would compensate. If all of government went sour, the military would compensate. It's a self-sustaining, redundant system that prevents such scenarios from actually happening. The notion that the government and military would stand against its own citizens is so preposterous as to not even be worthy of discussion. In short: The "You can't stand against the government" argument is just as retarded as the "We'll stand against the government" argument.

[Stormdash]

You seem to think that the ability of a tyrant to rise through and ultimately undermine the institutions of the federal government casts some sort of magic charm on the actual American people observing it. Americans of all political stripe are pretty obsessed with tyranny, even to the point of jumping at shadows like the past year or so. You are also forgetting that the entire federal government is an apparatus, a constructed tool of the sovereign states to organize their shared interests and protect the rights of those citizens of same. They brought it into this world, as the saying goes, they can de jure take it out. That's Article V. Do you suppose if 34, 38, 42 states called for a convention to propose amendments and the imagined Tyrant forbade it that the military rank and file will just be like "fuck yeah, go Tyrant"? Some maybe, but not all and maybe not even most. And if it came down to American insurgency, I think this country would be a lot "better" at that sort of thing than, say, the Afghans or Iraqis and foreign fighters would be -- consider the differences in level of education, infrastructure, material assets alone, and that's before you get into our well-documented supply of weapons and our pretty high proportion of current/former military and civilian law enforcement.