Does it say that? It isn't worded very well. It doesn't say "the people should be armed to overthrow a tyrannical state" it says "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 literally talks out of both sides of its mouth. It says that a well-regulated militia's right to bear arms is not impeded. Our US Army is a well regulated militia by the classic definition.

Does the first part of the sentence have to be true for the second part to be true? How are you in a well-regulated militia? Can we compartmentalize Amendments like a Chinese buffet like this?

I wish it said what you want it to say there would be clear intent. Considering we are living in science fiction compared to the people who wrote the laws I don't think they were conceiving of armed drones with missiles, tanks, and fully automatic weapons, being controlled by farmers and suburban Americans. Americans need to have rifles to protect themselves from the King is the specific thing they were worried about.

It doesn't even say anything about overthrowing the American government in the amendment.

The US Army is a standing army, which was a tool of tyrants and feared to the point that they included the 2nd amendment in the Constitution in the first place. And look at it, they've been wielding like a tyrant's tool ever since it became a federal army.

By being well familiarized and trained in the use of my firearms, I am well regulated. The amendment isn't ambiguous.

I can see that. As long as there is a selective service/draft lurking in the background the militia part is truly justified as well.

This post was edited by Skinned on Aug 19 2019 12:14pm

Google waco siege

one question, the argument that a population should be armed in a similar fashion to the military that would attack them leads to a reality with people having a wide range of weapons currently illegal. so if we set aside nuclear warheads, tanks, stealth bombers, etc (due to unrealistic price tags), and you're given the power of Thanos to remake the USA into a country where people are allowed to own fully automatic guns, grenades, landmines, napalm, flashbangs, etc. Would you?

I understand the principle of the matter, i'm just curious if push came to snap would you go through with it?

So are people justified in utilizing violence or the threat of violence in response to either laws or governmental intervention that they deem unjust?

Anyone can make a mine or napalm. You can buy dynamite out in the country no problem. I've made no secret that I want a howitzer. All of those however, are ordnance, not arms. None of the nation's million+ automatic weapons have been used in a mass shooting. Thanos snap approved.



Pretty hard to conceive of a scenario where brandishing your guns isn't perceived as a threat of violence what with all the snowflakes out there.

Are you generally supportive of riots?

Riots? Not in the slightest. Organized protests by armed people? Absolutely.

What makes the marked difference for you? For clarification, I'm not talking about post-NFL game riots.