Create Account



The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show significantly less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.
Washington Gun Owners’ Record Resistance To Radical Gun Mag Ban

#28

(02-24-2022, 08:01 PM)Lucky2Last Wrote:
(02-23-2022, 10:47 AM)mikesez Wrote: Completely false.  The state constitutions that the 2nd amendment was cribbed from say "For defense of self and of the State."
I agree with the second amendment, but not at all with this recent and innovative interpretation.  Absolutely no one in 1789 was trying to plant seeds of another American revolution.  
They were trying to ensure that there would be a broad base of defense for the form of government they had just settled on at the cost of many of their friends' lives.

Look, Mikey. You're leaving out a huge part of this. The framers of the constitution were specifically trying to safeguard the people FROM THE ABUSE OF GOVERNMENT. They wanted people to be able to compete with a standing army so it could not be used to take away their freedom as it has been done SO many times in the past. Ergo, even though it's clear that the militias were to defend their states from foreign enemies, you are being willfully obtuse as to why there was an emphasis on the 2nd amendment in the first place. Let's recap using a simple dialogue:

Quote:Yo! Fellow countrymen... we won our freedom. We need a way to defend ourselves from outside invaders.

Great idea, pal, but let's not use a standing army. It's been used in the past to take freedom from the people, and we want to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.

Good point. How about we use a well-armed militia to defend our state.

That sounds great. Oh, when we do make a standing army, let's put congress in charge, just in case. 

Which part are you leaving out, Mikey?

(Hint: it's underlined).

Right.  They forbid a standing army and let people keep their guns.
Both were done to protect the people from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
But they also knew that we would occasionally have a temporarily authorized standing army.  They knew those guys would get even better weapons than the militia.  If they wanted to say "oh and whenever we do authorize a standing army, the citizens shall be able to buy all the same hardware that the standing army gets," they would have said it.
My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.
Reply


Messages In This Thread
RE: Washington Gun Owners’ Record Resistance To Radical Gun Mag Ban - by mikesez - 02-24-2022, 08:56 PM



Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

The Jungle is self-supported by showing advertisements via Google Adsense.
Please consider disabling your advertisement-blocking plugin on the Jungle to help support the site and let us grow!
We also show less advertisements to registered users, so create your account to benefit from this!
Questions or concerns about this ad? Take a screenshot and comment in the thread. We do value your feedback.


ABOUT US
The Jungle Forums is the Jaguars' biggest fan message board. Talking about the Jags since 2006, the Jungle was the team-endorsed home of all things Jaguars.

Since 2017, the Jungle is now independent of the team but still run by the same crew. We are here to support and discuss all things Jaguars and all things Duval!