Gun Culture Pt 2
So you all got a pretty clear feel for my view on Gun Culture and the 2nd and 14th amendments yesterday.
Big thanks for all the hate mail. MrBmB is still screening head shots. I’ll get back to you soon, I promise. Till then a complementary “Thanks for stopping by gun zealot fucker”. I’ll be more personal individually and address you as (name) gun zealot fucker!
Here is a late well with a read. It covers ever pro gun argument ever invented and counters them.
So soak that up fuckers!
Yes it’s a comedic piece but it still makes a fuck load of sense.
Enjoy!
Sep 07, 2014 @ 16:34:01
There are so many bad “facts” and untrue information in this article that I don’t even have the time to refute all of them. I will respond to one point in it, and that is the translation of the 2nd amendment. The only reason I am responding to this one point is because it refutes the entire article.
The pro-gun control movement seems to act like they have some hidden information as to what the 2nd amendment of our Constitution means. If it is so blindly obvious to all of them, then all of those scholars and officials would be siding with you.
To state that the 2nd amendment “protect[s] the rights of states to maintain militias and for militiamen to sustain arsenals” demonstrates a huge lack of understanding of American culture throughout the years by the writer of this article. Prior to the end of the 20th century, there was no argument as to whether guns were to go to civilians. This is why it was only until recently (2008) that our government had to clarify the language to fit today’s meanings. In the early days of our country and through early 1900s, it was understood what the 2nd Amendment meant. It wasn’t until the late 20th century when left-wing rhetoric and an attack on gun ownership forced our government to further clarify what this amendment really means. Prior to all of this gun debate, Americans owned guns. Don’t believe me? Look it up for yourself.
The American Constitution was written to protect the peoples’ rights. It was not written to protect the government, or the state government.. To state that this amendment is written for the protection of a state’s interests is absurd and incorrect. I’ll also point out nowhere in the Constitution is there any mention of an “arsenal.” If the term “state” is mentioned anywhere, it is only to define the body of the people (aka – citizens).
In the 1700s the American army consisted of private citizens. There was no military base or training camp. In addition, I’ve lived in a state with an active militia. All of them are private citizens, not regulated by our government and they do not purchase guns from the state or federal government. They purchased their weapons privately.
To further reinforce my point here, let’s look at the definition in the US of a militia. We are going to look at the definition provided by 10 U.S. Code § 311 – Militia: composition and classes. “(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia”
Pay special attention to “ALL ABLE-BODIED MALES WHO HAVE MADE A DECLARATION OF INTENTION TO BECOME, CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES”.
Sep 07, 2014 @ 16:34:50
Also, a good video to watch regardless of which side you are on.
Sep 08, 2014 @ 01:23:10
Got it, guns good. My interpretation of law bad. Law school disagreed.