but...

[Texas10mm]

Now I'm not a highly educated person. I graduated high school and went into the Marine Corps. I am well read.

When people say the support the Second Amendment...but.... What they are really saying is they really don't support the Second Amendment.

The Founding Fathers were very clear on the subject of The People having the right "to keep and bear arms". They weren't just talking about a musket either. During the very early years of this colony and then country most of the cannons, aka artillery, was privately owned. These cannons were the self same "arms" the Founders had in mind.

The Second Amendment is an absolute in that NO free man shall be denied the ability to own and to bear arms. Yes this would include anything that that free man can afford.

Many private citizens during the Revolutionary war and afterwards had finer and more accurate arms than did the Army. If the Founders came back today they would see NO reason why "the people" could not own the very same arms that our military has. Actually the Founders would be shocked at the size of our standing army.

There are those who would try to convince us that the Second Amendment is about hunting. Those poor delusional souls should be treated as the ignorant children they are.

There are some here on this forum who have said that with our military having the advantage in arms that We The People would stand no chance in defeating them.

They assume that the military would enmass agree to bring their might to bear on the Citizens of this country. That's a false assumption made by people who I have to assume never served in the military.

If it ever comes, God forbid, to the point where The People rise up to take back our Government, the resulting war will be catastrophic to the Country.

I was 0351. I was never in any kind of Special Forces. But I have done much reading on the history and theory of asymmetrical warfare. A small number of determined individuals can tie down a much larger military force. The modern military has a very long tail. Military bases in the US depend heavily on civilian workforces to do the most basic and important tasks on base. Remove that civilian workforce and the military is crippled. Cut off the water and POL pipelines to the base and they are screwed. Prevent food from reaching the base and they are soon starving. A little sugar in the fuel tanks or some sand in the lubrication system will bring the military to a halt. A military with beans, bullets, and fuel is a military made of paper. All those National Guard and Reserve armories out there, they now belong to The People.

What most people who are unfamiliar with asymmetrical warfare don't understand is that the first casualties are the police. They live among the populace. They have families. They will have to make a very quick choice. Stay home and stay alive, or fight The People and lose everything. Yes this may sound brutal to many but it's the way it works in that type of a fight.

The Second Amendment is an absolute Right bestowed upon We The People by our Creator. You either support this Right wholly and completely or you don't.

 

[badkarmamib]

When people say the support the Second Amendment...but.... What they are really saying is they really don't support the Second Amendment.

Amen

 

[Sovblocgunfan]

Hear, hear.

 

[cheygriz]

No right is absolute. If they were, we would have anarchy.

 

[Tommygunn]

What the OP says is true, but there are certain key words and phrases that require a bit of .... parsing.
A key phrase is "the right of the people," and a key word is "infringe (d)."
The first phrase is an absolute connection of a specified right to its absolute owner: the people. "The people," meaning the same in the 2A as it does in every other place in the Constitution and Bill of Rights where it appears; which means either the 2A is NOT a collective right, or, that every other right vested in the document must ALSO be a collective right.
"Infringe" means (1.) To intrude into/onto, or (2.) To diminish. This would appear to fully support the OP's central thesis.
But, with regards to artillery, crew fed machineguns, handgrenades, and .... um .... nuclear warheads?
Some argue the phrase "to keep and bear" (remember, it DOES NOT say "keep or bear --- an important distinction) means it only applies to those particular weapons a soldier would be expected to carry on his person. If this is true, clearly nuclear weapons would NOT be included in the right , but less clear would be hand grenades. Artillery? Can you carry a howitzer?
I don't think the fact that people in 1791 owned cannon and other similar weapons is a help to us today, although people own tanks....they are often devoid of working weapons, as are personally owned jet fighters.

Now, I'm not saying I subscribe to the theory regarding the keep and bear phrase .... however, I really do not like the idea of people owning their own nuclear bombs.

Cannon? Just don't aim it at me.


Certainly, though, taxes, registration, and bans on any type of firearm, or other hand held weapon, would run afoul of the clear meaning of the Second Amendment.

And some of those laws exist, as we know.

 

[Robert]

Let's all just take a breather, we've had a lot of heated, all be it good, discussion in the last couple of days, but let's just take a breather and talk about how awesome guns are.