Comments by "" (@timogul) on "Nearly a dozen armed men arrested in police standoff" video.

But then they wouldn't have felt like play pretend army men!
7
Hortler The second amendment was man-made though.
5
Hortler Lol, no, if you already had those writes, the Constitution would not need to lay them out. The Bill of Rights is the list of rights that the state chooses to not prosecute.
3
Hortler Gun ownership is not a basic right. It's just one that the Constitution grants us, so long as we're members of the national guard.
3
Great White Lol, God didn't say nothing about any guns. He did say "thou shalt not kill" though.
3
@michealtull9033 Lol, the 2nd amendment has nothing whatsoever to do with guaranteeing the other rights. That is a fantasy invented by gun nuts who think that the government is actually scared of their peashooters.
3
This wasn't "life saving training," these were militia nuts practicing how to be army men without actually joining the army.
2
@michealtull9033 The government fears that the governed will VOTE them out, not that they might take up arms. When the people took up arms against the founding fathers, the founding fathers crushed their rebellion. They did NOT condone insurrection.
2
@michealtull9033 The 2nd amendment was put in because the US did not have a standing army, and needed the people to be prepared to defend against an external threat. It was never intended to be used against the government.
2
@chavvy9074 And again some people tried to do a rebellion during the time of the founding fathers and they put it down. It is not arguable that the US government ever condoned insurrection. EVER. Anyone who felt differently was clearly overruled.
2
Damian Only if they are part of the National Guard. Any other reading is just flat out ignoring half of it to suit partisan interests. Also, the risk of guns is not that children might encounter one, although that certainly is one issue. The risk guns pose is adults using guns to murder people that they would be unable to murder as effectively without them. The simple fact is that abuse of the 2nd amendment has made America a far more dangerous country to live in than any other country of equivalent economy and society. We sacrifice thousands of humans lives each year so that little boys can play with their toys and have fantasies of self-importance to make up for their impotence.
2
@michealtull9033 Yup. The military is who is authorized to use guns, either the standing army (which did not exist at the time of the Bill of Rights) or the National Guard. This is why the fantasy that armed yahoos are somehow a part of the process. If the US has enemies, foreign or domestic, then the military will handle those. If the yahoos rise up to attack the people's government, and the military are not there to support them, then those yahoos are the domestic enemies they are meant to put down.
2
@chavvy9074 And yet they were in favor of crushing rebellion. They did not put in the 2nd with ANY intention of armed insurrection against the government. It was purely for the national defense against threats TO the government of the people, by the people, and for the people. Anyone who is not a part of that defense is not covered by the 2nd.
2
@Pauldad1692 "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," That's referring to the National Guard.
2
Damian Heller was activist judges distorting the meaning of the Constitution to suit their own political biases. The court has fallen very far over the last couple decades.
2
Damian Other countries that have more firearm deaths than the US are shitholes that nobody should compare themselves to with pride. Other countries that are WORTH comparing ourselves to have MUCH lower homicide rates than the US, because they have better gun laws. Also, pointing out US cities with high crime rate is pointless, because anyone in those cities can drive five minutes away and legally buy a gun no problem. This is why gun laws need to be national, city-based gun laws are a bandaid at best. Again, if you are a part of the National Guard, the constitution protects your right to be armed for that purpose. If you are not, the Constitution has nothing for you.
2
@Pauldad1692 Right at the beginning: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, "
2
@chavvy9074 and without the government declaring that it would not infringe on that right, people would not have it. They do not have it in countries with no such laws.
1
@chavvy9074 Without the second amendment, the government could take guns however they saw fit. The existence of the second amendment puts a limitation on their ability to do so. Again, just because you can do something does not make it your right to do so. A right is something granted by a society.
1
It's no natural right any more than murder is a natural right. All the second amendment says is that if you are part of the national guard, you're allowed to keep a gun for that purpose.
1
@Bauks "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, " That was referring to the state militias, which became the National Guard. It was because the US did not yet have a standing army, and needed the citizens to be prepared to defend the state from external threat.
1
@Bauks The Supreme Court in Heller made up their own rules, that is not what the Constitution said. Don't substitute the whims of activist judges for the words of the Constitution. And you do not just have the right to do anything you are capable of doing. You do not have the right to murder, or the right to steal, just because you have the physical capability to do so. Any capability you have, the society around you has the right to limit, in the interests of society as a whole. Whether it chooses to do so or not is the point of laws.
1
@Bauks It wasn't updated for contemporary times, that would be removing it entirely. It was just updated by activist judges to increase the number of dead Americans each year.
1