Things that made you frown today (Political Version)

[Tenlaar]

[Methais]

THE JUDEAN PEOPLE'S FRONT?!?!?!?

[subzero]

--From the Militia Act of 1792

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

NOT THIS...

Sounds to me like they wanted them equipped with the best stuff they could get their hands on. And have plenty of ammo to blast the opposition along with backup weapons. No shit they didn't mention auto or semi-auto rifles.

Der, dem people over dere with dem crawsbows ain't rite! They's posed to be usin spears, gaddamnit!

[Tenlaar]

Sounds to me like they wanted them equipped with the best stuff they could get their hands on. And have plenty of ammo to blast the opposition along with backup weapons. No shit they didn't mention auto or semi-auto rifles.

So you're also going to ignore that the reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers didn't want to have a massive standing national army and thus planned on the US relying on militiamen for home defense, and how the fact that we do now have that standing army completely negates the entire reason that it was put in to begin with?

[Gelston]

So you're also going to ignore that the reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers didn't want to have a massive standing national army and thus planned on the US relying on militiamen for home defense, and how the fact that we do now have that standing army completely negates the entire reason that it was put in to begin with?

Are you going to ignore what the American Revolution was about? It was about us rebelling against a tyrannical government. The 2nd Amendment doesn't exist to protect the US from other nations, it exists to protect the people from the Government.

[Taernath]

Are you going to ignore what the American Revolution was about? It was about us rebelling against a tyrannical government. The 2nd Amendment doesn't exist to protect the US from other nations, it exists to protect the people from the Government.

Historically, militias were used as ad hoc armies, particularly during the French and Indian war which had just finished. When they say "well regulated militia", national defense was definitely in there too.

[Latrinsorm]

Yes I am fine with people owning those things assuming they can afford them. My argument is perfectly accurate and denotes a social reality with laws and the decay of society. If you are not committing harm on others then why should not not be able to own whatever you want?

To insure domestic tranquility.

[subzero]

So you're also going to ignore that the reason for the second amendment was that the founding fathers didn't want to have a massive standing national army and thus planned on the US relying on militiamen for home defense, and how the fact that we do now have that standing army completely negates the entire reason that it was put in to begin with?

One of, if not the single largest principle, that this country was founded on is this little thing they called, "Liberty". It was founded by people who fled oppression. They were very much against such things (yes... slavery; every rule has it's exception!) and many of the laws and ideals they put forth were done to preserve their new-found freedom and to put themselves in a position to prevent future subjugation.

Let me say this for you again: They fled an oppressive government.

When things like this are taken, or given away as some would prefer it, they aren't given back. The more a populace is disarmed and thus weakened, the stronger the hold a government has over it's people. So, no, I'm not a big fan of just handing more power to the government and I don't think they would be, either, if we're really talking about guys from the 1700s. Those guys stood for liberty. They fought for liberty. The laws they put in place were there to support liberty. You're trying to dissect a very limited portion of a much larger ideal in order to dismiss something that I honestly think would be quite contrary to what they wanted.

[Androidpk]

Disarming never works out, look at what happened to Ukraine. They gave up their nuclear weapons and now they've been invaded by Russia and had Crimea stolen from them.

[Taernath]

Disarming never works out, look at what happened to Ukraine. They gave up their nuclear weapons and now they've been invaded by Russia and had Crimea stolen from them.

That's on the national level though. We're way past the point where citizens could have held off a determined oppressive government.