The Second Amendment - obsolete and in need of reform

Wow, you sure got me 

It's called commonsense. One simply cannot gather the town's citizens and ask them to join the militia if they have no weapons to fight with. 

The government doesn't have a mass stockpile of 100, 200 or even 300 million weapons to just give to citizens they call to serve in the militia, now does it!

You are the last person who should be exclaiming the virtues of common sense (two words not one as you wrote) since you appear to be lacking in this department.

If you knew history, visited a museum or two, gone to some historical sites you would know that the arms for militias were most commonly provided by the government in colonial times. The government absolutely did have stockpiles of arms to give (issue) to citizens who were part of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA. 

Commonsense can be written as one or two words, depending on the context in which it is being used, genius! *rollingeyes*

Ya genius, when you use it as an adjective like commonsense solutions. That’s not what you did. You used it as a noun.

The issue is present day, not colonial days. Does the US Government possess a stockpile of 300 million weapons that would be reserved for a federal (or state) militia?  No. Hence the right of the people to keep and bear arms. 

Society can function just as fine with walking and horse drawn carriages. It had been happening for decades. You can’t blame a tool for the mistakes of the operator. Technology is neither good nor evil.

I proved that is false based on the sentiments in colonial America, specifically the PA DoR. Try again.

And how many OTC drugs are available? How many knives are available? How many poisons are available? There are far more of those lying around. If you banned guns, deaths would still happen because news flash: there’s more than one way to commit suicide.

There’s a wonderful reason and that’s prevent the government from tyranny. We’ve seen throughout history what tyrannical regimes have done: take guns from their citizens.

Or it’s a necessity to take down feral pigs, go hunting. I’ve seen an AR used for home protection before. You’ve probably never heard of it because the media doesn’t bother talking about the good actions.

Because you’re claiming that the Founders didn’t want standing armies. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t allow for it to happen in the Constitution.

The names may have changed, but Article I Section 8 of the Constitution requires passage every 2 years for an army. Maybe read the Constitution?

Relatively, yes. Any objective individual could see handguns are a bigger problem than “assault weapons.”

How about you talk to every family that has lost a member due to handgun violence and explain to them that they’re irrelevant. It’s a two way street dude. Emotional arguments don’t work.

Seniors voted heavily for Trump. Young people voted heavily for Biden. Try again.

Didn’t Trump dodge the draft for the Viet Nam war by pretending to have a bone spur and getting a phony doctors note from one of his Dad’s tenants? Irrelevant.

But the fundamentals remained the same. Guns weren’t owned by the government, they were owned by the people. Hell there were private cannon ships. It was obviously intended to encompass that.

Commonsense can be written as one or two words, depending on the context in which it is being used, genius! *rollingeyes*

Ya genius, when you use it as an adjective like commonsense solutions. That’s not what you did. You used it as a noun.

Wrong again genius- see definitions below. In your context it was a noun, so always TWO words. “really rolling eyes”

You must be a republican, not only do you seem to enjoy being wrong, instead of checking your error you choose to double down.

When 'common sense' is used as a noun, it is spelt as two words. As an adjective, it may be one word. Some people choose to use a hyphen, instead — 'common-sense'.

https://www.thehindu.com › books

Know Your English - Is 'common sense' one word or two? - The Hindu

Definition of common sense

: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts

So far, I've had the common sense not to tweet anything ghastly.

— James Poniewozik

The poker players learns that sometimes both science and common sense are wrong. There is such a thing as absolute premonition of cards, a rock bottom surety of what will happen next.

— David Mamet

With tsunamis, it may seem only common sense to Earth scientists to run away from (and not toward) the water when the sea is drawn rapidly down and away from the beach as a tsunami approaches. But that response is counterintuitive for most people.

— Thomas C. Pierson

Merriam-Webster Dictionary 

I’m reasonably confident that it’s in one of the briefs for the case.

Sure. Key idea is federal government. Heller came because of DC laws. Chicago v McDonald incorporated it to the states.

Anyways, it’s clear to me you do not know, or care about American history or the constitution enough to talk about the 2nd Amendment. I was not going to post, but your idiocy made me. I luckily have better things to do. Good bye.

The issue is present day, not colonial days. Does the US Government possess a stockpile of 300 million weapons that would be reserved for a federal (or state) militia?  No. Hence the right of the people to keep and bear arms. 

That is so dumb it boggles the mind. Now you think every man, woman and child in this country could be considered part of a militia that doesn’t even exist.

Why is it so hard for you to understand what the Founding Fathers were doing when they codified militias in the constitution and why they added the Second Amendment when the first Congress met. Why can’t you understand both concepts are now obsolete and moot.

We no longer rely on militias for National Defense or to enforce the law. The fear of standing armies in peace time that the Framers had in the late 1700s has long passed and was likely irrational even back then considering the new type of government they had constructed with the constitution.

A right to bear arms, especially military type arms, for militias that no longer exist is obviously not necessary or appropriate. That’s why the 2A needs to be revised, actually repealed and replaced with something that makes sense in the 21st century. But because of idiots like you, it’s very difficult for Congress to even consider an amendment.

I am a gun owner and I support private ownership of most types of guns within reason for hunting and self-defense, but what we are doing right now is madness.

Strawman fallacy. Nowhere did I say "every man, woman and child in this country could be considered part of a militia..." That statement by YOU, not me, is what is truly "dumb."

Also, you were the one who mentioned something about PA stockpiling weapons. Now when I bring it up to a more present-day value, you call it stupid. #hypocrite.

And for good reason. The government has worked, well, up at least until recently with the Biden-Harris Administration who is all but opening the front door of our country to illegals, China and Russia. 

Strawman fallacy. Nowhere did I say "every man, woman and child in this country could be considered part of a militia..." That statement by YOU, not me, is what is truly "dumb."

Also, you were the one who mentioned something about PA stockpiling weapons. Now when I bring it up to a more present-day value, you call it stupid. #hypocrite.

So it was a coincidence that you said the government would need 300 million weapons stockpiled to supply the militia and we are a country of just over 300 million people? And if you are comparing a value (number) today to colonial times then you are suggesting we would need a weapon for every man, woman, and child. Idiot!

An AR-15 is NOT a "military type" armament. 

The need for a militia will always exist, ever see the movie Red Dawn? Yeah, it is a movie, but it CAN happen. It is NOT outside the realm of possibility. It is within the realm of probability.

Can you please point to me where in the constitution, the federalist papers, or anywhere else the framers discussed this?

It's called commonsense

There are over 335 million people in this country. Roughly 78 million are children. So, I was a little short with the 300 million reference. Still doesn't negate what I said as the proffered position. 

Either way, children become of age and the government would still need more weapons. Especially when weapons fail or are damaged. Children or no children, a surplus is needed. It is required. 

An AR-15 is NOT a "military type" armament. 

Really? Semi-automatic rifles in 5.56 mm with 30 round magazines are the typical weapon of armies today, including ours.

There are over 335 million people in this country. Roughly 78 million are children. So, I was a little short with the 300 million reference. Still doesn't negate what I said as the proffered position. 

Either way, children become of age and the government would still need more weapons. Especially when weapons fail or are damaged. Children or no children, a surplus is needed. It is required. 

OMG, You definitely were enlisted in the army. Oh the brain power. 

I was asked where the framers discussed this. I replied, "It's called commonsense."

In context, that description where "the framers discussed this" is within the framework of "commonsense." 

Military-style means that the rifle is switchable between single-fire and automatic fire. AR-15s cannot do that. 

Note that a semi-automatic isn’t the same as an automatic. In a semi-automatic rifle, a shell is fired every time the trigger is squeezed. In an automatic, depressing the trigger results in one shell after another being fired for however long the trigger is depressed until there is no more ammunition left to fire.

An AR-15 is not a military-style rifle because it has no automatic fire capability, which would be illegal.

Awesome psychological projection and intellectual cowardice.

You are the poster child for the Dunning Kruger Effect