DC gun ban struck downFollow

Excellent. So cite from their writings and records and actual events, not your guesstimates or what maybe-kinda-sorta people thought sometimes.

If there was a debate over these things back in the day and you want to use that debate as support, then point me towards that debate. Not the history you wish might have happened according to your guesses.

Barring evidence, any assumptions as to their motives is pure conjecture.

Not that anyone cares, but on this historic day of revolution, it seems fitting to mention my interpretation of the second amendment.

Americans have the right to take up arms against their government in an armed struggle (direct conflict) with its military forces and expect to win.

It has nothing to do with storing weapons of any kind in your own home. Although that would be the simplest way, with today's military technology it is impractical. Currently the technology is so destructive that one person with such weapons is sufficient danger to all that the single person would endanger the whole purpose of the constitution, as stated in the preamble.

So what is the solution? It's not impossible, it is just bizarre. All American citizens have the right to military training with weaponry suited to defeat the best weapons of the US military. Anti-tank, anti-aircraft, anti-navy, etc. If the military has a new anti-missile plane, they have to have a countermeasure, and distribute it to the people, although perhaps indirectly. However, it is reasonable for the states or local governments to place restrictions on who can learn. For example, felons, the mentally ill, etc could not. Could a cleaver person take such training and reverse engineer the weapons? I don't know I assume there would have to be reasonable safeguards in place.

The details of whether such a program would be state level, local level or even run by non-government organizations doesn't much matter to me. But the trained citizens would not be subject to command by the president, such as the National Guards seem to be.

As far as the DC weapons law goes, if they were to ban rifles and allow only handguns, there might be some tiny second amendment ramification. They did not. There is none. The ability of people with handguns to overthrown the government by force of arms in an open conflict against the US military is zero. And that is what the second amendment means.

Were this implemented, likely the second amendment be modified. However, if it were not the mechanism to distribute such arms would be a serious problem. It has to be rigid enough to withstand a single nutjob. It has to be flexible enough to not stifle revolution under extreme duress.

It's never going to happen. And thus our soldiers are the last line of defense against a tyrant. Would they shoot Americans?

Don't forget the mercs private contractors.

You failed to show motive. Since you think the 2nd Amendment's existance proves your motive, I assume I'm allowed to do the same.

Take that, Sasquatch-Chupacabra Alliance!Why? It's been determined throughout our nation's history that the right to bear arms is not absolute as shown by upheld bans against automatic weapons, explosives, artillery, switchblades, tasers, etc.

thus our soldiers are the last line of defense against a tyrant. Would they shoot Americans?

Instantly. They'll shoot whatever you tell them to, children, kittens, Americans, whatever.

You watch too many movies if you think there would be a moment's hesitation on the part of infantry soldiers to kill US citizens. Their own family, now then you might see a few seconds thought before they went ahead and killed them.

If that's your criteria, then we have to disband the federal military though Joph...

The intent at the time clearly was that private citizens would own their own arms, so that they could form into militias in time of need. This system was specifically in place to balance the need of a military force with the fear of said military force resting solely at the federal level.

I already talked about how this is a slippery slope. We weren't supposed to have a standing federal army during times of peace *and* we were supposed to allow all citizens to keep and bear arms so that the states could draw upon them as militia if/when needed. The second part is not contingent on the first. They're both components of what was considered "necessary for a free state".


It's absurd to argue that since we've already broken one half of the system that it's ok to break the other. But that's essentially what your argument consists of. One can counter that since we do have a standing federal military, this increases the need for private citizens to keep and bear arms. It does not reduce or remove it.

We weren't supposed to be there at all.

Second, "oil" isn't "infrastructure". Neither are "industries". Do you even know what infrastructure means?



Yes, the Bush administration was in such a frail state in 2003-2004 that they got bullied into using mercenaries. It clearly had nothing to do with forces being stretched, nor with the lack of regular soldiers on the ground, nor with the lack of planning and forethought as how to deal with the occupation. They just got bullied into it.




Yes, I can see how using American firms to rebuild the infrastructure while they're protected by American mercenaries would create jobs for Iraqis.

Second mercenaries were not only used to protect private firms.

That's a blatant lie.



I'd blame the Bush administration for letting itself be bullied so easily.

I know, Democrats totally rock.

I mean, Murtha alone was responsible for the last 2 years of fighting in Iraq. He caused "tens of thousands of death". From Washington. Without being in any position of authority! How awesome is that man?!