What does the second ammendment mean to you?

[Glocktogo]

No WMD's. That means CBRN, because they're indiscriminate offensive weapons which are meant to both terrorize and indiscriminately kill. I'd add aerially dispersed cluster munitions for the same reason.

Anything else should be on the table, to include tanks and warships if you've got the means.

 

[wawazat]

No WMD's. That means CBRN, because they're indiscriminate offensive weapons which are meant to both terrorize and indiscriminately kill. I'd add aerially dispersed cluster munitions for the same reason.

Anything else should be on the table, to include tanks and warships if you've got the means.

I don't disagree with any of that and it was why I originally voted for except nukes. Then I remembered that allowing for any logical exceptions is how we eventually got to where we are now and changed my vote to SHALL NOT be infringed.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

With the amount of people I see that can't even follow the basics of gun safety...... I'm out on the nukes.

How do y'all feel about biological or chemical weapons for us common folk?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. One thing about biological and chemical weapons is that they can backfire, blow back, and in so many ways come around and bite yourself. If you're worried about them, keep a gas mask and environment suit handy. I'd consider those as armor of defense. Those two are protected under the Second Amendment. The definition of "arms" is weapons of war or and armor of defense.

Woody

 

[TedKennedy]

With the amount of people I see that can't even follow the basics of gun safety...... I'm out on the nukes.

How do y'all feel about biological or chemical weapons for us common folk?

If you know anyone with haz-mat or chemical education you'd realize that chemical weapons are in every grocery store in the country. "Some assembly required"

 

[raeken45]

If you know anyone with haz-mat or chemical education you'd realize that chemical weapons are in every grocery store in the country. "Some assembly required"

And rolling down the highways and riding the rails.

 

[Cat City Slim]

Back in the dim, dark days of college, a friend of mine was an architecture student. He was given an assignment to design a luxury apartment for a theoretical New York socialite with unlimited funds available. One required aspect was to include a decoration that could not be art, but had to to represent the owner’s ability to buy anything. My friend installed a Russian nuclear warhead in the entrance foyer. He placed the triggering device in the owner’s bathroom, next to the toilet. I always thought that was brilliant.

 

[Free Trapper]

The second amendment keeps all the other amendment's intact.

Also, if we ever get into a nuclear exchange, I hope the very first one lands right in the middle of my living room.....

 

[AguaFriaRanger]

Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says. If a dildo like Kim Jong Un can have nukes, I see no reason to infringe upon any citizen of the United States having nukes. That said, good luck finding an affordable source.

With all the infringements upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms removed, there would never be a need for any acts like the Hearing Protection Act or the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act.

As for what an arm is, does it matter if it is a rock propelled by a person's limb for defense or aggression, or a 16 inch shell propelled by cordite, or a wicked downdraft propelled by nuclear fission? No. The Second added article to the Constitution - AKA the Second Amendment - prohibits infringement. There are no exceptions. The Founding Father's intent is undeniably clear with not allowing exceptions.

As for the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment regarding the keeping and bearing of arms by the people being necessary, Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, in the Constitution makes reliance on the militia necessary. Therefore, what good would a poorly armed, unpracticed, and disorganized militia be beyond cannon fodder?

Look at Article I, Section 8, Clause 12. If Congress decided not to fund the Army, which it has to do every two years, what defense would the United States have without the several state's militias? And, don't think for one minute that the National Guard is the militia. It is not. Once the Federal Government started appointing the officers, what was once the active militia became just another branch of the United States military. Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, reserves the authority for the appointment of officers of the militia to the states. Once the Federal government usurped the power of appointing the officers, it also usurped the "National Guard" from under the authority of the several states.

Senator Nathan Dahm's bill to form a real state militia is exactly what we need. It is also required by the Oklahoma Constitution in Section V-40, to wit:



It would create an honest to goodness militia in Oklahoma. The person/people on that committee who blocked its passage is/are ignorant fools. Worse than them being ignorant is the fact that they blocked it by usurping power not granted to a committee in the Oklahoma Constitution. I refer everyone to Section V-34, of the Oklahoma Constitution, to wit:



Not even the governor can kill a bill. Every bill the governor vetoes has to go back to the legislature for consideration to override the veto. See Section VI-11, to wit:



By the way, we all know what the word "shall" means, don't we?

Woody

Excellent reply. And excellent point about the current federalization of the national guard. I think that too many people overlook the fact that state militias were intended to be a barrier from coercion that came from any other government - foreign, another state, or the Fed. Thereby, if I have the means, I should have the ability to have a personally owned F16 with AMRAAMs parked at TUL. And too many people don't realize that the original draft of the NFA intended to ban private pistol ownership entirely... at least to common folk. That is why we have SBR/SBS rules. They were closing the loopholes on the pistol ban, but the pistol ban was removed and the loophole closers weren't.

 

[okierider]

Term limits prohibit electing a man that has served his time but proven himself a patriot.

Term limits (limits!) therefore restrict the freedom to vote for who you think is the best candidate.

We allow anyone with breath to vote, and the voters continue to vote in folks that promise everything. If we collectively can't control our politicians we deserve what we get.

So what is the answer, other than term limits, in your estimation?

 

[OHJEEZE]

Shall not be infringed means exactly what it says. If a dildo like Kim Jong Un can have nukes, I see no reason to infringe upon any citizen of the United States having nukes. That said, good luck finding an affordable source.

With all the infringements upon the Right to Keep and Bear Arms removed, there would never be a need for any acts like the Hearing Protection Act or the Home Defense and Competitive Shooting Act.

As for what an arm is, does it matter if it is a rock propelled by a person's limb for defense or aggression, or a 16 inch shell propelled by cordite, or a wicked downdraft propelled by nuclear fission? No. The Second added article to the Constitution - AKA the Second Amendment - prohibits infringement. There are no exceptions. The Founding Father's intent is undeniably clear with not allowing exceptions.

As for the "well regulated militia" mentioned in the Second Amendment regarding the keeping and bearing of arms by the people being necessary, Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, in the Constitution makes reliance on the militia necessary. Therefore, what good would a poorly armed, unpracticed, and disorganized militia be beyond cannon fodder?

Look at Article I, Section 8, Clause 12. If Congress decided not to fund the Army, which it has to do every two years, what defense would the United States have without the several state's militias? And, don't think for one minute that the National Guard is the militia. It is not. Once the Federal Government started appointing the officers, what was once the active militia became just another branch of the United States military. Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, reserves the authority for the appointment of officers of the militia to the states. Once the Federal government usurped the power of appointing the officers, it also usurped the "National Guard" from under the authority of the several states.

Senator Nathan Dahm's bill to form a real state militia is exactly what we need. It is also required by the Oklahoma Constitution in Section V-40, to wit:



It would create an honest to goodness militia in Oklahoma. The person/people on that committee who blocked its passage is/are ignorant fools. Worse than them being ignorant is the fact that they blocked it by usurping power not granted to a committee in the Oklahoma Constitution. I refer everyone to Section V-34, of the Oklahoma Constitution, to wit:



Not even the governor can kill a bill. Every bill the governor vetoes has to go back to the legislature for consideration to override the veto. See Section VI-11, to wit:



By the way, we all know what the word "shall" means, don't we?

Woody

Amen!