Fake news. Didn’t happen. But waaay off topic.
Our soldiers are backed up by our tanks and planes.
It’s not like the infantry gets sent to the battlefield without back-up forces.
My bad. Apologize and will remove post.
Doesn’t matter. Small arms are vital to the operation of our armed forces, and the Second Amendment recognizes the right and duty of citizens to own the same small arms that are in common use by the military.
But again, this is off-topic. It’s time to end the derailment of the thread.
The second just says “arms”. Any limitation is arbitrary and must be defended.
I personally think the second amendment should only guarantee your right to carry bolt and lever rifles and revolver handguns.
Oooh, those are my favorites, and I’m pretty good with both!
But seriously, I’m not going to worry too much about fighting government forces. The only regime that would order disarmament of the American people would be a far left one. That ain’t gonna sit too well with either military or law enforcement.
That’s a very odd assertion. I suggest that you study what the founding fathers said about it, or, for example, the ruling in US v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
You’re entitled to your opinion.
Nuclear weapons are “arms”. I’m reasonably certain they didn’t have those in mind when discoursing.
In their day, a second shot took a quarter-minute to get off. If you’d like to go back to the technological standards of that day for the common citizenry, I’m all for it.
That shorty shotguns aren’t covered by the second?
As are we all.
The most pressing question is "What do you want to make legal for BOTH the Honest Man and the homicidal maniac, since on paper they are the same until the maniac is caught?
Since we’ve really no hope of any local rebellions actually toppling the US gov. by force, the only real reasons for firearms are hunting, self-defense and SHTF. Bolts, pumps/levers, and revolvers are serve just fine for those ends for the honest man.
The maniac, on the other hand, would find killing large volumes of people in one setting much more difficult.
And you’re about as “God and Tanks!” as one could get.
You don’t seem self-aware to realize every post you’re making is an argument citizenry need military arms to “level the playing field” for consistency w intent of 2nd amendment
Good lord, man. Are you thinking?
Imagine how much higher the corpse count would be if the Vegas shooter had authentic military hardware!
Wow so now “your fellow white boys with AR15s” are a threat? You’re all over the place
As high as Govt Tyranny body count in past 100 yrs? 150,000,000?
That they aren’t, because the Court had no notice that they were in use by the military.
You didn’t study it very closely, did you. If the Court had had notice of the historical use of those guns by the military (they were indeed used to great effect in the trenches of WWI), then the ruling would have gone the other way because private ownership of military small arms is what the Second Amendment explicitly protects. The ruling in U.S. v. Miller explicitly says that.
Think is what happens when you try to rationally argue against emotion. You honestly think you’ve countered my point with the Puckle gun.
How many of that novelty got made?
Far less than you want to entrust to one man (govt worker operating an Abrahams tank)
Wait…now you want to disarm the military? Or reduce their arms to that of citizenry? Again your arguments are so incoherent it’s hard to keep up
Your point was that it too a long time to fire off a second shot at the time the founding fathers wrote.
I have shown this untrue.
Could you imagine a society where when men got mad at each other they could express revenge with their tanks?
Whole cities would burn and you honestly can’t see that.
I wouldn’t call your arguments moronic. You put out a well thought reasoning why military has far more firepower than citizenry, contrary to intent of 2nd amendment