Question about the second amendment

[Witty]

Amendment II

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

How does this relate to personal gun ownership?

[NYCSPITZ]

A well regulated Militia, and the right of citizens to keep and bear Arms, are necessary to the security of a free State, and shall not be infringed


Reworded 4 u...meaning the above has nothing to do with gun ownership but the right to use mechanical force against possibly immoral forces

[Sharp]

It is from the 1780s lol

[Destroyer]

at the time of its writing, it may have seemed necessary, as this was before the existence of the armed forces of the united states, to have a group of men who could be armed and ready to assemble at a moment's notice. What does it mean in today's timeline? nothing.

[veritas]

I can't wait for you to explain how it means nothing for today.

Please enlighten us.

[Sharp]

ITT V explains the necessity of just the 'well regulated militia' phrase of the Constitution

[Destroyer]

it means nothing because we have a regulated militia called the armed forces
and if a time comes when they fail to stop an invading force, all of the armed citizens will mean nothing, because as armed as they could be, they wont have tanks, or jets, or nuclear missiles. But the other people will. Thats why it means nothing today to claim the right to bear arms has anything to do with the need to form an active militia from citizens.

[veritas]

Well....Could we just use drones? Like Obama does?

[veritas]

And is your argument that the average man shouldnt have weapons because the government now pays men to have weapons and work for it? Is that it?

[Chyeahhh!!!]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

What does it mean in today's timeline? nothing.

oh explain this little gem please

[Code Black]

Clearly the founders' knowledge didn't make it as far into the future as they wanted....

[Chyeahhh!!!]

Destroyer, so you're saying if Martial Law was unlawfully implemented to disarm the citizens of America and Posse Comitatus was overridden you mean to tell me that the modern day Militia would not protect the rights or should not protect the rights of your dumb ass and everyone else?

[Chyeahhh!!!]

Originally Posted by Destroyer

it means nothing because we have a regulated militia called the armed forces
and if a time comes when they fail to stop an invading force, all of the armed citizens will mean nothing, because as armed as they could be, they wont have tanks, or jets, or nuclear missiles. But the other people will. Thats why it means nothing today to claim the right to bear arms has anything to do with the need to form an active militia from citizens.

LMFAO

I will not dignify this response as a coherent excuse to engage in regards to said subject matter.

the rest of you may continue

[Larold]

@Destroyer you better have a good answer for your outrageous boast

[Destroyer]

um, i already answered
lots of lip and chin in this thread

[Chyeahhh!!!]

yea....it's a few folks in this thread who remind me of the guy who bends over and squeals like a pig in Deliverance without hesitation when it comes to there rights. Me and many others are counting on people like you to keep things busy when the roundups come

[veritas]

Jude: does the military personally protect your family?

Is there an armed battalion assigned personally to your house?

[Larold]

Well that would be going against the third amendment James

[Destroyer]

veritas, if you learn to read, youd see that i was responding to the original question, as in what that part of the second amendment (referring specifically to the general militia portion) means today, which has absolutely nothing to do with one's right to personal protection, which i have said nothing about

[veritas]

But you then said that since there is an armed forces there is no need for us to own guns. Right?