If the Second Amendment is about revolution, shouldn't there be a corollary that limits the weaponry the government is allowed to have? I would propose a law banning police from wearing body armor. That would make them think twice before trying to take away our freedom.
>>29770132
It isn't about revolution. It's about fundamental, inalienable rights of the people to keep and bear arms.
>>29770132
>>29770814
It's actually about having a distributed defense force that can protect the country from invasion or put down rebellions, and if necessary prevent government tyranny.
The idea with the militia was that officers would be appointed by the government and taken from wherever, but the enlisted men that made up the bulk of troops would be local and therefore wouldn't follow orders to commit atrocities on their own friends and neighbors.
Part of why trying to understand the 2A is such a fucked up situation is that there wasn't really supposed to be a national standing military, and the bulk of America's fighting force was supposed to be made up of armed citizens who'd be called up in a time of need. If you read the relevant Federalist Papers, the whole thing sounds a lot like the Swiss militia system or something.
>>29770132
>What are 54r ap rounds?
"The tree of liberty..."
Literally what did he mean by this?
At the time the second amendment was written, the US didn't really have a standing army.
>>29770132
>It's actually about having a distributed defense force that can protect the country from invasion or put down rebellions, and if necessary prevent government tyranny.
this. We are, by the BoR, supposed to be granted the ability to purchase anything that the Govt armament consists of, and anything else as well.
There were privatized naval WARSHIPS after the drafting; cannons and all.
But the govt soon saw that they needed to disopportune the public as a whole, and you get all this bullshit you see today such as the GCA, hughes amendment, etc etc.
btw the hughes amendment didnt truly pass, and the post-86 machinegun ban was technically never ratified by vote.
>>29770132
The Founders believed in inalienable rights of life, liberty and property, the Bill of Rights are expressly granted rights derived from those. Obviously being armed protects all three of the natural rights.
>>29770864
>>29771967
Defending your liberty is more difficult when the police have access to level 4 body armor and MRAPs.
>>29772097
Surely. More so when we let people like Marvin Louis Guy get put to death without creating a stink. Supreme Court has never given a shit about the bill of Rights anyways since McCullough vs Maryland.
>>29771328
Well, no shit. You had those citizens with their warships going around and pulling stunts like trying to start actual fucking wars on their own initiative. And then try to get the US to shelter them or bail them out when it backfired on 'em. Needless to say, the US government got very, very quickly fed up with that sort of shit.
And of course the whole concept of the militia as primary armed force quickly showed itself to be less than workable, too.
they can wear body armor. id rather bleed them out with a groin shot. let them cry in agony infecting their comrades with terror. "I DONT WANAA DIE!!"
>>29770132
The police shouldn't have fewer rights than the people
>>29770132
>shouldn't there be a corollary that limits the weaponry the government is allowed to have?
There is. It's called voting.
Funny part is, if you interpret the 2nd Amendment most fairly, not only can people have guns for self defense, they can also have military-grade weapons to maintain the balance of power against the Federal government. That's literally how the amendment reads. In some ways, the Heller decision narrowed the 2nd Amendment to focus mostly on self-defense.
>>29772578
>You had those citizens with their warships going around and pulling stunts like trying to start actual fucking wars on their own initiative. And then try to get the US to shelter them or bail them out when it backfired on 'em. Needless to say, the US government got very, very quickly fed up with that sort of shit.
Any proof to back that up, orrr...?
>>29772578
>You had those citizens with their warships going around and pulling stunts like trying to start actual fucking wars on their own initiative. And then try to get the US to shelter them or bail them out when it backfired on 'em.
are you talking about Nathaniel Greene??? I have literally never heard of no disinfo shit like youre claiming. Also, almost all the infringing on 2A rights happen from 1890 onwards, with most being 1974-today.
>>29773128
Of course they should. The whole idea of liberty is that the government is subservient to the people.
>>29771275
The Liberty Tree was a literal tree in Boston, which was the site of many rebellious activities.
>>29773529
When was the last time you voted on what equipment the government gets?
