Comment: drones

(See in situ)


So the government has drones and fully loaded F-16s. And they use them to slaughter defenseless children around the globe. They have nuclear weapons, and they have used them to destroy the lives of thousands of defenseless Japanese civilians.

The correct question to ask is not "Should the government be able to limit what kinds of arms we have?" but "Should the government have the kinds of arms it has?

So I ask you: "Should the government have the kinds of arms it has?"

When you answer that first and most important question, then the other is answered. This is simply because the answer is "no." And the only way that they will ever be taken away is if we have the ability to take them away.

Yes, if they want one of us killed, it's a done deal. But eventually enough of us may start to think in a reasonable fashion, and then there is a possibility for tyranny to be addressed.

But you need to recognize the tyranny if you want to make any honest progress on your inquiry.

End of that topic.

The Second Amendment: "Well regulated" meant "working well" when the Constitution was amended. They wanted "well regulated" commerce between the states. This means that they wanted commerce to be "unimpeded and working well." They didn't want anything to hinder commerce between states. And they didn't want anything to hinder the formation of an armed militia.

I'm sorry that the language changed and caused you to misunderstand what the second amendment was about. It does not mean that the federal government was supposed to "put restrictions on" the ability to keep and bear arms. In the same way, the writers of the Constitution didn't have in mind putting restrictions on interstate commerce when they said such commerce should be "regulated." This (perhaps now antiquated) use of the word "regulated" is very close in meaning to "regular" as in regular bowel movements. It meant something like the opposite of what you're suggesting.

Final Comment:

So, I've told you what I think the second amendment means. Also, I hope I've pointed you in the right direction with your other argument. The important point is that the military of that time had those same one-shot-at-a-time muskets. And they were only allowed to have those in a standing army in time of declared war for specific actions of *defense*. We have a different situation now in many many ways, but none of those particulars suggest that the access to arms of citizens like me should be further restricted or restricted in any of the ways they are. Those particulars indicate very strongly that the crazed sociopaths running the government and the army should have their activities and access to weapons restricted.