myblueheaven
Member
- Joined
- May 13, 2016
- Messages
- 1
First, let me say I wish i was more eloquent in my writing and could convey my thoughts better. But here goes. My take on AR15's and assault rifles in general and why i believe they are protected under the 2nd amendment is simple.
Some don't seem to get the big picture. Again, the 2nd amendment isn't about your personal home defense or hunting rights. A pistol or hunting rifle is all you need for that. First issue that anti gun lobby uses in regards to why assault weapons should be banned. This is a big misconception with many people. That's why the second amendment was worded the way it was. No where does it mention personal defense or hunting or collecting etc. If it did the anti gun movement could have made assault rifles illegal a long time ago. Any American has the right to bare arms("arms is the word in the amendment) to be used in a militia if necessary, but individually citizens are allowed to keep these arms. A little pistol won't cut it nor your hunting rifle as a militia. The word militia. is derived from the word military. An AR15 is a military style weapon, with only one different feature. It can only fire semi automatic...which is the acceptable difference and the compromise the people have settled on for decades and what the forefathers intended as having arms appropriate for a militia. Just as the colonist had the latest weapons of the time to equal their enemy of the time. If the Brits back then had assault rifles...then so would the colonist. You don't arm your militia with hunting rifles or shot guns when your enemy is using assault weapons. Its kinda common sense. But just because some don't get it or agree doesn't make it unimportant and unnecessary. Changing the constitution is, in many ways, like changing the bible. Would you do that...maybe to meet your idea of what you think is more relative to" today's world" and second guess what god really intended. Maybe some people feel god made a mistake so altering the bible it is a good thing. And maybe our forefathers were morons on this one amendment so we should just change it. And while we're at it and since it wasn't so important we couldn't change it, lets keep changing the constitution to meet our modern ideas of how things should be. Sure, why not? What could a bunch of old time ancient people from the 1700's know about anyway. Everything is different. Life is different and we people are evolved and crime is gone and corruption doesn't happen as well as there are no tyrannical dictators anymore, right? Yeah, sure. Using the words of the second amendment ensures and guarantees the right to have a modern gun equal to any weapon that may be used against us. My 2 cents.
Some don't seem to get the big picture. Again, the 2nd amendment isn't about your personal home defense or hunting rights. A pistol or hunting rifle is all you need for that. First issue that anti gun lobby uses in regards to why assault weapons should be banned. This is a big misconception with many people. That's why the second amendment was worded the way it was. No where does it mention personal defense or hunting or collecting etc. If it did the anti gun movement could have made assault rifles illegal a long time ago. Any American has the right to bare arms("arms is the word in the amendment) to be used in a militia if necessary, but individually citizens are allowed to keep these arms. A little pistol won't cut it nor your hunting rifle as a militia. The word militia. is derived from the word military. An AR15 is a military style weapon, with only one different feature. It can only fire semi automatic...which is the acceptable difference and the compromise the people have settled on for decades and what the forefathers intended as having arms appropriate for a militia. Just as the colonist had the latest weapons of the time to equal their enemy of the time. If the Brits back then had assault rifles...then so would the colonist. You don't arm your militia with hunting rifles or shot guns when your enemy is using assault weapons. Its kinda common sense. But just because some don't get it or agree doesn't make it unimportant and unnecessary. Changing the constitution is, in many ways, like changing the bible. Would you do that...maybe to meet your idea of what you think is more relative to" today's world" and second guess what god really intended. Maybe some people feel god made a mistake so altering the bible it is a good thing. And maybe our forefathers were morons on this one amendment so we should just change it. And while we're at it and since it wasn't so important we couldn't change it, lets keep changing the constitution to meet our modern ideas of how things should be. Sure, why not? What could a bunch of old time ancient people from the 1700's know about anyway. Everything is different. Life is different and we people are evolved and crime is gone and corruption doesn't happen as well as there are no tyrannical dictators anymore, right? Yeah, sure. Using the words of the second amendment ensures and guarantees the right to have a modern gun equal to any weapon that may be used against us. My 2 cents.