Clinging to Guns and Religion

nailer · #1 03-20-2018, 12:01 PM

The tyranny bit isn't a false assumption and having the means at hand to fight a tyrant who has usurped Federal authority is why it's part of the second.

Would be doesn't matter, but is does. If we are ever in actual danger of being under a tyrant's boot, firearms would be an excellent tool in defending our homes. Pretty sure Scalia would concur.

Pio1980 · #2 03-20-2018, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nailer

The tyranny bit isn't a false assumption and having the means at hand to fight a tyrant who has usurped Federal authority is why it's part of the second.

Would be doesn't matter, but is does. If we are ever in actual danger of being under a tyrant's boot, firearms would be an excellent tool in defending our homes. Pretty sure Scalia would concur.

If that was the intent, it would have been part of the wording. It's just not there.

nailer · #3 03-20-2018, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pio1980

If that was the intent, it would have been part of the wording. It's just not there.

In other words, you don't believe we have the right to own arms. I know we do because the intent of the second goes beyond the need to arm a militia.

Pio1980 · #4 03-20-2018, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nailer

In other words, you don't believe we have the right to own arms. I know we do because the intent of the second goes beyond the need to arm a militia.

Potentially, everyone does under the second, including the village idiot and the county homicidal maniac by assumption.