Quotes

[|iR|Focalor]

I've heard this quote or some form of it from some of the folks in this community (ie ex):

"The 2nd Amendment means a militia, like the National Guard."

Nope.

It's not like there isn't plenty of additional contextual information available, because there is. There's TONS of it. Pretty much everyone who signed the Declaration of Independence is recorded elsewhere at some point (either in published writings or in personal correspondence to others) discussing the importance of a free citizenry to be armed.

Here's an interesting collection of historical quotes on the importance of an armed people:
https://ammo.com/articles/founding-fathers-quotes-second-amendment-guns-keep-and-bear-arms

Here's another quote our former vice president has erroneously stated lately:

"You couldn't buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed, ... and, remember, the Constitution, the Second Amendment was never absolute." -Joe Biden (reference here)

Was never absolute? Well if he's talking about slaves not having any of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, then... sure. But considering that the 13th Amendment abolished slavery, I guess congress should get to work repealing it in order to reinstate the slave class and deny people their rights.

And I got news for Joe and any of the rest of you anti-2A british loyalist wankers - Cannons were 100% legal to own, and STILL ARE. (reference here) (and here)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CquUBWHU2_s

Note that at 2:36, he talks about President Madison signing a letter of marque and reprisal, authorizing PRIVATE CITIZENS to engage in piracy with cannons that they privately purchased as individuals/citizens.

Some further important info... it should be noted that it was the British Crown who prohibited all colonists under the King's rule from producing cannons. Just one of the many things the King did to keep us firmly pinned under his thumb.

Dunno who this quote is from, but it's a good one:

[Sgt. Dick]

"Seek first to understand, then to be understood"

If I don't understand you, does that mean we're both wrong? 

I remembered that from a touchy/feeling government class I was required to take years ago - so it is 

[ImperiusDamian]

I still think the illiterate rednecks who walk into stores with AR-15s slung over their backs are compensating for very small dicks.

And a cannon would be cool to own but seriously impractical.

[|iR|Focalor]

I still think the illiterate rednecks who walk into stores with AR-15s slung over their backs are compensating for very small dicks.

Depends on what kind of illiteracy we're talking about here. If it's the kind of assumed illiteracy where you're prejudiced against people from the south and think they're all a bunch of uneducated barefoot banjo paying hillbillies, well... that's just a YOU problem. If it's the kind of REAL illiteracy where people can't read and comprehend the laws on the books, well... maybe that's ALSO just a YOU problem, because if it's an open carry state, it's totally legal to do that. If you're attempting to express that you think it's largely unnecessary to do that, I would certainly agree with you. I'll admit that it's an "unusual" practice, and something that would make many people who are undoubtedly strangers to them feel uncomfortable around them. Personally, I would never do that. Recently, my state has legalize open carry, but I've had a concealed carry permit before that, which I still have, and when I do carry, I conceal it. Why? I don't want the attention or hassle.

Nevertheless... it's not against the law. Unless they are breaking the law, I nor anyone else has the right to harass, hinder, or prevent them from doing it.

I see what you're saying though, as I've seen it MANY times on people's youtube channels. To me, it's kinda like these "first amendment audits". Sure, police have a responsibility to KNOW the laws and to NOT violate anyone's rights... but it's not entirely responsible for a person to potentially bait the police into violating their rights. It can end with them DEAD if it goes badly enough. Police get a call about a guy with an AR15, maybe the dispatcher doesn't properly explain that they aren't being a threat to anyone, the police approaches them gun drawn, locked cocked and ready to rock, the cop gets nervous, they interpret the subjects movement the wrong way, they empty the clip into them. Not a situation I'm gonna voluntarily place myself in... so my rifle doesn't go in public places.

And a cannon would be cool to own but seriously impractical.

Not if it's the 1800's and people are using them for ship to ship fighting.

For today's military applications, they still use cannons... it's just that the ammo they load them with has changed dramatically.

But it's good that you used the word "impractical". Where is your freedom if it hinges on what is deemed "practical", and who should have the right to determine what is and is not "practical" or proper for a free citizen of a free country to own? The government? Mmmm yes, because we've seen how capable they are of mandating senseless ineffective things, especially in relation to covid.

[|iR|Focalor]

I recently watched all 4 of Bruce Lee's old martial arts movies again as well as some documentaries about his life. I originally came across this quote through google images as it was quoted in a handwritten note from Bruce Lee to his wife Linda. Bruce Lee was a lifelong student of philosophy, and likely came across the works of William Henry Channing while studying Philosophy in college.