What if Hitler had f-22 Raptors?

[petej0]

My point was that the oath does not say the word country, it says constitution.

Just like the words natural born have meaning to them.

Natural Born means born in a state within the United States of America.  Panama is not a state within the united states.

it is also not a territory

it is not even an embassy

it was leased land in a totally fraudulent deal and is most definitely something the founding fathers meant to protect us of.

I get your point.  Let me counter with:  What does "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." mean?  Does that mean citizens can arm themselves to protect the State?  Does it mean that citizens have the power to protect themselves and property from a tyrant government?  What weapons are covered?  Muskets, Flint locks, Semi auto, full auto, Apache, F-22 Raptor?

[Dig]

I get your point.  Let me counter with:  What does "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." mean?  Does that mean citizens can arm themselves to protect the State?  Does it mean that citizens have the power to protect themselves and property from a tyrant government?  What weapons are covered?  Muskets, Flint locks, Semi auto, full auto, Apache, F-22 Raptor?

I hardly see how that is a counter argument (unles it was a sham william f buckley v. Noam Chomsky plastic debate), but in any case...

"Does that mean citizens can arm themselves to protect the State?" YES

"Does it mean that citizens have the power to protect themselves and property from a tyrant government?" The primary reason for the second Amendment was this, so yes, absolutely.

"What weapons are covered?" All

"Muskets, Flint locks, Semi auto, full auto, Apache, F-22 Raptor?" Yes, Yes, Yes, Yes, Um how is an F-22 Raptor a personal weapon to guarantee property and human rights?  An f-22 Raptor is an offensive genocide machine.  I would leave that up to someone else to deal with.  I do not see the personal need for an F-22 Raptor.  Arms are for protection from the state and from others that wish to take your rights and/or property.  Whatever, I guess you are saying McCain should be President because the founding fathers did not want individuals to have F-22 Raptors.  Oh man, I would love to see that argued to the Supreme Court.

In any case, if you would like to concede Article II and move on the the 2nd Amendment, there is a separate thread for that.  I appreciate your trying to confuse two disparate issues in an attempt to call into question the entire constitution, but you must admit it is a weak attempt.

[Amd304912]

I get your point.  Let me counter with:  What does "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." mean?  Does that mean citizens can arm themselves to protect the State?  Does it mean that citizens have the power to protect themselves and property from a tyrant government?  What weapons are covered?  Muskets, Flint locks, Semi auto, full auto, Apache, F-22 Raptor?

G*D DAMMNIT YES  citizens have the power to protect themselves and property from a tyrant government with  Muskets, Flint locks, Semi auto, full auto, Apache, F-22 Raptors. howitzers, ballistic missiles, M1A1's ANYTHING.

its the Tyranical Government that makes it impossible to stop "real criminals" as you might call it.

[petej0]

My point is that everyone has their own interpretation. 

"Um how is an F-22 Raptor a personal weapon to guarantee property and human rights?"

A F-22 is a weapon so it should be covered under 2nd amendment.

Anyways your interpretation of the 2nd amendment varies from your neighbors and may vary from member on the supreme court or the NRA.  Just like your interpretation of "Natural Born" could be different from what was meant or what the supreme court deems it to be or I. 

I interpret "Natural Born" meaning anyone born within the 50 states and to parents of servicemen stationed overseas.  I dont see it as a loophole because these are our servicemen and women sacrificing their lives for our country.  It would almost be expected that their children also enjoy the same rights as those born within our borders.  Afterall they  were honoring their oath to protect this country (constitution).

[LIbertAS]

I thought the term "well regulated" meant "well armed" in the 18th century. And McCain is still not eligible.

[Dig]

G*D DAMMNIT YES  citizens have the power to protect themselves and property from a tyrant government with  Muskets, Flint locks, Semi auto, full auto, Apache, F-22 Raptors. howitzers, ballistic missiles, M1A1's ANYTHING.

its the Tyranical Government that makes it impossible to stop "real criminals" as you might call it.

hey you know what this is absolutely true!

if a government oppresses you to the point of total slavery for the next 10 generations, how is there any limitation on arms to defend yourself?

who even came up with such a fricking ridiculous idea anyway?

oh yeah, now I remember...

[Dig]

My point is that everyone has their own interpretation. 
A F-22 is a weapon so it should be covered under 2nd amendment.

Anyways your interpretation of the 2nd amendment varies from your neighbors and may vary from member on the supreme court or the NRA.  Just like your interpretation of "Natural Born" could be different from what was meant or what the supreme court deems it to be or I. 

I was wrong and he was right, any weapon is covered under the constitution.

If there needs to be a constitutional convention for an arms treaty between the people and the fed, so be it.

I interpret "Natural Born" meaning anyone born within the 50 states and to parents of servicemen stationed overseas.  I dont see it as a loophole because these are our servicemen and women sacrificing their lives for our country.  It would almost be expected that their children also enjoy the same rights as those born within our borders.  Afterall they  were honoring their oath to protect this country (constitution).

This obviously makes no sense again.  Just because someone honors their oath does not mean 300 million American Citizens must disregard the Constitution which defines our country. 

[Optimus]

My point is that everyone has their own interpretation. 
A F-22 is a weapon so it should be covered under 2nd amendment.

Anyways your interpretation of the 2nd amendment varies from your neighbors and may vary from member on the supreme court or the NRA.  Just like your interpretation of "Natural Born" could be different from what was meant or what the supreme court deems it to be or I. 

I interpret "Natural Born" meaning anyone born within the 50 states and to parents of servicemen stationed overseas.  I dont see it as a loophole because these are our servicemen and women sacrificing their lives for our country.  It would almost be expected that their children also enjoy the same rights as those born within our borders.  Afterall they  were honoring their oath to protect this country (constitution).

They do enjoy the same rights, they are just not natural born so they can't run for president.

[Amd304912]

My point is that everyone has their own interpretation. 
A F-22 is a weapon so it should be covered under 2nd amendment.

Anyways your interpretation of the 2nd amendment varies from your neighbors and may vary from member on the supreme court or the NRA.  Just like your interpretation of "Natural Born" could be different from what was meant or what the supreme court deems it to be or I. 

yea you sure sound like you need answers. court is a joke the NRA is a joke and you expect me to care if my neighbors care if im defending my SH*t wit an f22, noooo they ought to be thankful i got their backs.

[Dig]

The second amendment makes so much more sense.  Should Hitler have an exclusive right to F-22 Raptors to kill his own people?

Should their be an imbalance of rights whereby the dictatorial oppressive police state should have more than the people?

I guess that is the real question is it not?

[Amd304912]

if the people had f22's like hitler then there wouldnt be an osama or crime.

[Kregener]

An F-22 Raptor is not ARMS....it is a MACHINE.

[70983]

if the people had f22's like hitler then there wouldnt be an osama or crime.

So true...if the people had owned those NORAD jets on 9/11 instead of some globalist pigs we'd still have almost 3,000 dead americans with us today, alive

[pac522]

An F-22 Raptor is not ARMS....it is a MACHINE.

OK then, field strip it and take the Gatling gun out of it. :p

[Kregener]

OK then, field strip it and take the Gatling gun out of it. :p

You would have to be a millionaire to feed it ammo...

[70983]

You would have to be a millionaire to feed it ammo...

You'd probably be one if you had enough money to own one...