Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
but they did believe that it would also require a standing military as long as that military was not more powerful than the populace,
|
I'll point out that this was a very good idea - - a military that's not more powerful than the populace - - back when the worst thing any army could do to you is shoot a canon. If we followed that doctrine today we'd be annihilated by the first country that got a whim to do so. The only way to avoid that would be to give the civilians free aircraft carriers and the like. .
Quote:
|
but since we've gone so far past that state of thinking now, we might as well chuck the framers intent
|
The framers' intent has been chucked by the world moving on. . . There is no possible way to comply with the framers' intent without weakening the military to the point that Hugo Chavez can defeat us. . .
Quote:
|
and reduce the 2nd Amendment to hunting and self defense against criminals and we'll trust the government and military to respect our rights and freedoms and not oppress us?
|
You keep saying this, but you never explain how you intend to stop the government from oppressing us even if you can buy any weapon you can afford, considering that whatever you buy will be up against something that is orders of magnitude more powerful.
The only response I usually see when I pose that question is something along the lines of "If they come to take my guns they'll find out why I have guns," or "They'll pry it from my cold dead hands," or other similar pseudo toughguy talk that is frankly such transparent testosterone-filled puffed up bullshit as to be laughable.
Quote:
|
therefore civilians no longer should have weapons available to foot soldiers?
|
Would you mind telling me what the point of giving machine guns to gangbangers is, when considered in the light that it won't help us carry out the purported purpose of the 2nd?