Please wait...
But, while not the 'intent', have to admit its a side effect.
And often people think the numbering matters, it really doesn't, they are all equal to the founders. Its just the order they put them on paper, they were all equally important and all went into effect at the same time....
Sun Dec 28 2025 16:56:45 UTC from PanaSonic> The 2nd amendment was to protect my ability to exercise my 1st amendment.
If you think that's true, then you aren't refusing to read any part of the Constitution beyond the parts that you want to apply to yourself. Simply within that exact same sentence, it tells you the exact reason for the amendment, and it is NOT for that.
Certainly, as the 1st amendment is part of the agreement of how we will run the government.
But the *entire purpose* of the second amendment, and the extent to which it should apply, is stated within the second amendment.
Most people will pick only the words they want to use from it and ignore the rest. Just like when people quote religious texts.
Sun Dec 28 2025 20:41:45 UTC from Nurb432But, while not the 'intent', have to admit its a side effect.
And often people think the numbering matters, it really doesn't, they are all equal to the founders. Its just the order they put them on paper, they were all equally important and all went into effect at the same time....
Sun Dec 28 2025 16:56:45 UTC from PanaSonic> The 2nd amendment was to protect my ability to exercise my 1st amendment.
If you think that's true, then you aren't refusing to read any part of the Constitution beyond the parts that you want to apply to yourself. Simply within that exact same sentence, it tells you the exact reason for the amendment, and it is NOT for that.
With everything really...
Sun Dec 28 2025 22:23:06 UTC from PanaSonicMost people will pick only the words they want to use from it and ignore the rest. Just like when people quote religious texts.
Not that i disagree its one of the reasons, but i think it was
much more than 'just' that. It was to be able to
fundamentally protect our way of life from the next oppressors
that they knew were coming. They may not know the form, but they
knew history repeats.
Bingo. The framers were working with the "oppression" mindset, fresh off the revolution. They knew that they needed to protect the Republic from some future oppressor, possibly even a domestic one.
And that is why 2A is the only amendment that calls out the reason for its existence.
... they had no Army, which is sort of called out there.
Mon Dec 29 2025 04:03:51 UTC from IGnatius T FoobarNot that i disagree its one of the reasons, but i think it was
much more than 'just' that. It was to be able to
fundamentally protect our way of life from the next oppressors
that they knew were coming. They may not know the form, but they
knew history repeats.
Bingo. The framers were working with the "oppression" mindset, fresh off the revolution. They knew that they needed to protect the Republic from some future oppressor, possibly even a domestic one.
And that is why 2A is the only amendment that calls out the reason for its existence.
There is something in your language, perhaps, "then you aren't refusing to read any part of the Constitution beyond the parts..."
Which appears to be a double-negative (aren't refusing is ACCEPTING)...
That makes your statement impossible to parse.
Sun Dec 28 2025 16:56:45 UTC from PanaSonic> The 2nd amendment was to protect my ability to exercise my 1st amendment.
If you think that's true, then you aren't refusing to read any part of the Constitution beyond the parts that you want to apply to yourself. Simply within that exact same sentence, it tells you the exact reason for the amendment, and it is NOT for that.
Something bad is coming in the 2A space. Not tomorrow, but soon we may all have to take that boating trip ...
The other side is going to exercise their 2A right?
It is something we have to accept. It is there for citizens who feel there is oppression to exercise in defense of their liberties. Just because they do it unreasonably - isn't a reason to limit the right.
If people feel oppressed enough to actually go to that level - to risk death - we have to let that happen.
When Charlie Kirk died, these same people went, "How do you think he would feel about 2A rights now,"
And the real 2A advocates said, "exactly the same."
I'd rather die by the hand of someone exercising their 2A rights for the wrong reason, than NOT have the right to exercise my 2A rights for the RIGHT reason.
Doesn't that seem reasonable?
Thu Jan 29 2026 16:28:53 UTC from DarfWaderSomething bad is coming in the 2A space. Not tomorrow, but soon we may all have to take that boating trip ...
No. I see mass federal restrictions coming.. soon.. As many others do. Perhaps its just the typical paranoia, but it feels different, and a lot of the big players are all worked up at the moment. More than normal.
And if you didn't catch the boating trip reference: " Sorry, there was this terrible boating accident and i lost all my firearms" . its a common thing to joke about in the community. Tho it may not be a joke much longer.
Sat Jan 31 2026 05:13:57 UTC from ParanoidDelusionsThe other side is going to exercise their 2A right?
I know why it was named AR, and no one could have predicted the future, but i really wish they had chosen names or something, like Ruger did.
According to the commie media, you can't spell "WHITE SUPREMACIST" without the letters A and R.
(And the commie media can't spell "Armalite" at all.)