2 ms·

> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state... I just ask that if you oppose the right to bear militia-quality weapons, then yo

> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state... I just ask that if you oppose the right to bear militia-quality weapons, then you explain why the founders were wrong and prove how you know that such weapons are in fact not necessary to the security of a free state. I mean, they’re the folks that founded the freest state that’s ever survived. Seeing as it’s the only part of the constitution-including later amendments- which includes such a section explaining their reasoning... I tend to believe them when they say such weapons are needed.

jbob2000 7y ago
In a future where victory isn’t decided with small arms, it’s really just a part of the constitution for history and symbolism’s sake. Do you see China invading us with an army? No, they’re flooding our markets with cheap goods and putting us out of business. Do you see the American government taking away your rights by force? No, they’re just slowly chipping away at them generation by generation, where each generation is none the wiser to the rights that were taken from the previous one. What future do you imagine where small arms will actually protect you from it’s threats?