Grapeshot wrote:
JeepSeller wrote:
Grapeshot wrote:
mark edward marchiafava wrote:
It's not this type of criminal the 2nd amendment alludes to, but the class of criminal who would act under the color of law.
So you are saying that the 2nd Amendment does NOT confirm the individual right to self-defense from other than the government?
There are many here that understand/believe the 2A does confirm (not allude to) the RKBA in more than that singular aspect.
Yata hey
NOW, you're just tying to talk logic to him. Good luck with that. :banghead::lol:
Its like trying to get a greased pig to speak the truth. :lol:
If you can catch him, there is still the language barrier thing.
Yata hey
MEM has a group of hecklers that follow him around pretending not to know the meaning of his words....
In much the same way that Hunting is not mentioned in the 2A, neither is self-defense. It's not there. It just isn't. This is a simple fact.
It IS, however, a fringe benefit of the primary purpose. If you have arms to combat government, you can ALSO use them to hunt or defend yourself from smaller-scale criminals. In the same way that you have Eyes on the front of your head to see stuff so you don't run into it. You can ALSO use them to stare at boobies... That's not THE reason you have them, but A reason.
Why everyone has to jump down his throat? He's only the troll you pretend he is... I find him more agreeable and rational than most of the rest of the LA posters...
