Why are we continuing to debate these people about a type of firearm? The federal government does not have the right to regulate firearms at all. The police and federal agents have machine guns. Why dont the people have machine guns? The purpose of the second amendment is to protect the people from the tyranny of government. How are the people protected when government agents have weopons that are banned from the people?
“Why are we continuing to debate these people about a type of firearm? The federal government does not have the right to regulate firearms at all. The police and federal agents have machine guns. Why dont the people have machine guns? The purpose of the second amendment is to protect the people from the tyranny of government. How are the people protected when government agents have weopons that are banned from the people?”
OK, so the point is: How can the government possess powers that We the People did not first possess ourselves? How is it that a SPECIFIC prohibition against infringing upon certain rights can be read as anything BUT a prohibition on a whole class of laws, even if passed unanimously?
“Why are we continuing to debate these people about a type of firearm? The federal government does not have the right to regulate firearms at all. The police and federal agents have machine guns. Why dont the people have machine guns? The purpose of the second amendment is to protect the people from the tyranny of government. How are the people protected when government agents have weopons that are banned from the people?”
Game, set, match. No one has a moral right to interfere with our right not to be killed. Period.