I thought I had explained this to you

By: Old Hickory Trojan



the founding fathers put no limits on the God given right to own a firearm...I expained how the weaponry that the private citizens had during the Revolutionary War was superior to that of the military at the time ( rifled barrels verus smooth bore barrels) It should also be noted that canons belonged to private citizens at the time...go forward to the 1930's when  Machine guns were legal until around 1934-1939 time frame when those freedoms began to erode and have continue to erode to this day..

The intent of the Second Amendment was to arm the citizenry to the extent that no government could grow so big that it became tyranical and suppressed the rights of it's citizens. That was the sole purpose of that Amendment..it wasn't for sport, it wasn't for hunting it was to insure that private citizens could organize themselves and overthrow tyranny and maintain their freedoms. 

With that in mind why would anyone think that it would be OK to remove the rights of the citizens of a Republic that ability? The founding fathers sure didn't think that way and the Constitution and Bil of Rights weren't written to allow such a thing...so to answer your question...

Yes the Second Amendment allows for it's citizens to own any type weapon that affords them the ability to overthrow a government that no longer serves it's people and the Republic.. and not be armed with pitch forks and sticks against the the well armed military of this country or possibly a well armed UN force ( which since Obama signed the UN Arms Accord allows UN troops to come in and disarm the citizens of the US if need be and as the Japanese were quoted as saying during WWII whe asked about invading the US...the citizens were to well armed not a good idea)

To quote Benjamin Franklin...

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”

Post Please Log in OR Register for an account before posting.