So when drafting our Constitution. Which is basically a written collection of the ideals of what it meant to be an American.
>What did the 2nd Amendment mean?
Not trying to stir a shit pot I mean that genuinely. What did they want when they wrote this? That every State should be able to fight off Federal invasion? That every single person should be ready to fight with the same firearms that the regular army would use so everyone would keep tyranny in check?
Every other week the news blasts people with a new school shooting or gun related tragedy and then liberals push for more control or limitations. Most Americans are growing up without Father that take them hunting or show them how to responsible own a firearm so the traditional reasoning is dying off. I own myself but find myself unable to give a proper response when people ask "Why do I need an automatic rifle"?
>>30415454
In all seriousness they would never have imagined it would apply to the weapons we have today.
>>30415454
Because the Russians and the Chinese are getting a little to antsy and would love nothing more than a country once re-knowned for being "un-invadable" because of there being "a rifle behind every blade of grass" to have the majority of its defending forces armed with nothing more than hunting rifles should they decide to shake sticks again.
Whether or not any of that shit is true or has any merit doesn't matter, it will make sense to the liberal mind even if they still disagree.
>>30415492
>Puckle gun
>Ducks foot
>Girandoni
Let's not go there again. These were smart men, I'm sure they imagined the weapons far beyond their time would be much more devastating in some way.
>>30415454
It means: There's a right to bear arms. That is the most fundamental thing you have to understand. The 2A recognizes the existence of the right.
>>30415492
Do you think they would draw the line with automatic weapons if they had the same technology?
My personal interpretation is what they had was what won the war and was the best they could hope to have. So when they said it shall not be infringed I think they meant zero restrictions whatsoever.
Federalist Paper No. 46 if I recall.
Essentially,it's a check on the federal government and military.
>>30415454
>>30415492
It's been deiced by the US Supreme Court that the 2nd amendment was intended to apply to all people, not just militia, and that it allows them to have common weapons of the time within reasonable limits, and has the right to own a weapon for the purpose of self defense and the defense of their family and home. (They do not need a sporting or hunting reason to own a weapon.)
So a person can own a rifle or pistol, as they are in common use.
Rights can't be removed without a person being proven guilty, either by trial or by their own confession. A person can be temporary disarmed while a crime is investigated, however.
As with other rights, this applies to citizens. Aliens do not enjoy the same protection.
>>30415532
in·fringe
inˈfrinj/
verb
past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed
actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
disobey, defy, flout, fly in the face of;
disregard, ignore, neglect;
go beyond, overstep, exceed;
infract
"the statute infringed constitutionally guaranteed rights"
antonyms: obey, comply with
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; More
>Synonyms: restrict, limit
How much more obvious could it be to these clowns?
>>30415454
In order to take down tyrants, you need weapons of war.
Muskets were the weapons of war in the founding father's time.
AR-15's are the weapons of war today, at least for our country.
>>30415454
>every other week a shooting
Yeah like the one in GERMANY
>>30415566
Tbf AR-15s are neutered weapons of war.
The Second amendment names one of the inalienable rights American citizens possess, it was specifically named to make it harder for future governments to remove. Of course thanks to that faggot John Marshall for giving himself power of judicial review, the dissenting opinion in Heller v DC will soon be the primary opinion of the supreme court once Shillary wins which is that the second amendment only applies to state militias and there exists no personal right to self defense or to own firearms. So we're gonna be cucked by one of the very systems designed to protect us.
>>30415598
>once shillary wins
Son... you must believe
>>30415492
>basically all of the artillery used against the british in the revolutionary war was privately owned
>puckle gun
>girandoni air rifle
>belton flintlock
Try harder. The founding fathers wanted every man to have the discipline to fight militarily with the same equipment, hence 'well regulated' militia.
Pro-tip: 'Well regulated' in the 18th century meant in good working order, not well legislated like antigunners take it to mean with today's meaning.
If you spend any time at all researching why the second amendment was seen as the second most important inalienable human right included in the bill of rights, then you'll see that it literally means: The government is not allowed to at all infringe on the people's right to keep and bear ALL arms. This is backed up in many supreme court rulings, and unfortunately challenged by those afraid of free men throughout the ages as well.
On top of this, gun deaths aren't even a large cause of death here in the united states once you take away the suicide portion of the amount. The media blows gun deaths out of proportion because it generates views, clicks, and revenue. (Everyone loves a sensationalist story) The only significant numbers of homicide occur within ghettos by blacks on blacks, and the only thing that can change that is a change of socioeconomic status, culture, and a will to rise above.
TL;DR: The second amendment means ALL ARMS as said by our founding fathers, gun deaths aren't even an issue they're blown out of proportion, and well regulated doesn't mean well legislated.
I apologize if I sound condescending, but I deal with people who don't know a lick about arms and why they're important even when it's spelled out for you even in our shitty Nevada public schooling system. BELIEVE ME, as much as I love guns, it gets tiring.
>>30415492
Thats fucking stupid. There were plenty of concepts and scientific theories that form the backbone of the technology you use to voice your stupidity that were conceived in the same time period. To argue that they would not have been able to conceptualize semi-automatic or fully automatic rifles is quite frankly childish. Even if by some lunacy you were correct that would mean we would have to question EVERYTHING they thought of and provided such as freedom of religion and speech and honestly democracy as a whole which conceptually quite older.
>>30415454
To answer your question we should break down the terms in the the second amendment and their contextual meaning.
A well regulated militia. First a militia by definition and the fact that militia is a distinct and separate word from army or military in general means that it IS NOT the Army, Reserves, or national guard or some sort of variation of the official military of the nation. A militia is LITERALLY you and I and a bunch of other random people joining together to fight for a common cause. It is voluntary, people can come and go as they please and can choose when and where and how they fight.
Well regulated in this context does NOT mean regulated in the sense that the federal government regulates anything. In this context it means standardized in arms and armament. Why? Because we are talking about people fighting. Have you ever heard the term British regulars or Vietcong regulars? It refers to your basic bitch military unit which is a standard infantry man. Saying well regulated means to be equipped as standard military unit would be. Thus a well regulated militia means a militia (group of random citizens joined together) that is equally equipped to a standard infantry soldier of the regular army.
It says that that is essential to securing a free state. And because it is so essential the people (who would by definition make up the militia) have a right to keep (own) and bear (use) arms.
>>30415594
>>30415454
>>30415673
IN ADDITION! Sentence structure of the official writ is different from sentence structure of common use which is different from contemporary (todays world) way of interpreting things. In James Madisons original address to the House of Representatives Jun 8th 1789 the phrasing recorded verbatim was "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
So! The right of the people to keep and bear arms was actually the foremost thought behind 2A and the militia bit (which also specifically said WELL ARMED) was added as a supportive argument for why the people have the right to keep and bear arms. The last part says that no one can be compelled to fight if they have a moral opposition towards it ( is says religious but religion was the source of all morality back then).
When it was put into official writ the order was shuffled (because they thought it obvious that the militia was made of the people) and well armed was dropped because it was considered redundant as well regulated implies well armed.
>>30415531
Wrong. The BoR exists to say that these are areas in which the government has no legitimate authority. The Constitution is written as a limitation of government powers, I.E. they can only do things that the Constitution says they can do.
>>30415548
You should read Miller. Weapons of military utility (in keeping with the Common Defense) are protected first and foremost.
>>30415518
Don't forget that "arms" of the day included cannon loaded with canister or grape.
>>30415454
your reply should be "Because its my right"
get the fuck out gun grabber
>>30416195
That is the struggle
>Why do you need killer assault guns?
Because it is my right
>Why do you need racist hate speech?
Because it is my right
The liberals and Left have doubthinked most people into hating guns on principle. I am looking for a stance that can reach people while protecting my rights.
Examining the Second Amendment, we come across the phrase “A well regulated militia”. The questions that arise from the statement are these; What constitutes a militia? And at what point is it “well regulated”? The answers to these questions comes from two place. The first is 10 U.S Code 311 which states that the militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied male at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are pr who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the Nation Guard. It then describes the two classes of militia, the organized consisting of National Guard and the Naval militia, and then the unorganized militia consisting of militia not apart of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So, everyone fitting the above is apart of the militia. Now, when is that militia well regulated? The following are from the Oxford Dictionary and bracket within the time of the writing of the Second Amendment
1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us a well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations”
1714: “The practice of a well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”
1812: “The equation of time..is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sundial.”
1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”
1862: “it appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”
1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city”
>>30416308
The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order.
Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. So, if we are to have a well-regulated militia, we must have an experienced militia. As we expect the National Guard to train and be prepared to answer the call as part of the organized militia, we must also expect the same training from the unorganized in the form of shooting. So, as the right does call for the people to bear arms against the threats you mentioned, it also provides the “call” to use them.
>>30416246
Tell them you don't want to get raped again.
>>30416354
>pulling the rape card
>on sensitive, feely, emotional, gun grabbing liberals
you are a genius my friend
>>30415454
The founding fathers were highly intelligent men and they built their ideas upon those of other, even more intelligent men. They did not simply decide to protect the right to bear arms because they thought it a swell notion. They thought and debated the issue long and hard (and made very apt conclusions) about what the right means and what the essence of bearing is and then wrote the constitution based not on its manifestation in the form of different arms, but whether that essence of the whole issue should be protected,
They knew that there was once a time before the weapons of their time, and many plans were sent awry when the people who set them in motion failed to anticipate the coming of future advancement. Therefore, the founding fathers struggled to protect rights that would be true regardless of what shape their subject takes, because they did not cut philosophical corners and rationally addressed the heart of the issue. The American Constitution is great precisely because it was written centuries ago, and still applies-it was expressly devised as to remain applicable forever.
>>30415454
I like this breakdown. Worth a minute and a half of your life.
https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
>>30415492
"ey Madison, you ever think weapons will advance past the modern musket?"
"Naaaaah im sure this is the limit of weapon technology.:
Dont be fukcking stupid
>>30416505
>>30415594
Unless you happen to talk to any vet ever or look at military doctrine and realize FA is used about as much as a FS dagger. Not to mention many of the civil guns are made to higher standards than contract M4s and in many more calibers
>>30415492
>1st amendment
>In all seriousness they would never have imagined it would apply to the means of communication we have today
Fuck off.
>>30415552
that's not what the new speak dictionary says
>>30415492
its the current year
come on guys
Imo the second amendment is great in principle but nonetheless outdated. I think amendments are needed to constitution to emphasize the militia part more than anything else. In addition to a standing army I think that local militias (with mandatory conscription) that answer directly to local governments in the style of Switzerland should be implemented. That being said private ownership should still be allowed, but I would accept some restrictions, maybe in the realm of what things are like in Canada minus mag limits(essentially just licensing requirements).
>>30415492
>le Founding Fathers could not have possibly imagined technology would ever advance meme
>>30417504
>I would accept some restrictions
Cuck.
>>30415454
So, here you are, a People, in a Garden of Eden Promised Land. The reason you're here is because you were trying to escape a tyrant king by any means possible, even if it meant death. So you head across the sea towards a land which was, at the time, for all you knew, a literal fucking myth you were gambling on being an actual place, that you nearly died trying to get to. You get there. Halleluja, you're fucking free. Finally. Sigh of relief. Everything's gonna be okay. You start setting up shop. It's hard, but you pull it off. Then suddenly, the guys you're running from show up, claiming that this was their idea all along and your promised land belongs to them. Fuck that shit. You live under their rule, unwillingly, for a period of time, then you've had enough. You fuck their shit up. They get BTFO. You learn "Wow, turns out, when the people of a country are armed, it's actually pretty fucking easy to prevent literal evil from ruling over you." This is some groundbreaking shit. So, you decide you wanna be your own country - officially now, legitimately - and you're writing up a list of ground rules. Stuff you wanna make sure sticks around forever to ensure your country will always remember what "works", even far into the future.
So you write,
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
This ensures that people - even total idiots - are able to remember what you did to beat evil that one time, and will be able to do it again if need be.
You've got your "well regulated Militia", to protect the "security" of your "free State". Then you make sure that you have a "right of the people to keep and bear Arms", so a means to defend oneself and fight is always in the hands of the People. That's the most important part. That's the part that "shall not be infringed". No civilian gun ownership means no militia, which means no security of a free state. Simple.
>>30415566
>AR-15's are the weapons of war today
Good luck with that.
>>30415454
>What did they want when they wrote this?
Take it in light of the english 1689 bill of rights + how the militia system worked back them.
1689 granted commoners the right to bear arms as their "suitable to their condition" and regulated by parliament (as opposed to the king).
Under the militia system, all men's conditions changed to being de facto military, and so, it's pointless to limit the citizen's arms to the suitability of their condition, because their condition IS as being soldiers.
Thus, our right is not to be infringed...because if it is infringed, you'd have a militia consisting of assholes with fowling pieces -- or in modern parlance, fudd guns.
>That every State should be able to fight off Federal invasion?
Bear in mind that I'm talking about the amendment itself, not american political theory in the 1700s:
It was written to strengthen the 1689 BoR such that the militia system could be used effectively by removing any limitations on civilian arms ownership, because our military was the citizenry itself, and they would be expected to supply their own arms until congress could assemble and approve a budget for the standing army to form and muster.
That's specifically what the amendment itself is about. Englishmen already had the rights to bear arms for self defense, but it was limited. Our system doesn't allow for these limits and gives us the right to own military weapons.
>That every single person should be ready to fight with the same firearms that the regular army would use so everyone would keep tyranny in check?
Again, not really. We already had this right. Our amendment is specifically about militas -- that it grants us "shall not be infringed" status is simply an added bonus. You're getting into philosophy rather than law when you ask about rebellion -- no state, not even the US, is going to codify when it's OK to destroy it.
>Why do I need an automatic rifle
Because civil unrest like Ferguson IS a possibility.
>>30417504
The militia part is to add a reason for SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
>>30415454
They probably meant pretty much what they wrote. They were convinced that a militia of some form was necessary to be able to fend off external threats. They were of the opinion that this militia should be well regulated. To make this kind of militia possible without state supplied weaponry, civilian ownership of weaponry was to be encouraged and not restricted by the government.
>>30417504
>natural right
>allowed
neck yourself.
>>30415454
SHALL
>cucked American living in Canada
https://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2016/06/27/the-path-to-changing-american-gun-laws-must-go-through-the-historic-foundation-of-the-second-amendment-the-bedrock-argument-for-the-status-quo.html
>>30416246
Threats or fighting words are excluded from the first amendment. If what you say could incite violence then you can't say it. The bill of rights is meant to limit the government. The intention of the bill of rights it to make it so the government can't pass a law that keeps you from criticizing them, not so you can yell "gas the kikes".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandenburg_v._Ohio
>>30420057
>lets 4 judges tell him that his rights, in the Bill of Rights, are constrained to what THEY think it means
You can threaten and incite violence all you want. Fuck those stupid judges.
>>30415518
>superposed charges
>early peperboxes
>swivel guns
>Lorenzoni
>that 16th century revolver
>swivel-breech guns
>various early breach loaders
You can make you can make tons of examples of #NotOnlyMuskets, but it's still at best flint-lock or air-gun, no semi or full auto and no smokeless powder. And anyone with a half of brain can rekt you with that.
>>30415518
>>30415492
Logical counterargument to "muskets only" argument is that, if 1st amendment applies to internet, 2nd can apply to AR-15.
>>30415492
well they may not have imagined nuclear ICBMs. but they certainly intended it to include "modern arms", including artillery and naval ships.
They had in mind any and all modern weapons at their disposal at that time and it would be ridiculous to propose they intended future generations to limit themselves to flintlock muskets
>>30415454
>That every single person should be ready to fight with the same firearms that the regular army would use so everyone would keep tyranny in check?
Exactly. Read Federalist No. 29 and No. 46.
They're too long to have in one post, but basically 29 lays out a Militia/Reserve system very similar to Switzerland, where they have a small standing army and a much larger militia force composed of the whole of the people available should the standing army not be enough or should the standing army turn on its own people.
46 gives a number for how big this standing army should be -- no more than 4% the number of citizens capable of bearing arms, though I don't think that number would have been set in stone had we gone with it.
>>30415454
Section 13 of the Virginia Declaration of Rights is pretty blatant in meaning as the predecessor of the second amendment. It's very clear that the militia is the citizenship of the nation, that the government should actually be offering us the means of weaponry and providing us with training (not unlike Switzerland used to be), and that the purpose for the provision is to defend against a tyrannical, domestic, and standing army which we shouldn't tolerate or want unless needed.
>>30417504
It's cancer here in Canada. You need to be a member of a range to even buy an AR.
>>30415492
So I guess the 1st Amendment still only applies to voice, printing presses and quills/parchment?
>>30417504
>mandatory conscription
>"allowed"
>accept restriction
See, the problem here is you're an idiot. You're projecting you're personal opinions onto a matter that is a basic human right.
I'm fuddy as fuck. I own one polymer pistol for my everyday carry, because it'd be stupid to carry a 1911 concealed, but own nothing else but wood and steel. Two milsurp rifles, a revolver, a 1911, my hunting rifle and shotgun. I have no need or desire to own an AR, AK, Glock, Sig or any other modernized firearm.
But it is an unalienable RIGHT for people to own these things. There are zero restrictions that are acceptable, including the Hughes amendment. I will, and volunteered to, put my life on the line to protect the rights of my fellow countrymen to own whatever arms they deem necessary, for whatever reason.
Now, I'm trying to assist in an uphill battle against regulation with my fellow enthusiasts, not only against the left, but against our own kind. People like you. People who don't understand that "common sense" gun control is an oxymoron. The only common sense thing to do is lift all restriction period, as that is what is guaranteed us in the Bill of Rights. Agreeing or supporting any type of gun control is tantamount to betrayal to your fellow firearm owner, as well as future generations of owners.
It's that slippery slope we're always talking about. Give an inch and they will take a mile. Dont fool yourself into thinking that the opposition's goal is anything other than total disarmament.
It might not affect you greatly, and only inconvenience other people when buying guns today. But what about your children? Or theirs? Once we start sliding down that path my friend, itll be nearly impossible to stop.
I shouldn't have to be explaining this on /k/, but please consider what I've said.
>inb4 "he thinks he fought for freedom lol"
I can't help where Uncle Sam sent me.
>>30417504
>>30422268
Oh, I totally forgot about conscription. I shouldn't have to tell you why that's a horrible idea on a lot of different levels, but having mandatory service to a military body that answers solely to the state as you suggested is pants on head, drooling on the couch, shitting your Spiderman pull ups retarded.
Stop using tiny European countries as a measuring stick for a fuckhueg landmass like the US. The culture is entirely different, as is the way we are forced to govern ourselves due to our size and diversity.
All in all, educate yourself. You're what the black power movement would have called an "Uncle Tom," and nobody likes and Uncle Tom. Not even the people using him.
