Hi /k/. I'm a loser nogunz, not from the US. Last week I had an argument with an antigun guy from cali. The thing I don't get: the 2nd amendment is really fucking clear. I read it and it's obvious.
The militia part cannot be referring to a gov militia. That'd defeat the entire point. It'd have prevented the US revolution. Plus the Minutemen were normal civilians that helped.
So, why in the fucking fuck can SanFrancisco outright ban guns? Or the rest of cali's retarded and arbitrary rules? I heard DC was shot down with their ban. Why hasn't cali? Why is this even an issue?
If guns are bad, change the constitution. Full stop. Otherwise you have a constitutional crisis and need to reform the government.
>>30438323
They aren't.
Noone actually reads that old piece of paper anyway.
Because liberals don't give 2 fucks.
>>30438323
Article I section 8 says Congress shall have the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" so I don't get where you get the idea that the militia is supposed to be a revolutionary force. George Washington led a militia to put down the Whiskey Rebellion. The Whiskey Rebellion was composed of Revolutionary War veterans who believed the new federal government did not represent the ideals that they fought for. So the Feds used the militia to crush dissenters. But you seem to think the militia is supposed to be a source of insurrection though it says that nowhere in the Constitution.
>>30438596
This would be a better country today if they had won.
>>30438346
>>30438362
OK but not giving a fuck doesn't pass muster with the courts.
>>30438596
Ah I've never heard this argument. Why does everyone go on about the 2nd if the 8th clears it up?
>>30438346
thread/
>>30438779
Because the militia being talked about it Article I, Section 8 concerns the federal militia, aka the US military. Though it was never explicitly written in the Constitution, the original idea for the US military was that it would be essentially a small cadre in peacetime and rapidly built up when necessary. That idea remained until WWII.
The militia being talked about in the first part of the second amendment concerns state militias and the general idea of "the militia", aka every able-bodied male. The militia being talked about in Article 1, Section 8 is way more specific than this militia.
>>30438323
Because the constitution already provided for an Army and the authority to raise it before it was amended. Why ratify a redundant amendment other than to provide for the private ownership of arms.
>>30438323
Other then the act of owning a gun, most aren't. They just can't infringe on your ability to own one. Banning all but 1 gun doesn't stop you from owning a gun per say. There could be a law requiring all gun owners to paint their guns green or be "taxed" and it would be totally legit since you get taxed anyway on guns
>>30438934
Nice try at pulling BS out of your ass. What support do you have that there is a "federal militia" and "state militia" in the Constitution? The Constitution only refers to a "militia". The Constitution does provide for a standing federal military: it calls it an "Army". Doesn't call it a "militia". The Militia Act of 1792 defined the militia as every-bodied male. The militia that George Washington used to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion was summoned in accords with the Militia Act of 1792 and Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. Washington's militia was put together by the various state governors. It was federal in that it was led by the President but it wasn't a standing army and it was composed of men donated by each state. So no, the Framers did not intend a "federal militia" and a "state militia" and use the same word "militia" for both, and then require you to have a special decoder ring to determine which they meant. This is the same kind of bullshit that gun grabbers invoke when they say "people" in the Second Amendment means states and "people" in the First Amendment means individuals.
>>30438958
If the Second Amendment is solely about the private ownership of arms, then why did early drafts of the Amendment tie it to military service? Because of religious reasons, people could refuse to bear arms. "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
>>30438323
I always get a kick out of the Miller decision
>the 2nd Amendment applies to weapons suitable for militia and military use
>this short barreled shotgun is not suitable for militia use, and neither are automatics, grenades, or anything else under the NFA
Doublethink at the supreme court level shows that it doesn't really matter what's written on a fancy paper, and no "systems" that the government can come up with are going to protect your rights. The threat and use of violence are the only things that can ensure you remain free, and it is therefore imperative that individuals retain the ability to deliver it against their oppressors.
>>30438323
Please, anons, let me explain.
>A Well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.
The Context!
>The RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep, and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed.
The point!
>The people have the right to keep and bear arms against all potential oppressors. ESPECIALLY a runaway government, that no longer represents them...
>>30438323
you know how shits not illegal until you get caught?
well, laws aren't unconstitutional until they're taken to the supreme Court.
there's like, what? 7-10 supreme Court cases that touch 2a, and only 4 or so of them happened after 1950.
most of them deal with stuff tangential to 2a, and only 3 of them directly challenge gun control laws.
basically, if you want to overturn a general gun control measure, you're gonna need to go to a commie state, get nailed for possessing an illegal weapon, and then appeal the decision and hope the supreme Court will hear your case...then after you've ruined your life entirely, you have a coin toss of a chance of gun control being ruled unconstitutional.
>>30440251
And what, no one has been caught that the NRA can dive in and fund a supreme court lawsuit?
>>30440284
of course not. gun owners are all law abiding citizens :^)
supreme Court cases take years to get heard...if ever, as the court can deny a hearing too.
most of all this gun control is fairly new...before DC v. Heller, the last 2A case was heard in 1990. that's before the AWB and everything.
>>30438779
The courts use the ruling that the 1st amendment is not unlimited, neither is the 2nd.
And for the most part gun laws have been left to the states.
>>30438323
>>>/pol/
I come here to get away from that shit
>>30440341
Fuck off. Gun politics is literally /k/-related, despite what you and our retarded newfag mods might think. If you frequent /pol/, you will know that the quality of discussion is typically lesser than that on /k/.
>>30440337
1st amendment is nearly unlimited though. Very few exceptions, and the only ones likely to get people hit are obscenity/child porn (and the former gets weaker and weaker) and true threats.
2nd isn't even close to being unlimited, in any way. Citizens can't buy large bombs and missiles, for instance. But limiting all ownership, capping mags at ridiculous levels, etc. -- that's incredibly limited.
>>30440341
I came to /k/ to ask because /pol/'s level of discourse isn't great. Just people posting Taylor Swift yelling "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" while wearing a swastika armband.
>>30440341
>comes to a gun board to get away from the second amendment and gun law related conversation
>>30438323
Who lives in San Fran?
Ohhh, that's right the queer homosex faggot capital of the world. A pathetic excuse for 'men' who have no problem getting fucked up the ass by the British, the US governent, or anyone else that wants to catch their aids.
/thread
>>30440251
Hey, it's somebody who knows how government works.
>>30438323
If you actually want to know. Read through the opinions and dissent for SCOTUS gun cases. They're incredibly well written with the intention that students be able to understand and learn from them, and cover a lot of the history and prior cases while describing their thought process.
Start with Heller, probably Stevens' dissent so you can have somebody who isn't retarded explain the opposing viewpoint instead of some random califag.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZD.html
>>30440371
>Citizens can't buy large bombs and missiles, for instance.
>inb4 hurr technically it's legal, you just have to fill out a thousand forms and seek government approval so really your right to bombs isn't infringed
>inb4 bombs don't discriminate, 2nd was about guns only because nobody needs to be able to fight several people at once
>>30440413
Excellent, thanks.
>>30438323
Two words, "they aren't".
>>30440413
>somebody who isn't retarded explain the opposing viewpoint instead of some random califag.
>Implying random califags actually care enough to do research and don't just regurgitate what they're fed by the media and school
>>30438346
first post best post
>>30440415
If I have to get a tax stamp and have my purchase approved, it's not a right.
>>30442069
that's three words tho
>>30443207
contractions are one word, and technically he said four
>>30443175
Exactly. But inevitably you get cucks who engage in gold medal-tier mental gymnastics to defend the system because those infringements don't really affect them. Which, as it happens, is exactly what antiguns do.
>>30443860
which begs the second question, why is the unorganized militia too pansy to step up to the plate, they should've moved in the 60s, whole generations have failed completely in their civic duty
>>30439014
>There could be a law requiring all gun owners to paint their guns green or be "taxed" and it would be totally legit since you get taxed anyway on guns
How is that different from a poll tax?
>>30438323
All Constitutional rights are subject to certain limitations.
>>30444391
When they infringe upon the constitutional rights of others. Yes. Otherwise, get. The. Fuck. Out.
>>30438323
Theoretically, certain laws are claimed not to "infringe" the right, despite restricting it, while others claim that "arms" doesn't apply to certain things, such as NFA items.
In reality, it's because you only have the rights they say you do and go fuck yourself.
They aren't. Public opinion changes with time and judges will rationalize their feelings with whatever specious reasoning they can (see Roe v. Wade).
>>30443914
>should've moved in the 60s
Way earlier than that, m8. The fall of the Democratic-Republicans and the rise of the Federalists 200 years ago should have been time. But federal power rose, and public power fell.
Right now, life is pretty damn good in America, and there aren't a whole lot of people willing to risk their lives and everything they have for the sake of an ideal. And what's worse, 99% of those who nominally support the right to bear arms and spout off about muh voting from the rooftops will never lift a finger, because their idea of tyranny is jackboots marching down the streets, and anything less means it's not yet time to fight. Governments have found some time ago that the Brave New World approach works far better than the 1984 one, and so the goalposts for revolution will forever be shifted just out of reach.
>>30438323
Globalist scumbags are afraid of being shot by angry mobs so they push the media to spin the narrative and make the gun laws sound unconstitutional.
It won't help the little people just like full-auto ban didn't help them in the 80's but complete gun ban makes every person wielding one potential criminal so it's easier to prevent assassinations and ignore protests(inb4 idiots saying peaceful protests work - nope they don't if you don't kill your enemies, they win.).
>>30444525
>moving the goalposts on tyranny is not in and of itself a form of tyranny
>we're not a tyranny yet, we're not a tyranny yet, look look, we haven't become tyrannical yet; why are you getting mad, we aren't even a tyranny
This is the kind of thing that drives anxious paranoiacs like me up the wall and out the window.
>>30444525
>the goalposts for revolution will forever be shifted just out of reach
This is truly frightening, more so than any vision of black helicopters and FEMA camps.
Seriously, the thread ends here? With a blockbuster like that? /pol/ sure has gotten blue lately.
>>30445602
Hard to stay optimistic when the very people with the tools to fight tyranny don't even recognize that there's a problem.
>>30438323
You find gun laws confusing because you simply don't understand the first thing about US constitutional law.
>I read it and it's obvious.
Yeah, you really have no clue.
>>30440251
>basically, if you want to overturn a general gun control measure, you're gonna need to go to a commie state, get nailed for possessing an illegal weapon, and then appeal the decision and hope the supreme Court will hear your case...then after you've ruined your life entirely, you have a coin toss of a chance of gun control being ruled unconstitutional.
That's not true, you can challenge the constitutionality of laws that haven't come into affect yet and take it all the way to the SCOTUS.
The right to bear arms
Bear arms means to fire it no?
>>30445915
There's a few of us out here that see the problem; takes time to build up a proper dedicated force when you've got fudd's with flags mucking about.
>>30440371
>The 1st is nearly unlimited, but the 2nd is incredibly unlimited. Why? Because we passed laws to limit it!
So, if the government suddenly start imposing incredible limitation on the 1st, you would of course just say "Oh, I guess the 1st is limited."
>>30446021
>>30445996
No, if my understanding is correct it's a term mostly relegated to the act of waging war, which, if that is the truth, clears the confusion on why it was deemed necessary to include the preamble regarding the militia's primary function.
The unlimitation of firearms is reducible to the following chain of logic:
>A well-trained and technically capable (regulated) militia is necessary to maintain the freedom of the States
>The militia being composed of all persons, male and female, within the ages of 18-54, barring conscientious objectors, encompasses a majority of american citizens
>Congress is bound to supply, train, and discipline the militia as stated in the Constitution; should this fail to occur, as it does now, one would presume that either Congress is guilty of Treason or the militia is to supply, train, and discipline itself
>In order to provide the States with security, the militia must be capable of resisting any invasive or subversive force that threatens them
>Several echelons of the political classes in the United States have admitted to wishing, planning, and execution invasion and subversion tactics upon the American people
Thusly, gun control is to be deemed not only illegal and unconstitutional, but also gravely treasonous, as are any militia groups that do not take a reasonable stand against such impropriety and outright vandalism of our birthright.
>>30445985
That's technically correct, but is impractical with a lot of gun laws. For example, states with whitelists/blacklists of firearms would typically exempt guns purchased before the law goes into affect. So to have standing to challenge the law you would need to violate it.
