>muh bill of writes
I must have missed the part where having gigantic guns made solely for killing and shooting up churches is a """""right"""""
It's in the second amendment breh. You should read it.
>>73027324
Friendly reminder that the second amendment protected the right of traders to defend their cargo with cannons. If you'd like to argue that a gun is more dangerous than a broadside barrage of cannon fire be my guest
SHALL
>>73027877
Friendly reminder that the amendment does not mention guns in any way.
Just arms. Either you believe in the protected, private ownership and production of anthrax and h-bombs, or you disagree that the second amendment guarantees that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>>73028591
NOT
>>73028973
BE
>>73027324
STFU No one's taking your guns! Did Obama take your guns?
Answer: NO!!!
So stop your bitching. End of discussion. Thread closed.
>>73029059
INFRINGED
>>73028800
>you believe in the protected, private ownership and production of anthrax and h-bombs
I do. I don't care if it makes you uncomfortable, either.
>>73028800
>Muh nukes!!
Do you really think the law is what prevents most people from having weapons of mass destruction?
>muh bill of writes
I must have missed the part where posting stupid retarded bullshit on a taiwanese finger painting board for the sole purpose of getting replies is a """"right""""
>>73029343
What I really think is that either:
A) You believe private ownership of each and every conceivable weapon of any kind is perfectly acceptable
B) You believe that the right to keep and bear arms shall be infringed
The amendment never mentions guns.
>>73027324
>shall not be infringed
If you dont like it amend the constitution
>>73027324
The Bill of Rights doesn't give or guarantee our rights. It states the rights that we inherently have as free people. I'm sorry if Poland hasn't had much experience being free under Czars, Kaisers, Nazis and Communists, but maybe you'll understand one day.
>>73029493
Spoken like a true patriot.
>>73029173
It doesn't make me uncomfortable. It does make you an idiot.
>>73029493
>>73027324
Are you really going to complain about a church being shot up?
Like really? Is that something worthy to complain about?
I know this is bait but damn.
>>73029493
Incorrect. It provides legal recourse for private citizens to sue the government when those rights are infringed on. Guaranteeing them under the law is actually what it does, explicitly.
You ignorant fuckin' yokel.
>>73028800
But I do believe it applies to all arms.
You homo.
>>73029620
Not an argument.
Every gun law is unconstitutional. The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to balance power between state and citizenry. If citizens can afford to run a private nuclear facility, I have no problem with it
>SHALL
>>73029837
Then you're a idiot.
>>73029869
>Not an argument.
You are correct. I am not arguing with you. I am disparaging you.
>>73027324
Go to bed, Hillary.
>>73027409
Thread over guys. You can go home.
>>73029774
Someone hasn't the federalist papers or listened to constitutional scholars.
>>73028800
What does it apply to, wise teacher?
>>73029981
>Go to bed, Hillary.
>ID:Gun
Nice
>>73029583
Can't spell "parrot"
>>73027324
technically, we should all be able to own military grade weapons since the 2nd amendment is for fighting against the military if our government becomes tyrannical.
Come and take them
>>73028800
You could literally own both of those things with the appropriate licensing, registration, and approval.
The only problem is no one want to spend millions of dollars maintaining thermonuclear weapons they can never actually use.
And anthrax can be found in sheep's wool, cotton plants, and the fucking ground. I know farmers who use concentrated anthrax for small scale pest control.
>>73029457
I'd have to go with A)
>>73030333
Go away evil dogger.
>>73027324
I know you're just being facetious but whatever
>>73028800
Shut the fuck up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdity#Doctrine_of_absurdity
>second amendment must be protected at all costs!
>fourteenth amendment must be repealed at all costs!
are conservashits (especially trumptards) all fucking idiots?
>>73029774
Just because the rights are enumerated does not mean they were granted by the government. Unless your point was on his use of "guarantee", which enumeration does or attempts to do.
The bill of rights invokes rights as if they are pre-existing, because they are. Other documents confirm this.
>>73033791
No one wants the 14th amendment repealed, the trump camp wants it interpreted with orginalism in a future case.
>All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
When it was written and ratified, it did not apply to the children of illegal immigrants because that is how "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was interpreted. Same for native american tribes independent of the US government, and still the same for diplomats visiting the united states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Originalism
>>73029964
too bad the constitution doesnt agree with you
>>73033791
You're welcome to attempt the legal and constitutional method of changing and amending the constitution, instead of eroding it from inside.
That's not too hard, is it?
>>73029869
>The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to balance power between state and citizenry.
Balance of power does not mean equal weapons, in fact it can't mean that today.
The civilian population greatly outnumbers the state and standing army. Which is good, because it means the majority of the population can pick up rifles and reboot the government. But only a small minority can wipe out the government and the entire nation with a nuke, which is clearly bad. I find it retarded to believe the founders wanted something like a future whiskey rebellion to become a doomsday scenario.
>>73029964
>W-why won't they agree with me?
>Don't they see that their legally backed opinion is wrong because it scares me?
SHALL
>>73035337
NOT
>>73029457
And the 14th amendment never mentioned gay marriage. Your point?
>>73028800
FIRE ARMS
noun
1.
a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol, from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.
>>73029457
>What are small arms?
Includes swords as well. Private ownership of arms is not only acceptable but something to be encouraged for the defense of the individual and the defense of the country in an emergency. Please note that the government is not the country, merely the body that makes the laws, and sometimes a government will make laws that endanger the country.
>>73035543
>>73035717
Where does it say firearms or small arms? Nuclear arms are arms.
>>73027324
>op is trying to use the word "arms" as if referencing an appendage of a persons body
Legal definition on the word "arms" redpill delivery service brought to you by MAGA Industries.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/arms
>>73027324
United States v. Cruikshank
Main article: United States v. Cruikshank
In the Reconstruction Era case of United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875), the defendants were white men who had killed more than sixty black people in what was known as the Colfax massacre and had been charged with conspiring to prevent blacks from exercising their right to bear arms. The Court dismissed the charges, holding that the Bill of Rights restricted Congress but not private individuals. The Court concluded, "[f]or their protection in its enjoyment, the people must look to the States."[175]
The Court stated that "[t]he Second Amendment...has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government ......"[176] Likewise, the Court held that there was no state action in this case, and therefore the Fourteenth Amendment was not applicable:
The fourteenth amendment prohibits a State from depriving any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; but this adds nothing to the rights of one citizen as against another.[177]
Thus, the Court held a federal anti-Ku-Klux-Klan statute to be unconstitutional as applied in that case.
>>73035543
It says arms, the common definition for arms then and now is weapons and armor. The 2nd amendment is not restricted to firearms.
>>73028591
>>73028973
>>73029059
>>73029121
>>73036007
guns for the common man was THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT
had britain not attempted to restrict them, it's unlikely we would have bothered with a constitution or a revolutionary war.
arms at the time were talking about firearms, and the very best available to them at that time.
if they had AR15s available and 50 cals, im sure they would have loved them.
>>73027324
Which guns were specifically designed to shoot up churches?
I'm ignoring the guns made solely for killing, because that is the purpose of every gun.
>>73029081
I love it when liberals do that. They'll have a thread with hundreds of posts about how "ammosexuals" need to have their guns taken away, and given only to the police, and when you respond with anything but total agreement, they immediately state, "Nobody is going to take your guns! God!"
>>73035821
Some representatives mistrusted proposals to enlarge federal powers, because they were concerned about the inherent risks of centralizing power. Federalists, including James Madison, initially argued that a bill of rights was unnecessary, sufficiently confident that the federal government could never raise a standing army powerful enough to overcome a militia.[89] Federalist Noah Webster argued that an armed populace would have no trouble resisting the potential threat to liberty of a standing army.[90][91] Anti-federalists, on the other hand, advocated amending the Constitution with clearly defined and enumerated rights providing more explicit constraints on the new government. Many Anti-federalists feared the new federal government would choose to disarm state militias. Federalists countered that in listing only certain rights, unlisted rights might lose protection. The Federalists realized there was insufficient support to ratify the Constitution without a bill of rights and so they promised to support amending the Constitution to add a bill of rights following the Constitution's adoption. This compromise persuaded enough Anti-federalists to vote for the Constitution, allowing for ratification.[92] The Constitution was declared ratified on June 21, 1788, when nine of the original thirteen states had ratified it. The remaining four states later followed suit, although the last two states, North Carolina and Rhode Island, ratified only after Congress had passed the Bill of Rights and sent it to the states for ratification.[93] James Madison drafted what ultimately became the Bill of Rights, which was proposed by the first Congress on June 8, 1789, and was adopted on December 15, 1791.
you're right, by the constitution states should control their own nukes, and not the federal government.
we shouldn't be 1 nuclear armed country, but 50 nuclear armed states.
>>73036383
And those same people say police are awful and tweet support for #BLM
>>73027324
нщгк кyeфквyв здyфыy дyфмy
>>73036169
>guns for the common man was THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT
Maybe not. Surely the framers wanted protection for melee weapons too, and I've heard some arguments for canons and warships, but never anything the framers said or court opinion over a 2nd amendment challenge.
>arms at the time were talking about firearms, and the very best available to them at that time.
The bill of rights were written with common language designed to be understood by common people. This makes it almost easy to find out what the words mean, you simply read the most authoritative dictionary definitions at the time of ratification, then examine related documents to see if there's more to it. The authoritative definition for arms at the time was pretty much the first part of >>73035853
>ARMS. Any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at, or strike at another. Co. Litt. 161 b, 162 a; Crompt. Just. P. 65; Cunn. Dict. h.t.
This suggests all handheld weapons and wearable armor, not just firearms, are included in 2nd ammendment protection, within the spirit of the law. That excludes the M-28 Davy Crockett, obviously.
>>73027324
>>73029121
>>73036383
It's funny how they think only the police and military should have guns, but according to them the police are racists oppressors who murder citizens with impunity, and soldiers are tools for american imperialism and the military industrial complex.
They could be a little more logically consistent and endorse disarming low level police like the UK, but they never go there. You never hear how michael brown would be alive if the cop didn't have a gun.
>>73037160
If liberals were forced to apply their principles evenly and equally, they wouldn't be liberals.
>>73037160
>>73027324
>le muskets meme
>>73029457
Arms, Ordnance, and WMDs are three separate categories.
>>73027324
because fish feel nothing
>>73027324
It's right next to the line that states Americans have to only use a musket.
>>73027324
>>73027324
You must have a shitty attention span if you stopped reading before making it to the second amendment.
