The 2nd amendment permits the right to bear arms, however, back then it was all flint-lock muskets and pistols. Today we have semi automatic weapons, and its led to situations where police are shooting armed citizens who aren't breaking the law. The 2nd amendment is out-of-date for the times, yet, nobody wants to repeal it because nobody wants to give up their guns. And of course everybody appeals back to the "founding fathers" argument regarding the 2nd amendment and the idea of repealing it.
I think I have a solution that would work. They should have required that those carrying arms also be required to adorn some sort of easily identifiable uniform, just like the Minute Men did. Since the founding fathers themselves wore powdered wigs when the signed the constitution and brought the 2nd amendment into practice, we should modify the amendment such that all those bearing arms in an open-carry fashion in public also be required to wear a powdered wig. That way everybody keeps their guns, they're easily identifiable as LAW ABIDING citizens carrying guns (so the police can't mistake them for criminals), and we've effectively honored the founding fathers while doing this. Everybody wins all the way around, and the wig industry gets a big stimulation, which is good for our economy.
>>1395963
Fuck off you faggot.
>>1395969
I am not a faggot. I am a citizen who honors our founding fathers and has this country's best interests at heart.
>>1395963
>dress codes
>freedom
You faggots are not worthy of your forefathers.
>shoot up school
>run outside
>put on your powdered wig
>wave hello to police officers as you waltz away
Its like satire, only shit.
>>1395963
>The 2nd amendment permits the right to bear arms, however, back then it was all flint-lock muskets and pistols.
So then the 1st Amendment only applies to ink pots and quill pens?
Yeah, I didn't think so...
>>1396291
lets be honest, if they saw 4chan they would have limited it to quill pens
>>1395963
SHALL
>>1395963
I'm not too knowledgeable about wigs, so bear with me. Which part of the wig makes the wearer unable to break the law?
>>1396298
I'm sure the founding fathers enjoyed shouting at niggers as much as the next bloke.
>>1396298
You think the Founding Fathers couldn't banter? They were the kings of good banter.
>>1396298
Some of them would probably think this dump was abgreat place
>>1396305
NOT
>>1395963
The first amendment permits the right to assembly, when public gatherings were limited by the speeds of a horse, instead of the automobile, train, and airplane.. It guarantees the freedom of expression, when the ability to disseminate information was limited to the printed sheet, instead of modern conveniences like radio, television, and the internet.
The 1st amendment is out of date for the time, yet nobody wants to repeal it because nobody wants to give up their computer. And of course everybody appeals back to the "founding fathers" argument regarding the 1st amendment and the idea of repealing it.
I think I have a solution that would work. They should have required that those carrying arms also be required to adorn some sort of easily identifiable uniform, just like the Minute Men did. Since the founding fathers themselves wore powdered wigs when the signed the constitution and brought the 2nd amendment into practice, we should modify the amendment such that all those communicating in a political fashion in public also be required to wear a powdered wig.
That is exactly how stupid you sound , OP.
>>1396330
as per usual op is a fag
The 2nd amendment says a "Well maintained Militia", not random people owning guns.
Force gun owners to join militia groups and keep their weapons at the militia barracks.
Simple
>>1396326
WUZ
>>1396406
The term is "well regulated", actually, and I believe it's more about being disciplined than subject to formal regulations. And requiring gun owners to be part of a militia group would be an issue, because who would decide what constitutes a valid militia group?
>>1396406
The term "militia" is actually defined by the US Code as all citizens capable of acting in the common defense.
You're in the militia.
>>1396427
>>1396406
The 2nd amendment says "well regulated", with "regulated" referring to the outdated usage as "well funded and equipped".
As every man between the ages of 14 and 45 is a member of the US militia, and any woman, man older than 45, or boy younger than 14 is if they so desire, the United States citizenry must, as per the natural right recognized by the 2nd amendment, be allowed to purchase and use any weapon and ammunition for said weapon.
>>1396443
>allowed to purchase and use any weapon and ammunition for said weapon.
That's not EXACTLY right. They're allowed to purchase both "arms" and anything necessary to support "arms" (i.e. ammunition)
But while there's never been an official SCOTUS case on the matter, a lot of the dicta in various 2nd am cases like in D.C. vs Heller, usually focus on the terminology of
>To keep and bear
to infer that "Arms" are something you can hold in your hands, and that, I dunno, a cruise missile doesn't count in the category of "arms".
>>1396433
Does the US Code actually state specifically what "capable of acting in the common defense" actually means?
>>1396443
>As every man between the ages of 14 and 45 is a member of the US militia, and any woman, man older than 45, or boy younger than 14 is if they so desire
This language seems to imply that girls under 14 are not in that group, as it mentions "women" but not "girls", while it refers to males under the age of 14 as "boys", but not "men", so presumably "women" would only cover those 14 and older. Would probably make more sense just to phrase it as
>As every man between the ages of 14 and 45 is a member of the US militia, and anyone else is if they so desire
Additionally, is there any actual significance or obligation associated with being a member of the US militia? Because you have one group that's automatically members, and another group that can opt in to membership, is there any real practical difference between the two groups?
Additionally, the paragraph as a whole seems inconsistent with current practice of gun laws in the us. For example, it starts off by saying "every man", although nowadays men (and anyone else obviously) with a bad enough criminal record can be blocked from buying guns. Additionally, it is not legal to purchase and use "any weapon" as some weapons are outright illegal (though it could probably be argued that that is a restriction on the seller rather than on the buyer).
>>1396486
Well, it was defined originally as able bodied males between 17 and 45, but I think now women are included.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
>>1395963
>easily identifiable uniform, just like the Minute Men did
:^))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
>>1396406
Citizens are the militia, chief.
>>1395963
>The 2nd amendment permits the right to bear arms, however, back then it was all flint-lock muskets and pistols.
If you pay attention you notice that you can tell its shitposting bait from just the first ~20 words
