It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns. But laws are never taken literally, including amendments to the Constitution or constitutional rights. Laws permit what the tenor of the times interprets them as permitting.
But underlying the controversy over guns are some serious questions. There's a feeling in the country that people are under attack. I think they're misidentifying the source of the attack, but they do feel under attack.
The government is the only power structure that's even partially accountable to the population, so naturally the business sectors want to make that the enemy–not the corporate system, which is totally unaccountable. After decades of intensive business propaganda, people feel that the government is some kind of enemy and that they have to defend themselves from it.
It's not that that doesn't have its justifications. The government is authoritarian and commonly hostile to much of the population. But it's partially influenceable–and potentially very influenceable–by the general population.
HOLY FUCK. HOW IS THIS KIKE TAKEN AS A SERIOUS INTELLECTUAL?
>>71384911
>The government is authoritarian and commonly hostile to much of the population. But it's partially influenceable–and potentially very influenceable–by the general population.
>"da government is evil and gonna kill you"
>"but guns r bad, you can't have them and actually you should listen to the government"
I thought he was an anarchist...
What a faggot.
>>71384911
I would love to debate this kike 1v1.
>>71385318
The only thing he knows how to do is move definitional goalposts, so when you say "debate" him, what do you really mean by that?
>>71385318
Be careful, this faggot is a master at playing language games. Which makes his interpretation of 2A as not an individual right so obviously driven by adherence to leftist dogma.
>>71385729
lol this is so true. His books read like a thesaurus but when simplified it's just "muh anarcho communism". Except when the right is against government apparently. Then government isn't so bad!
Nihlist-linguists are gay
he's right though.
>"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."
Are you gunfags part of a Militia? No? Then no Arms.
>>71385995
Seriously there is an abundance of evidence to the effect that Shall Not Be Infringed means exactly what it says. We have confirming statements from all the relevant authors. Furthermore notice how he tries to shift into "you only think you want a gun because you are scared of Price-Waterhouse-Coopers." No, I want a gun because of Obama's wife's sons.
>>71386316
You're a idiot.
>It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns
>>71386316
Isn't Militia used to describe "the people" here?
>>71386435
He's also Australian
>>71386316
Lebs cant into english
>>71386316
I was going to actually humor you with an actual response, but then I realized the flag.
>>71384911
>It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns
That's a true statement.
The 2nd Amendment does not grant any permission - it limits the power of the federal government.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Read the part on contemporary scholarly opinion, makes absolutely clear that some personal right exists.
>>71384911
>Corporate system is totally unaccountable
Cable company jacks up their rates to watch networks I occasionally enjoy watching. I cut the cord. Don't have to deal with that bullshit anymore.
>Government raises taxes for some bloated program that I will never, ever use and operates against my interests.
I refuse to pay taxes. Government agents escalate responses until I either pay, get thrown in jail, or get killed if I try defending myself.
Or I wield my "influence" with a vote that counts for 1/150 millionth of an election.
Yeah professor, the corporate system really is the big threat here.
>>71386771
What is it that produces so many cheeky cunts in Japan?
>>71384911
I hope he dies from a long fought battle with stomach cancer.
>>71385729
It's a jewish thing. It's even got a name - pilpul
He's right that it doesn't literally permit that, only practically, other than that it's a pretty straightforward analysis of social trends
>>71384911
The government is influenceable, because the population has guns.
>>71384911
Even when I was an edgy left anarchist, I thought Chomsky was a joke.
>muh libertarian socialism
>except government is good and welfare for everyone!
>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>Okay well uh, lets go ahead and infringe the fuck out of this amendment okay?
No, go eat shit commmie.
>>71384911
The man who basically claims the gov is a tyranny wants to take peoples guns away? How then would you remove the tyranny? Fool
>>71384911
>Some bizarre combination of Marxist/Anarchist/Authoritarian ideas
>Serious intellectual
Frankly, anytime someone mentions Noam Chomsky I tend to disregard anything they say from that point.
Chomsky is a fucking manchild and can die in a fire.
>>71384911
Because he's right.
>>71387457
>rw solution to government tyranny
Horde guns and wait for muh rope day.
>anarcho communist solution
Organize the working class and revolt against the established order.
Guess which one has actually happened?
>>71387255
>>71386990
these aren't analagous. you're no longer receiving cable service, so you don't have to pay.
>>71386435
seconded, aussiefag attempt at splainin' laws outside of his country failed. The Militia is the people.
>>71384911
>But laws are never taken literally, including amendments to the Constitution or constitutional rights. Laws permit what the tenor of the times interprets them as permitting.
I guess if you repeat this idea long enough you get people to accept it. Except the constitution was meant exactly as it was written since people were encouraged to add amendments when they wanted to change it. But who cares about that old nonsense when you got a constitutional scholar as president, right?
>>71386990
>corporation manufactures next door and gives you cancer
>you have to fight for 30 years in court and your entire town has to have cancer too or else it gets dropped because lobbyists
yeah real accountable
>>71386316
What came first, the militia or the guns?
>>71387919
>EPA gives you cancer
>>71386598
also well regulated ,I submit is describing the regularity of their practice with arms to be ready for use if ever necessary making the fact of their possessing arms of some actual significance since they know how to use them effectively.
What did the Continentals call the British soldiers" The Regulars as in they were regularly trained as professional soldiers
People today are misidentifying regulated according to the idea derived from the regulatory aspects of many government agencies to be inferring a limitation or control residing with the Government between the arms and the citizens.. this is most abundantly not the meaning in the original language.
>>71387720
And how do you proof he is profiting from the government programs?
>>71386316
>"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."
You either have the worst reading comprehension in the world, or you're just really intellectually dishonest.
We want to have A, because it's necessary to preserve B, so therefore we will let people keep supplies of C so they can form B in a crisis. The fact that it says "shall not be infringed" at the end should raise major red flags to anyone reading this one sentence, namely that the people who wrote it didn't want anyone fucking with the 2nd amendment.
>>71386435
>well regulated
means functioning
>Militia
means citizen army, removed from governmental authority
>necessary to the security of a free State
state militia's is mandated by your constitution
>right of the people
The people in that militia, it's a compound statement, notice the lack of semi-colon or full stop.
>keep and bear Arms
To store and use weapons.
>shall not be infringed
this refers to:
>well regulated militia
>security of a free state
>right of the people
>keep and bear Arms
If it shall not be infringed, that means it could possibly be infringed.
The 2nd Amendment tells your Federal Government not to infringe on a State's individual right to raise a militia for it's defense, and obviously to allow the people in that militia to arm themselves.
It does say anything about individual citizens owning guns. Fucking numbnuts.
I wish William Buckley was still around to punch him in his goddamned face.
>>71384911
>It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns
Right, taken literally we should have citizen militias all over the nation of which it would be any citizen's duty to be a part of and duly armed.
So... yeah. Let's do *that* then.
>>71388338
form A in a crisis
>The 2nd Amendment does not grant any permission
Yes it does too fucker. Read it again slowly and carefully. When they said Arms they weren't talking about your limbs.
>>71388362
>well regulated
>"means well functioning"
In 2016, not in 1776.
>militia
>citizen army
Which is later defined to be anyone aged 18-45. Are you a male between this age bracket. Congratulations, you're in the militia.
>necessary to the security of a free state
>"state militia"
Are you retarded? This means that having a militia (men between 18-45) is necessary for the State (the country and people) to be secure. It makes no implications that the State refers to a specific state, nor that a state militia is necessary.
McFucking hang yourself. Penal colony.
>>71387645
>Organize the working class and revolt against the established order.
Without guns though because guns are scary.
>>71388428
https://youtu.be/PEIrZO069Kg?
>>71388362
If this was the case it wouldn't say shit about the right of the people, it would say that the state has the right to form a militia.
>inb4 "people" means "militia", because the founders would change words mid-sentence because I say so
>>71388362
not even close
if people meant only the members of a militia post assemblage it would have said it that way.
clearly using the term;'people' the intent is to identify the entire population and not any limited temporary state authorized group.. nice try stateist pig
Why is this cunt considered an expert on grammar?
>>71384911
>It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns.
And he is a professor of linguistics?
>>71388362
Where does it say it's the states responsibility to arm the militia? Why are you making this federal vs state?
A militia is a group of armed civilians, and these civilians need be armed independent of any state or government
>>71388761
durable consensus+jewish professor+ intelligentsia to the poorly educated goyim.
>>71386435
we know all that shit. the real question is what does "arms" mean
>The government is authoritarian and commonly hostile to much of the population.
So I guess the government should be the only one with guns. Alright bring on the white genocide.
> But it's partially influenceable–and potentially very influenceable–by the Jews.
>>71384911
>bear arms
>hurr it's not literal
jesus fucking christ he's a retard
arms=guns and more
holy shit when is he going to fucking drop dead?
>>71388902
Any weapon. Any means of a weapon. That's what it means. Not just guns, not just swords. Anything that can be a weapon to prevent tyranny.
>>71388804
>the right of the people
They must have been talking about some other people.
>>71388942
>]
this
SCOTUS actually just had a major ruling on this recently, (8-0 at that) tazers and pepper spray are now officially protected, and they mentioned guns, swords and other forms of weaponry were protected as well.
SCOTUS blew libs the fuck out
>>71388942
but thats the whole point. isnt it? they didnt have RPGs back then. all they had was swords n muskets n shit. you think they'd allow one day handheld laser pistols or bombs and shit to be carried around by all their citizens? theyre either crazy, ignorant, or giving us (the future interpretors) credit that we would put a limit on how technology evolves "arms"
>>71388761
One of the first guys to apply mathematics to linguistics, was kind of a paradigm shift. Some of his laws of linguistics are important even in programming languages.
The guy ain't that great on politics, but he did an honest, factual job on linguistics. Not knowing shit about quantum physics doesn't mean you don't know shit about war, literature, philosophy, politics, etc.
>>71384911
People still listen to Known Chumpsky?
>>71389109
Stop shitposting, the Strayan couldn't do it, so you sure as hell can't.
>>71384911
>leftypol
>>71389109
I agree, the first amendment is obsolete because the founding fathers could never have envisioned the Internet, mobile phones, telephones, and so on. Start clamping down on assault communications.
>>71388840
Because it was written and intended to be a Federal vs State matter. The only way the states would come to the table was with an iron clad agreement that there would be no Northern aggression.
>>71388902
It just means self-defense, they plagiarized it from the English bill of rights (1689).
>>71388902
>>71389158
>>71389158
well isnt this why the whole debate exists?
>>71387645
Both. Day of the rope was an actual thing in Dominican Republic. Anarchists very briefly had small non-hierarchical governments in nineteenth century Paris and Civil War Spain: they were too weak and unstable to survive meeting better organized hierarchies.
>>71389187
>arms means self-defense
Funny how a man from a country that was founded on English doesn't understand what English words mean.
HOLY SHIT
REPETE AFTER ME:
CROSS
IMAGE-BOARD
SHILLING
We have been getting this bait post on le 8cuck as well, copy paste, word for word, image for image. Many same bait responses two.
>>71389176
im not saying its obsolete. read what i posted. im saying, they mustve left it up to us to put limits on. if thats the case, then what are the limits?
>>71389109
Look up what a letter of marque was.
>>71389224
There is no debate. SCOTUS has already ruled what arms means, who the "people" arm, and deemed that it applies not to the states, not to the government, not to police or military, but to citizens.
Fucking deal with it. There's literally nothing to debate.
>>71389310
None. Now fuck off.
>>71389316
yeah, i saw that episode of VICE. ok so, license to carry blah blah blah. the definitions in those license arent part of the constitution, which is why this is still an issue
>>71389300
>two
should be
>to
fuck auto-correct
>>71389310
The point of the 2nd is to match government power so that the people can kick the government's arse if they largely agree it's turning tyrannical.
>>71389310
The free market sets the limit. Unless you are a reputable person you're not going to be able to afford some serious weaponry. Unless you're a billionaire you're not getting your hands on any WMDs. Then on the other hand almost everyone can afford weapons capable of self defense.
>>71389358
then why is this shit brought up in every political debate or rally and on imageboards
>>71389532
It's coming from the same uninformed dickheads who say "just shoot him in the legs dude".
>>71389497
yeah no shit. im jsut wondering why people debate about it when it is so constituted
>>71389532
Because most people don't actually know the law. Imagine that; uneducated people argue about things that they don't know/understand.
>>71389268
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms
Not sure why you're so butthurt. Trump, Clinton, Sanders are all running on a gun ban platform.
You have a 25% chance with Rattus, but he's not going to win the nomination anyway, good luck friend.
The losers who argue against a fair reading of the 2nd Amendment are no less pathetic than the SJW feminists who argue that they are getting eye-raped and the patriarchy is keeping people of colour down.
You're re-imagining the words to fit your desired outcome: guns you get to collect and jerk off over because you have small dicks.
The constitution is clear:
>(1) States form militias
>(2) The people in the militias defend the states
>(3) This shall not be infringed upon
This stopped being relevant hundreds of years ago. Is your ar-15 going to stop a drone bombing the shit out of your neighborhood? Good luck with your NEET dreams of violent revolution against a trillion dollar army.
>>71386316
"The right of people to hear arms" is only incidentally connected to the militia. It isn't dependent upon it.
Or
The intent was for militias to protect the people from tyrannical governments, and therefore did not expire with the creation of standing armies.
>>71386344
Clearly the point has always been that the people should have guns to fight the government if it became neccessary.
Anyone who says otherwise is a fucking lying Commie like Chomsky.
>>71389532
Because it's pushed by people who want to bring about tyranny and who like Chomsky do not care about definitions or law.
>>71389655
>This stopped being relevant hundreds of years ago. Is your ar-15 going to stop a drone bombing the shit out of your neighborhood? Good luck with your NEET dreams of violent revolution against a trillion dollar army.
>I literally know nothing of logistics
>>71389655
>trying this hard to recover after being BTFO
Strayans truly have lost the crown to the Canadians. Fucking pathetic.
>>71389622
so the debate exists, because the distaste in the american peoples mouths for gun ownership has grown so much, there exists a population that would support a politician to remove the 2nd amendment or amend the constitution? i feel like its not coming from the people
>>71389655
le drone maymay
>>71389655
>This stopped being relevant hundreds of years ago. Is your ar-15 going to stop a drone bombing the shit out of your neighborhood? Good luck with your NEET dreams of violent revolution against a trillion dollar army.
Taliban Viet Cong how many times are we going to go over this? But I don't expect you to know anything about military history coming from a country that has been depending on that "trillion dollar army" to win its wars for them.
>>71389655
You're right, it has been settled
>e Court again recognized that the right to arms is individually held and, citing the Tennessee case of Aymette v State, indicated that it protected the right to keep and bear arms that are "part of the ordinary military equipment" or the use of which could "contribute to the common defense." In its first opportunity to rule specifically on whose right the Second Amendment protects, District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the amendment protects an individual right "to keep and carry arms in case of confrontation," not contingent on service in a militia, while indicating, in dicta, that restrictions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, on the carrying of arms in sensitive locations, and with respect to the conditions on the sale of firearms could pass constitutional muster. In the 2010 case of McDonald v. Chicago, the Court applied incorporation doctrine to extend the Second Amendment's protections nationwide
>>71389774
The people don't want to remove the 2A. A minority of people, lead by a larger population of politicians funded by external agencies want to remove the 2A so that control is made easier.
same type of faggots, different era
some people will always look for the sole of the boot to lick while others with always have the boiling desire for freedom and liberty in their blood
http://www.thepolemicist.net/2013/01/the-rifle-on-wall-left-argument-for-gun.html
>>71389774
>because the distaste in the american peoples mouths for gun ownership has grown so much, there exists a population that would support a politician to remove the 2nd amendment or amend the constitution?
This might have been true in the 1990's, but since then it seems the trend has reversed. GW Bush's official stance on gun laws was he wouldn't propose them, but he would sign them if they came across his desk.
Now plenty of Republican politicians would get lynched if they said something to that effect.
>>71388362
>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.
There's a fucking comma m8. did you fail reading comprehension or something?
>>71389358
as long as the SCOTUS remains with a majority who affirm that ruling.
The current guy being floated by Obimbo in fact is on record as disagreeing with that ruling so his installation could lead to a case being brought which challenges the current status and could conceivably result in a reversal and striking down of that conclusion.. which could stand until the court were again to have a majority who would reverse that ruling..
This is why it is so absolutely essential never to allow anyone who would seat such a Justice to be elected and keep the senate likewise filled with members who affirm the absolute right of every citizen to keep and bear arms
>>71384911
>the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
>taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns
This guy is a fucking retard. Why do people listen to him?
The "well regulated militia" was transferred into the National Guard.
>the right of the people to keep and bear arms
There ya' go, we got guns you liberal faggots.
>>71390026
But that's not what it says, baka
>>71388492
A already exists, and if you're an able-bodied male in America between the ages of 18-45 you belong to it. It is your duty as such to be equipped and trained in the use of your equipment.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
>>71384911
His work in linguistics is largely built on unproven/unproveable assumptions, too.
He isn't even professional about his fucking job.
>>71389736
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWiBt-pqp0E
>>71389728
>>71389896
This is how delusional the people on your side are. They believe they will win a guerrilla war in an uprising against their own military.
Meanwhile I guarantee you they couldn't run 5 miles and they are obese mouth breathers with no life experience.
logistics:
US Military will control:
>roads
>air
>sea
>borders
US Revolutionaries will control:
>small arms, limited bullets
>they will starve in 3 months and give up
>Taliban Viet Cong
Primitive shepherds in high mountainous areas who have been fighting for over 30 years against foreign aggression. And 1960s communists who hid in jungles against carpet bombing and mustard gas.
>>71384911
I've always hated gnome chomskii even back when I was more liberal. He is so fucking boring to listen to and speaks in a super low tone that I personally believe plays some kind of trick on your mind. Like you are being lulled to sleep and he is hypnotizing you. I bet he doesn't even know he is doing it, he just fell into a pattern that worked and kept getting reinforced into it.
>>71384911
>The government is the only power structure that's even partially accountable to the population, so naturally the business sectors want to make that the enemy–not the corporate system, which is totally unaccountable. After decades of intensive business propaganda, people feel that the government is some kind of enemy and that they have to defend themselves from it.
Yeah, no, chomster, corporations sure can be mean but I'm yet to see Coca Cola or IBM pull off a Holodomor or a Great Leap Forward.
Then again you insisted for almost a decade that the Khmer Rouge dindu nuffin so maybe you actually are buying into your own delusions. That's sad.
>>71390026
It all depends on whether or not that phrase depends on the ones proceeding it about militias, or whether it was already assumed to be the case and they sort of put it in anyway.
Just parsing the passage with no knowledge of anything else-- what the Founders said elsewhere or how Georgian grammar and rhetoric worked-- it's ambiguous. It could be either way.
But clearly the Founders intent was for an armed citizenry, armed so they could murder the government if it grew corrupt or tyrannical.
>>71384911
People are given the right by their Creator to defend themselves and their families in whatever way necessary.
The 2nd amendment only says that the government WILL NOT INFRINGE on this God given right to keep and bear arms.
Governments and constitutions don't give rights, God does. The government tries to take them away all the time, so you need to make it clear in your founding documents that this ain't gonna happen.
>>71390592
If the intended to give the right to militias why would they even bring the people into it? It is clearly guaranteeing the right of the people, not of militias.
>>71390466
>Primitive shepherds in high mountainous areas who have been fighting for over 30 years against foreign aggression. And 1960s communists who hid in jungles against carpet bombing and mustard gas
And the most well armed civilian population in the world. Literally millions of people and most of the military. There would be a civil war the majority of the military would be on our side. The government would be left with whatever little military they have left unless they manage to raise a new army.
>>71390466
I don't know what makes you think there will be 100% loyalty on the military side, but please, keep the strawmanning to a minimum. Maybe your argument would have some credence, then.
>Entire U.S. power system (barring Texas) has multiple weak points and is so interconnected that taking out any one of these would cause havoc
>Missouri is basically one big choke point
>Loads of civvie aircraft (we can't police Cubans and Columbians from getting coke through our airspace)
And more!
Here's another kicker, Timothy McVeigh took out half a building and 600 people using diesel, methanol, and fertilizer. Now imagine thousands of angry rednecks just like him with access to all of this.
>t-t-t-they'd just BAN those things!
Now you've got thousands of pissed-off farmers, racers, and brotruckers too.
>DRONES
I'm sure carpet-bombing a bunch of people would go over real well in public opinion.
>>71386316
Your flag says it all but so too does this video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOwy9OWfnAM
You'll want to watch from 1:00 onward.
>>71390592
>>71390988
Literally one of the first acts that sparked open revolution was the British army moving to take control of an armory in Charleston and seize guns and powder.
Gee, exactly just what could be the purpose of 2A in the context of what those men had just lived through?
>>71391049
Friend, your entire revolution would end in weeks after the FBI cordons off your compound and they firebomb you.
Get a grip on reality, not only is the 2nd Amendment over, they are coming for the 1st Amendment too. Your people are generations removed from capable opposition. A nation of pussies who keep bending over.
>>71391338
I suppose the Australian /would/ be an authority on recognizing this. Well pack it in boys, we had a good run of it but liberty is dead. Time to sell ourselves back into the commonwealth
>>71384911
The last two digits of my past are the months this filthy kike has left.
>>71385318
Write an open letter. Refute his points soundly. Gain a reputation online just as Chomsky gained his when he refuted Skinner in the NYT. Launch a career as a public intellectual and make millions like Hitchens, Sagan, Buckley, Jr., etc. Or just shitpost here about how awesome you'd be if did any of that. Your call.
>>71391338
The "compound" being the entire country so no. Go look up the Glorious Revolution.
>>71391505
5 months
>>71384911
Does he not know that DC vs Heller exists? The right to bear arms is for an individual, unequivocally. There's no fucking argument here.
>>71388362
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOwy9OWfnAM
>>71384911
>caring about gnome chumpsky
>>71391338
>Get a grip on reality, not only is the 2nd Amendment over, they are coming for the 1st Amendment too.
Precedent since 2004 isn't on your side. Keep calling other people pussies though, that'll help your argument.
>>71387645
you still need guns m8, no revolution of any kind was unarmed.
>>71391998
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990
>>71392533
Is that really the best you can do?
>>71386316
In the US all adults are members of the militia, so please go get raped by a spider.
>>71387645
Yeah the Bolsheviks didnt have any guns clearly
>this is a thing in burgerland
>>71388362
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
every American is part of the militia
>>71384911
> He speaks at that pace and in that voice that lets you know he's an intellectual and authority.
>>71392594
Do gun free zones exist in the US?
Are they shrinking or growing in size?
Which direction do you think this will go in the future?
>Is that really the best you can do?
Do I need to do more? You live in a fantasy world, where you think you will keep your guns. I live in a country that went through this debate, you can't win it. Eventually enough children will be murdered and new and expanded laws will be pushed through.
>>71392874
>George Mason
>one of three men who refused to sign
kek.
>people being thrown off by the beginning
/pol/ is literally a board of reactionary children. Learn the difference between letter and spirit of law.
>>71393065
>Are they shrinking or growing in size?
Shrinking, The trend of the states is going towards the gun rights side with many states passing legislation permitting people to carry. Some even going as far as constitutional carry.
The amount of permits issues is growing.
>Muh gun free zones exist, therefore the 2nd Amendment is invalid!
This is what your argument has been reduced to.
Had you made this argument in 1996, I would be inclined to agree, but twenty years later and here we are, the exact opposite has happened. Sandy Hook couldn't get magazine limits passed through congress, and it was the perfect storm.
You lose.
Also, isn't the rate of firearms ownership in Aus increasing? I remember seeing a statistic about it. Given enough time Aus might see the same tend reverse as well. I know the U.K. has had a growing number of applicants for firearms licenses, and across Europe as well.
>>71387070
They're Muricans. Military dudes stationed overseas.
>>71391338
Shut up you inner Melbourne faggot.
>>71389109
Privateers used the second amendment to justify their use of cannons and small artillery to protect against pirates.
>>71384911
Looks like Jews and rights don't mix.
Which one should we do away with?
>ARE YOU KIDDING ME
t /pol/ debate club
Congratulations.
>>71393748
GET BACK TO THE LOUNGE
>>71386316
>Then no Arms.
He thinks Arms only means guns. LOL
>>71389109
"and the rockets red glare, the bombs busting in air"
>>71393488
>Shrinking, The trend of the states is going towards the gun rights side with many states passing legislation permitting people to carry. Some even going as far as constitutional carry.
Not only that, we're starting to see more and more serious talk of allowing teachers to CC in the classrooms. Americans are beginning to awaken to the fact that gun free zones are advertised defenseless victim zones.
>>71384911
> HOW IS THIS KIKE TAKEN AS A SERIOUS INTELLECTUAL?
Intellectual? Chomsky is insane and a hard core Stalinist. Google his rage filled private letter about Václav Havel's visit, the dissident who spent years in an eastern Gulag type prison. You'll see who's hiding behind the public persona.
>>71384911
chumsky is right the 2nd amendment is to protect the rights of the federation to keep amd bear arms. Why it's in the Constitution that was written to protect individual rights then.
>>71384911
>It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns
Stopped reading there
>>71384911
>It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns.
Lol.
>not the corporate system, which is totally unaccountable.
Yeah, not accountable to the customers or market forces or anything. Companies can just do whatever they want and they still get money! Oh wait...that's the fucking State. Dumb fucking jew.
>>71386598
Every American over the age of 18 is a member of the "militia" as described in the Constitution. The idea being that the citizenry is an ever vigilant armed force against the forces of tyranny.
is chomsky just the intellectuals russel brand, says a lot of fancy words but doesnt actually say anything of real substance.
>>71387919
Companies' stock price tends to plummet when the news of them poisoning the local populace hits the news. It's only when said companies are able to influence the regulatory agencies (like the massively incompetent and corrupt EPA) that they can get away with it. Only with the power of the State are corporations immune to some market forces. And the State is truly answerable to no one. You can't go to another State if you aren't happy with your service. You can't decide you don't want the "product" they're offering and stop paying. The only influence we have is representation, and currently that system is broken.
>>71389079
I'm actually quite surprised by this considering they assassinated Scalia partly so they could pass anti-gun legislation. Perhaps Scalia's influence lives on after death in the SCOTUS?
>>71386316
what is a militia? by definition isnt it just people agreeing to form a loose civilian military unit/structure/organization to uphold law and order?
If thats what you define it as then the 2nd amendment makes perfect sense..
it says a militia, implying a civilian military order is necessary to keep a state free, which loops back on the rest of the statement, meaning to be well regulated a militia needs to be well armed, thus you cant infringe the right of the people to bare arms as this would prevent a proper civilian militia from being able to counter the power of the state.
If anything, the elegance of the language is amazing, they managed to communicate and condence a pretty complex political idea you could write books about into basically a sentence composed of four statements.
The founding fathers seem more like fucking legends the more people argue this shit. I get the impression they made it simple and clear to stop it being twisted by authority.
Those guys were not just leaders, they were fucking philosophers.
>>71390466
>they believe they will win a guerrilla war
Welp, someone post Red Plan pasta for this chap. Even our own government thinks it couldn't win, or at least it would be so draining on resources and human cost that it wouldn't ever be worth it.
>>71391338
>compound
Do you know how a resistance works? Plus the second they start bombing US soil they have instantly lost the PR battle.
>>71388579
Actually the Aus bro is spot on. you are the retarded one.
necessary to the security of a free state.
We need this to secure the freedom from or for the state.
It's always fun to see kids pretend they're smarter than Chomsky and fail.
>>71390988
It can be read both ways. 'The right of the people to bear arms' in that string of phrases can be another way of saying 'well-regulated militia' so as to clarify it, meaning that there would be militias of armed citizens-- and that's why they have guns'. Thats the Commie argument. In that reading grammatically ts an "appositive phrase" that effectively restates the same thing in a different way or with a different name for the same thing.
Or it could mean ' there are militias made up of armed citizens-- and oh yeah they're armed no matter what, because citizens are armed here'.
That way is how everyone has interpreted it forever.
>>71396226
>Companies' stock price tends to plummet when the news of them poisoning the local populace hits the news
Not if they have a monopoly you dingdong.
>>71389532
Why should you care about anything the Supreme Court says though?
>>71399004
judicial review bruh, look it up
>>71384911
>It's pretty clear that, taken literally, the Second Amendment doesn't permit people to have guns.
Do people unironically think the militia=the people
>>71385218
nah I'm pretty sure he's a socialist
OP, he's taken as a serious intellectual because he's a serious intellectual.
>>71390466
Another point many forgot is foreign assistance. The American secessionists had it against the British and it would probably to the advantage of some states to support a revolution.
>>71389532
shilling to divide and conquer you
>>71398547
And how do they achieve monopoly without force (Such as a private army, or a drug lord killing his rivals)? Oh yeah, the State, because it has a monopoly on legal force outside of self-defence.
>>71396176
Yes. But his name carries more intellectual weight than Brand's, so people like these two
>>71399267
>>71398058
think that makes him infallible.
>>71399427
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economies_of_scale
>A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
>>71388942
>Any weapon. Any means of a weapon. That's what it means. Not just guns, not just swords. Anything that can be a weapon to prevent tyranny.
Up to and including nukes?
>>71399489
>Furthermore, Mill referred to network industries, such as electricity and water supply, roads, rail and canals, as "practical monopolies", where "it is the part of the government, either to subject the business to reasonable conditions for the general advantage, or to retain such power over it, that the profits of the monopoly may at least be obtained for the public."
That's government intervention.
