The second amendment of the constitution states that '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.' In the days of Washington this was a sensible law as it allowed people to stand up to the government and remove those in power if necessary.
However, in recent times the government is armed with far more than bayonets and horses. There are tanks, fully automatic weapons, even nuclear weapons and much, much more. I would therefore argue that even with assault rifles, it is impossible to form a well-regulated militia with anything resembling meaningful force, as the force of those in power is that much greater.
There are therefore two choices:
The first is to allow not only the sale of assault rifles, but also the sale of tanks, fully automatic and nuclear weapons to US citizens.
The second is to accept that the second amendment is a remnant from a different time and has lost any practical value.
So, tell me, what use is the second amendment in a time when removing the government through a well regulated militia is impossible?
so southerners can shitpost on imageboards wobbling their many chins instead of being productive American citizens
come try to take them, faggot.
>>77082413
>SERIOUS
is this code for funposting?
>>77082413
How can you keep arms if you can't hold them with your arms?
If this quote is accurate, it reads to me that the state maintains a well regulated militia, and as a separate right the citizenry have the right to bear arms.
>>77082660
it is not separate. It was never meant to be a feral militia, but a state one. Federal laws were focused on prevention of infringements upon liberty.
>>77082413
You ever see that movie Starship Troopers?
When Gomer Pyle-like guy questions why we (space marines) need knives?
You do you think drives the tanks and flies the planes? Remove the person and you no longer have an army/military.
It's like my grandma always said, "Tank don't drive itself." Then again she was 6'-5" 275lbs.
>>77082413
Not sure if you're serious Aquafresh, but I'll bite.
The second amendment SHOULD allow citizens to have any modern weapon of their liking, provided they can afford it or whatnot. Citizens of the time it was written had their own warships. However, over time, people have cut away at it, piece by piece and ever more greedily until now we have this.
That said, what we still have is enough, more than enough. You make fun of the US for losing Vietnam against farmers? How we've been bogged down in Afghanistan and Iraq for more than a decade? Okay, now try that with about ten times the people, on the government's soil, with better weapons, equipment and training than any of those places ever had.
>>77082413
Explosive tank shells and nuclear weapons are considered ordinance, not arms, which is why their sale is banned to the general public.
>shall
>not
>be
>abridged
>>77082802
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNhYJgDdCu4
>>77082660
The world well regulated means working properly. Nothing to do with government controlled.
Socialist corrupted the word to mean "regulated" because, you know, governments need to control things for them to work properly or market failure etc.
At the time the amendment was written, regulated meant working properly.
If your argument is that the second amendment should be nullified because the founding fathers had no idea of the potential of technology then you're also arguing that "freedom of the press" should only be limited to a printing press because they had no idea of television or the internet.
>it is impossible to form a well-regulated militia with anything resembling meaningful force, as the force of those in power is that much greater.
The well-regulated militia is the defence force you literate shit. "The militia" and "The people" are not the same thing
SECOND AMENDMENT FOR DUMBS:
1. YOU NEED AN ARMY TO REMAIN AN INDEPENDENT CUNT, SO THE GOVERNMENT (BECAUSE THIS IS DOCUMENT IS ABOUT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN AND CANNOT DO) SHOULD MAKE ONE
2. PEOPLE CAN HAVE ARMS, GOVERNMENT (BECAUSE THIS IS DOCUMENT IS ABOUT WHAT THE GOVERNMENT CAN AND CANNOT DO) ISN'T ALLOWED TO STOP THEM
like holy shit you nignogs this isn't difficult
if you want to argue whether or not the second amendment is necessary or good then fine, but at least understand it first
>>77082413
>removing the second amendment
The founding fathers wrote extensively on this.
They believed that:
1) the place of government was not to give people the right to bear arms, the place of government was to recognize the intrinsic right of people to bear arms, given to them by God.
What this means is that they believed that a government could not take away the right of the people to bear arms without becoming tyrannical. This applies to other fundamental rights as well, such as freedom of speech.
2) They mentioned extensively in their notes, personal writings, etc, that the purpose of the right to bear arms is to overthrow a tyrannical government.
One of the characteristics of the school of thought that the founding fathers ascribed to was fear of tyrannical governments. Might have something to do with that whole war against the English stuff they engaged in.
As for the militia stuff, several of them explicitly stated that the militia includes all men of age in the nation.
If you don't think a government, even with the power of tanks, nukes, etc can't be brought down by men with rifles, you've thoroughly failed to study history.
The thing is being allowed to buy everything the Government uses against YOU .
Us police don't use tanks or nuclear weapons on citizens dumbass
>>77083174
Give a example of a competent military in the 20-21th century that was taken down by a militia.
>>77083174
>If you don't think a government, even with the power of tanks, nukes, etc can't be brought down by men with rifles, you've thoroughly failed to study history
Right on! Remember Endor and the Ewoks. Study it
>>77082413
>>77083316
Hey nigger, the fact that it hasn't had to happen recently is a GOOD thing. That doesn't mean it is no longer a necessity
>>77082413
>So, tell me, what use is the second amendment in a time when removing the government through a well regulated militia is impossible?
please refer to pic related.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!
>>77082413
Yet all it took was a few jungle monkeys in vietnam to exhaust and stump your 'military'. Im pretty sure if the USA people fought against their government it would fall quickly.
>>77083446
Bahahaha I almost fell out of the internet laughing at this shit. I ko'd a "militia" member at a rager last week. My little sister put a bag of frozen peas on his chin.
>>77083316
The USA got beat by gooks with guns in Vietnam.
More importantly, fighting your own people on your own ground? It's completely impossible. Particularly when you figure in the fact that many in the military would betray in the event of a rebellion and that the military is more dependent on the nation's infrastructure staying intact (and it won't in the event of a civil war) to function. All you need to use a gun is boots and some bullets, but tanks and drones don't run on dreams.
>>77082413
A
FUCKING
DIKE
>>77082413
Anyone haave those screencaps? You know what I mean if you have them.
>>77082413
>The second amendment of the constitution states that '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.
Yes
>In the days of Washington this was a sensible law as it allowed people to stand up to the government and remove those in power if necessary.
And was used to protect voting rights as recently as Battle of Athens (1946), and arguably in Connecticut when armed men went into their town to stop it from passing gun regulations against the State Constitution, but ultimately were thwarted by the state law.
>However, in recent times the government is armed with far more than bayonets and horses. There are tanks, fully automatic weapons, even nuclear weapons and much, much more. I would therefore argue that even with assault rifles, it is impossible to form a well-regulated militia with anything resembling meaningful force, as the force of those in power is that much greater.
Not in numbers, and not in morale.
Tell that to the Afghanis and Vietnamese, also noting that the military first and foremost swears upon the constitution, secondly and lastly to their superiors.
>The first is to allow not only the sale of assault rifles, but also the sale of tanks, fully automatic and nuclear weapons to US citizens.
>Tanks
If you have the money and the time for paperwork, this is allowed.
>Fully automatic
If you have the money and time for paperwork this is allowed
>Nuclear weapons
Eh this implies they would use them on their own populace, which is just bad governance even for a tyrant. The USSR, PRC, Pakistan, and DPRK were/are arguably dictatorships, all had/have nukes, yet didn't nuke their own people when there were uprisings, because that causes more problems then it solves.
>>77082413
>The second is to accept that the second amendment is a remnant from a different time and has lost any practical value
>lost any practical value
Even IF true that matching force with the Federal governemnt is no longer possible or practical
>Home/store/car/self defense
>Vermin killing
>Hunting
>Liberty itself
Are all excellent reasons.
>>77082660
Read the history of the amendment and you find out you are wrong.
Read the grammar itself and find out you are wrong
>A well regulated [subset of THE PEOPLE], being necessary for [a purpose], the right of the People [full set from which the subset can be drawn from] to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Daddy dearest, you taught our Founders the King's English, and now council house twats have trouble with commas.
>>77083316
>Taken down
Bogged down so badly they were forced to leave?
It was in Southeast Asia iirc.
>>77083412
Founding generation
>Pucklegun.png
>Gunboats.gif
>Cannon.pdf
Civil War Generation
>Cannon
>Gatling gun
Next generation
>Browning Automatic Rifle
Gun restrictions didn't exist until the St. Valentine's Day Massacre, and even those weren't outright bans.
