What about this is so hard to understand again?
>>77494920
>A well regulated militia
So surely that just means an army? Like the US Army?
I.e. it means you have a constitutional right to an organised army, and you won't infringe that army's rights to bear arms.
It doesn't mean any Tom Dick or Harry can buy guns whenever they fucking please.
How stupid are you?
>>77495301
>I can't read
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."
>>77495301
SHALL
>>77495301
Do you understand what a comma does?
>>77495301
FPCP
>>77494920
apparently the ''shall not be infringed'' part
>>77494920
A patriot citizen is armed. A subject is not.
>>77495374
NOT
>>77495301
>>77495301
Militia is not the army but nice try
The second amendment is every American's duty to defend their freedom by any means necessary. I know older generation democrats with stockpiles of guns. It's deeply troubling that people read the 2nd amendment as some government institution's duty.
>>77494920
>liberals still can't figure out how a comma works
>"It's just not very well written! Why couldn't the Constitution have hashtags!?"
>>77495618
PASS
>>77494920
>paper having authority to do anything or restrict anything
you're so pathetically naive.
>>77494920
I think more now than ever it's necessary for a free state. With media brainwashing and lefty election rigging the only thing to protect ourselves is our right.
And yes, 80+ million armed Americans would decimate our military regardless of technology just by pure numbers.
>>77495301
Because the founders decided to protect the government in a document meant to restrict it after being concerned about standing armies..
A well read electorate, being necessary to the literacy of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
>>77495301
Because an effective civilian fighting force is needed for when the security of a free state comes under threat, all person's of fighting age should be allowed to own and bear arms (as to become proficient and accustomed to them), and that right shall not be infringed.
>>77495301
From (((Wikipedia))):
The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)
And because of the 14th Amendment, this is basically expanded to include everyone.
>>77494920
The thing that aggravates me the most is how most gun grabbing dems claim to be "for the 2nd amendment," when it's clear that a lot of them would straight up repeal it if they could.
>>77494920
Does it read:
>A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.
No. The part about the people keeping and bearing arms has a reason as well.
So the 2nd Amendment is actually calling for regulation??
>>77495301
The 2nd Amendment is your most important right, cuck.
Let me put it to you in modernized English so that a pleb like you can understand:
>In order for the existence of a well-regulated militia, which is necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This interpretation has been uphold continuously by the Supreme Court throughout United States' history and its interpretation is crystal clear in light of the philosophies of some of the founding fathers, including the Father of the Constitution, James Madison.
It means that in order for militias to be able to exist, the people must have the right to own weapons.
Got it?
>>77496318
Democrats hate foresight. They hate how republicans logically follow a chain of events that leads to a negative outcome. They want republicans to think "If I let him have this that'll be it".
>>77496524
Wrong. The U.S constitution is unique in that it ensures so called 'negative rights' -- meaning it does not give you rights, it reinforces natural, God given rights, and regulates the government's ability to deprive you of these rights.
This is different in comparison to European constitutions. For example, the 1st Amendment to the U.S constitution is short and simple, and ensures a natural right. European constitutions for free speech is not one paragraph long declaring that "Congress shall make no law ..." (like the U.S one). Instead, EU constitutions are 1000 pages long, listing all the things you are not allowed to do. The Swedish "free speech constitution" is something like 700 pages long and lists the things that are not allowed under our free speech laws.
There is not only a difference in principles, there is a difference in the underlying, fundamental philosophy of the entire constitution.
>>77497257
>god
lmao
>>77495301
learn English
>>77495716
this is by no means a healthy or balanced breakfast you Amerilard
>>77495716
Why is this lacking 2 commas compared to the ammendment?
SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED
>>77496115
Exactly. This is the correct interpretation.
The Founding Fathers knew that in order for well-regulated (well-functioning, good) militias to even exist, individuals need to have the right to bear arms -- otherwise such militias can not properly form.
>>77497588
Just pointing out the way the Founding Fathers saw things. People use the terminology "natural" or "God-given" when referring to rights that are considered inherent to human existence in Western philosophy. Doesn't matter if you're religious or not, because atheist scholars have agreed to these same principles throughout history.
>>77495716
This lacks the commas
You are a retarded gun freak
>>77494920
Stop trying bro, the constitution is just another meme
>>77494920
The part about muskets which was written in invisible ink that only liberals can see
>>77498194
hey I found a picture of you
>>77495301
>>77494920
The fact that women suck at teaching both the English language and respect for authority
If there is a gun ban all you gun nuts will just acquire guns illegally anyways. What difference does it make?
>>77498919
>What difference does it make?
Because if it's illegal, the government can crack down on anyone owning a gun, which is like 80% of the U.S population. You're a traitor if you want to abandon the 2nd Amendment.
>>77494920
The word "Amendment", it seems.
>>77495344
>>77495429
Yes I understand commas, apparently you don't
>>77495717
>Militia is not the army but nice try
You're right it's not because back in the day, militias were just guerilla fighting units, the people coming together to form their own armies
However, that's not allowed anymore - it would be classified as vigilantism, which is illegal. America, like every other country, evolved to have a single state Army. So the biggest analogue to "militias" these days is the Army
Stop being so stupid please
>>77496115
Hahaha fucking nigger you are so dumb, please name any single time when that has ever happened in the last 100 years, when a "civilian fighting force" has come together to fight for the security of the US because the Army somehow wasn't able to do that job, despite being the biggest and most well funded in the world. Go on, I'll wait
>>77496157
>The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias.
Well then why aren't there state militias anymore then?
>>77496498
Yes because otherwise those militias would be unarmed. It's saying the militias have an enshrined right to guns. Those "militias" evolved to become the US Army.
>>77496531
Well it's not my right because I'm not American
>>77497695
The people have a right to an armed militia (which these days is the US Army). Why can't you understand English?
>>77495301
>So surely that just means an army?
Are you fucking retarded? You have no idea what the word "militia" means do you? No, wait, that doesn't matter. Want to know why?
Because the Second Amendment doesn't create a militia. It simply states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The "militia" it is referring to is not an established governmental organization or military. It is a hypothetical force created in a time of need. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This is a very simple logical statement. It follows all principles of classical logic and stands on its own as a self-justifying provision for the continued existence of a free state.
So I ask again: Are you fucking retarded?
>>77499310
Why can't you understand US law? Oh, because you're a fucking Paki living in London. That's why.
>£0.07 has been deposited into your account
>>77499244
Exactly
In order for real gun control, we need to repeal the 2nd amendment
>>77495301
The amendment is quite clear that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Also, militia refers to a fighting unit made up of non professional fighters, as in, not military.
>>77495880
That's what you should have told the migrants you Bavarian cunt
>>77494920
> A well regulated militia
> regulated
> ruled by law, whatever that may be
Sounds like any infringement of the 'people's' right to bear arms is secondary to the regulation thereof, hence government may do as it pleases with the 'militia', whatever they be.
And it's poorly written.
>>77499482
>>77499554
Tell me then why there are no militias anymore and why there haven't been for a very fucking long time
If you think the constitution preserves your right to a militia then where are the militias?
Either you preserve the 2nd amendment for its true purpose (enshrining the right of militias) or you don't.
>>77499837
Yes, the people who form militias. People don't form militias anymore. If they tried to they would probably be locked up.
>>77500448
you bongs are still BTFO from getting kicked out of the colonies by militias aren't you
>>77500448
we don't have militias right now because they are temporary. think of a posse.
also
>>£0.07 has been deposited into your account
>>77500531
> happened literally once
> and with French military backing
>>77500448
There are HUNDREDS of militias you fucking idiot. Go type "United States Militia Group" into google. Holy fuck you're ignorant.
>>77499732
This enrages me beyond all belief.
>>77500448
>Tell me then why there are no militias anymore
There are like thousands of militias, and people form local militias all the time in the U.S. It's so great.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_organizations_in_the_United_States
>>77500448
US law states that all able bodied males age 18-45 are part of the militia retard
I, for one, applaud my American friends and their passion for guns.
There was a time when governments would think it 'none of their business' to ban anything.
>>77500448
>People don't form militias anymore. If they tried to they would probably be locked up.
People form militias all the time. And guess who's gonna come protect you when shit hits the fan?
>>77500448
you know, the shills really should just be using american IPs as i'd be more inclined to believe they're just being stupid rather than being paid
>>77501583
Question.
So does that mean that all Americans are technically 'combatants' in war, and therefore can be fought without reprisals for war crimes?
>>77499310
>Hahaha fucking nigger you are so dumb, please name any single time when that has ever happened in the last 100 years
I keep a couple fire extinguishers in my house even though my house has never caught on fire.
>>77501745
No? Bongs shitposting is cancer
>>77494920
It will be repealed finally by Hillary's pick
>>77501745
no, because its possible to commit war crimes against an organized fighting force regardless if they're a formal military or if they're a local militia
you should be focusing on saving your nation from the EU, not shitposting
>>77494920
Dubs to confirm. Thread
>>77494920
FUCKING MUSKETS
>>77494920
SHALL
>>77502257
It was a non-banterous, serious question.
So an invading force met local, armed civilians, there would be no prosecutions for killing them?
>>77494920
All these responses and no mention of Heller v. D.C.
Based Scalia (may he rest in peace) outlined it all for us. God bless that man.
The part where is says "shall not be infringed" really leaves me confused
>>77499310
>Well it's not my right because I'm not American
Actually, it is your right. All men were endowed with these right by their creator. Your government merely denies it to you.
>>77495301
>>77494920
>literally had this conversation this morning
>"WELL REGULATED MEANS GOVERNMENT"
that makes no sense, a British government militia would have meant no US revolution
>"US MILITARY OUTGUNS CITIZENS ANYWAYS"
tell that to Iraq and Afghanistan where the US can't maintain control
>*GLARES IN CONTRADICTIONS*
>>77499310
>Well then why aren't there state militias anymore then?
There are, under different names. There are also smaller community militias who go under the name militia however our government hates the small militias and sees them as a threat
>>77503243
> creator
Ah, the American in his natural environment.
>>77503872
>so euphorically enlightened by his intelligence that he don't need no john locke
>>77498625
>guaranteed
>only 38 out of 50 states have to ratify
That scares me a bit fampai, should it be true.
Shall not be infringed !!!!!!
Well regulated means WELL TRAINED
REeEeeeeeeeeeEeEeEeEeeEeEeEeE
>>77503872
Do you deny the creator? Yes or no.
>>77495301
Do you know what 'militia' is?
>>77494920
The 2nd Amendment creates no less of a right than:
1. Freedom of Speech
2. Freedom of Press
3. Freedom of Assembly
4. The right to vote
5. The right to privacy
6. The right to due process
None of those rights are above or superior to the right to bear arms.
>>77499310
It doesn't say people have the right to an armed militia, it references ***the people's*** right to ***keep and bear arms.***
>>77504169
Humans were not 'created', Sven.
>>77504148
It merely states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, without actually calling for one.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, while somewhat related, _____ ___ __ _________
>>77497257
It took a Swedebro to remind us how important American freedoms are
BAIT
A
I
T
S
A
G
E G A S
A
G
E
S
A
G
E
R
I
No
O
>>77504424
>atheist bongistan
No wonder God abandoned that shithole.
>>77504424
Even if you don't believe in God, you cannot deny that we were created by nature, in nature. Nature endows certain inalienable rights, these rights are intrinsic and supercedes the authority of government
>>77504057
To put that in perspective the Red Bloc in the US is 17 states that have voted Republican consistently for 50 years.
You'd need to swing 5 of those states for an Amendment to repeal the 2nd
Without any swing states moving into the Red camp to oppose it.
>>77494920
It doesn't mention anything about feelings.
>>77504200
I heard you guys have large militias, right up there with military standards or higher and with a great public image
Here there's only a few groups in some states and the media sees them as mini-kkkhitlers
>>77498194
>>77497819
If you put the commas in yourself, it still makes the same sense doesn't it?
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food, shall not be infringed.
>, being necessary to the start of a healthy day,
I think this part is just like additional information so if you remove it, it'll be
>a well balanced breakfast, the right the people to keep and eat food, shall not be infringed.
I still think there is an 'is' missing but Idk.
Someone help me with this.
>>77498625
>even in cities that don't want them to
? ? ?
How does NYC and California get away with their blatant violation then?
>>77504857
Rights don't exist, my man.
The Universe cares not whether a 'sentient' bag of water on a rock around a star 'lives' or 'dies'; the concept of 'life' being vague at best.
Nor does the Universe care whether said meat bag has a wooden-metal mechanical contraption to throw pieces of metal very fast.
>>77504952
Still pretty spooky desu, I'm worried about future generations forgetting the need for guns.
>>77504952
When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, not even blue or light blue states would ratify its removal. You'd possibly get 5-10 states to ratify it imo.
>>77504424
Really? Can you prove that?
>>77505220
>Rights dont exist
>Muh nihilism
Just because you don't have them doesn't mean they don't exist, Jafir.
>>77505206
It's a 'nominative absolute'. Latin has a similar 'ablative absolute'; a kind of half-sentence which restricts the meaning of the main sentence. They are these days more usually introduced with 'as' or 'while'.
[*As* a well balanced breakfast is necessary to begin a healthy day], one ought always to eat breakfast.
>>77505209
They're full of politicians that the people elected, so they get what they chose.
It's common knowledge that you don't live in those states if you care at all about firearms freedoms
>>77494920
Here's a better wording.
>>77505264
> Really? Can you prove that?
You are making the positive philosophical point, therefore you must provide the evidence. How can anyone prove the non-existence of anything? Come on, Ahmed.
>>77505428
If all humans were to become extinct suddenly, what 'rights' remain then? Exactly, Chad.
>>77499310
>Well it's not my right because I'm not American
Where do these rights come from?
>>77504952
The 2cd amendment won't actually be formally abolished, just legislatively and judicially weakened incrementally until it only exists on paper
repealing the second amendment won't stop people from having guns, it will create an underground market, like drugs. Nothing will change other than more thugs getting guns and ammo.
If a repeal does happen, then we'll need to repeal the 3rd amendment, seeing as we will now need the military to lodge with suspected gun holders. Not only would this help curb the threats that someone has a weapon in a neighborhood, but having a trained military officer can help with local disputes.
From there, we need to repeal the 4th amendment, since they can't execute a search without a warrant. After all, people can hide things very well.
>>77505658
>twisting the wording that regards the need for a militia to say that guns should only be kept by a militia
Don't you have raped to go become?
>>77505753
Even then, God's law would persist.
But you wouldn't have any interest in that.
>>77505658
> that finger
> that oversimplification
Poetry.
>>77505899
> God's law would persist
False, 'gods' are human inventions.
>>77505220
Your nihilism is something else friend. If nothing matters then why do we continue to live? It is our moral obligation to defend personal individual liberty and the notion of intrinsic rights granted by our maker. These rights are your's regardless of whether you acknowledge them, and their protection falls to you as an individual. To give all of yourself, striving for true freedom; that is our sacred moral obligation and what it truly means to be human.
>>77496531
Thanks Swedebro
>>77505658
How about no? It's like they are purposefully stupid and leave out "...the right of the people..."
It's not the fucking right of the militia!!!
They tool the guns in Venezuela. People there are now literally eating pigeons and garbage, to avoid starving to death.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9lo0OxrXLo
>>77505753
>You are making the positive philosophical point
So are you. You're making the definitive statement that humans were not created. In order to make such a claim you need evidence.
Please don't confuse positive philosophical points with the point containing the word "not". The same logic applies.
>>77506107
like gender?
>>77506107
>god(((s))) are human inventions
Then who created humans?
>>77505658
No, that's not what the second amendment says. That book is garbage.
>>77494920
The people have a right to keep and bear arms so that they may defend themselves and their communities from all threats foreign and domestic
>>77506247
To be fair wild pigeons are pretty good
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-No-byChkgY
>>77506380
>To be fair wild pigeons are pretty good
Perhaps, but the folks in Venezuela literally have to catch them in traps or by hand, because it's NoGunz there.
>>77506288
That implies a 'who' to begin with.
>>77505658
that a liberal definition
the comma make a whole difference
>>77495301
Do me a favor and google the phrase "historical meaning of regulated". Do you want to know what you'll find? That regulated used to have a definition that meant "in good working order", as in "a well regulated clock is excellent at keeping time". Meaning, a "well regulated militia" means one that is well equipped (IE GUNS), not one with a great deal of oversight.
>>77499310
>Not an American
Then bugger off and let the important people talk.
>>77495301
(you) because no way is anybody this stupid
It says it shall not be infringed so there ain't shit the government can do about it. Also it doesn't connect the two other than being in the same sentence.
>>77506541
Would you imply that billions of years ago, life just came out of nowhere?
That some molten rocks just willed themselves into being that which is instead of that which is not?
Fuck outta here, bongistan.
>>77506131
> why do we continue to live?
Because we have evolved to reproduce and spread our genes as far and as numerously as possible. Life is nothing more than a very efficient, local way of increasing entropy, an efficiency the early Earth thought efficient enough to pursue.
> rights granted by our maker
Again, we have no maker and therefore no intrinsic, fundamental 'rights'. If early societies had found it beneficial to kill all people over 30, they would have done so, and it would have become the 'moral' thing to do or the 'right' of the young. This is not biologically or evolutionarily necessary, so no such moral or right exists. Morals and rights are relative to human societies and times.
> freedom
> sacred
> moral obligation
Vague buzzwords.
>>77506288
>someone had to create humans
>that someone is the god i worship
nice logic.
only the police should carry guns
>>77506900
Spotted the faggot.
>>77495301
The reserve militia are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.
Beard, Charles Austin: Readings in American Government and Politics, Page 308. Macmillan, 1909. "Sec. 1. That the militia... shall be divided into two classes... the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard... and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia."
>>77506803
>Humans just happened
>I cannot see something, therefore it doesn't exist
It's like these heathens just disregard thousands of years of work and study and literal magic to look cool.
>>77506900
SHALL
>>77506900
That's unconstitutional and immoral.
>>77506768
>Because we have evolved to reproduce and spread our genes as far and as numerously as possible.
Fine, so the logical end-point is that this life and the life of one's genes should be protected by any means necessary = gun rights.
>we have no maker
That's a positive philosophical point. Proof? Nah, didn't think so.
>>77507089
> Just happened
A very American way to boil down billions of years of genetic mutations and the weeding out of such through natural selection. But, yes.
>>77495511
first post cuck post?
>>77499310
The militia act defines "militia" as any able bodied male ages 18-42. Stop being dense limey, and stop being jealous. It doesn't look good for a stiff upper lip.
>>77507089
>Humans just happened
>I cannot see something, therefore it doesn't exist
>Therefore the god i worship, and no other force, must have been the one that did it.
>>77506900
Why don't you go to Europe if you don't like guns?
Or to the grave if you insist on infringing on Murka's right to bear arms. Because they'll shoot your commie ass.
>>77507237
> any means necessary = gun rights
I can see this point. I don't disagree with gun rights, only the awkward way Americans/Swedes bring 'rights' and 'gods' into the argument.
> we have no maker
Observe the word 'no' there, that's a negative, my friend.
>>77507237
This swede right here is a cool dude.
>>77507332
>muh american
What started the genetic mutations?
Who or what began the initial spark of life, New Pakistan?
>>77507405
I'd like to see you explain it desu
>>77495301
Such good bait, Nigel shill.
>>77496531
Surely the 1st amendment is the most important right
Some cuck on Facebook actually typed out that the Constitution says that the government is able to limit what types of weapons people can have.
>>77507544
>I don't know how it happened.
>Therefor God
>>77507738
The first amendment is meaningless without the second amendment there to protect it.
>>77507544
>I'd like to see you explain it desu
Explain what? That we don't know how life came to being? I'm not denying the possibility that some force had a hand in the creation of life. I'm saying is that we don't know anything about it, so to say "my god did it" is retarded when it could've been any of the other gods that religion has conjured.
>>77500690
are they mostly white? will t.60% maybe once be abolished and become 100% or close to it?
>>77507544
> What started the genetic mutations?
The same things which are responsible today: radiation and copying errors during cell division and/or sex cell production.
There was no 'initial spark'. You seem to think that there were two periods on Earth: one 'before life', the other 'after life'. The difference between what is 'alive' and what is 'dead' is a vague, human invention.
All life is a mere extension of natural, physical processes.
>>77499732
Who wrote this, and why haven't they been tried for treason yet?
>>77507850
In the same way the second amendment is meaningless without something valuable to protect
>>77495301
>regulated
Means they own their own shit
>militia
Group of armed people
Learn your fucking english you dumb brit.
>>77506900
>>77507936
First amendment.
>>77496999
God damn it, this shit right here infuriate me as well. "I support the second amendment, every American has the right to own a $3000.00 over-under shotgun like the one I have in my obvious photo ops. No one NEEDS an assault rifle."
>>77507738
No, the second amendment lets you guarantee the rest.
>>77507863
>>77507768
Are you cucks just saying it willed itself into being?
That the energy from the big bang just put itself there?
>implicating false gods
>>77507936
Can't be tried for treason if the government agrees with you
>>77507526
>Observe the word 'no' there, that's a negative, my friend.
You clearly don't understand what you're talking about. The sentence containing the word "no" doesn't make it a negative philosophical point -- you're making an absolute statement without knowing the facts. If I claim that "there's no carpet in my room", it's not up to you to prove that.
>>77496001
Enough people fight will fight back, if 1% of 80 million guns owners kill one gun grabber, that's 800,000 dead police. With the probable death of the gun owners who fight back, total deaths will be more than all service men deaths in every war the US has fought since 1776.
>>77506768
>laws are morals and rights
Hahahahahaha you got me there f.a.m secular society BTFO
>>77508076
No, I'm saying that "we don't have the answer yet" is cause to throw up our hands, say it can't be known, and to start going to stained glass buildings every sunday.
A few centuries ago, we had no idea what caused rainbows, lightning, volcanoes, earth quakes, and all manner of natural phenomena. They were all seen as demonstrations of God's power and beauty. But one by one, we managed to explain them all through perfectly natural means, with no need for a God.
What makes you think the origin of life will be different?
>>77497257
Way to bulldoze that cuck shed, Sven. I'd grill you a burger anytime.
>>77508076
Did you not read? I said we have no idea who or what created life, but to say that a particular god did it is stupid because we have no proof it happens by their hand.
>>77503191
You know what would shut gun grabbers up? Written proof that the founders knew of the Puckle and that gun.
>>77508334
is not cause*
>>77501202
Yeah Ameribros, don't let them to take your 2nd amendment off from you. That's the most important law
>>77506768
And if we are to continue spreading our genes we need to be able to defend ourselves from those that would do us harm. It's literal Darwinism, why are you arguing against it?
>>77508334
>God doesn't cause the rain for rainbows or lightning, tectonic shifts for earthquakes and volcanoes
All that says is that you know how they are caused, not what causes them or why they are caused.
>>77499310
>please name any single time when that has ever happened in the last 100 years, when a "civilian fighting force" has come together to fight for the security of the US
The battle of Athens, 1946.
>>77508222
Come, on.
> there is no god
is the same, logically, as
> there is not a god
There are an infinite number of things which do not exist, and a finite number of things which do exist. So it is nonsense to suggest to someone that they must prove something does not exist.
Someone who states something must exist must provide the evidence for it.
>>77508606
>what causes them or why they are caused.
>rainbows or lightning, tectonic shifts for earthquakes and volcanoes
>>77508605
No, and in a later post, I defend Americans' rights to have guns. I'm simply saying that invoking vague concepts like 'rights' or 'god' to strengthen that is nonsense.
I agree with the Constitution, it is written on paper that Americans can/must have weapons, that's fine and lawful.
>>77508334
Mate, I've seen this argument so many times, from Dawkins among others, and it just isn't very good. There is an immense difference between science explaining rainbows and volcanoes and even black holes and stars -- and explaining the origin, purpose, meaning, etc, of life.
Science still does not understand how free will and the mental faculties work. This problem has existed for hundreds of years and will continue to exist because it is at the very core of philosophy-- how can physical, mechanical functions in a brain give rise cognitive, mental and psychological features.
If you don't see how it's different then I can't help you...
>>77508914
Science provides a framework but lacks the substance of religion and philosophy
>>77508980
So if it was unlawful, and therefore not a vague "right", would you be against it?
>>77495301
An government army =/= a militia of the people bonger.
>>77509098
No, science explains these things completely. There is no need to invent other things. We know exactly how rainbows or volcanoes work, what other 'substance' is there?
>>77509074
> Science does not understand free will
Nor will science ever understand such a vague and ill-defined human invention.
>>77498376
Just because youre 5 and shitpost on 4chan doesnt mean youre right.
>>77509098
>lacks the substance
>of religion and philosophy
>substance
do you even know what substance means?
>>77509074
>There is an immense difference between science explaining rainbows and volcanoes and even black holes and stars -- and explaining the origin, purpose, meaning, etc, of life.
Based on what? Near as we can tell, both are perfectly natural processes, why should some arise from the supernatural and other from the natural?
>Science still does not understand how free will and the mental faculties work.
No, we don't, not yet anyway. But we're not exactly lost in the dark on it either. We've mapped out at least the major sections of the brain, and made headway into replicating it with AI. We're a ways off, but it's on the horizon.
>>77500690
>>77507897
i want an answer-bump
>>77508780
You're right. There is an infinite number of things which do not exist. Logically, the only rational position on the unknown is agnostic atheism. Both theism and atheism is equally irrational, because they both make absolute, unfactual statements about the unknown.
The agnostic atheist position is that God might possibly exist, but according to the current state of evidence, a God probably does not exist -- but being open to the possibility of a God existing. This logic applies to anything: Santa might exist but most probably does not -- there is no reason to believe he exists. Unicorns might exist, but they probably don't -- there is no reason to believe it.
When it comes to the question of God, there is plenty of reason to believe God might exist, because a God is at the very core of the questions that we still have no answer to as humans.
>>77508401
washington declined outfitting our people with the rifles because they were expensive as fuark
>>77499310
>please name any single time when that has ever happened in the last 100 years, when a "civilian fighting force" has come together to fight for the security of the US because the Army somehow wasn't able to do that job, despite being the biggest and most well funded in the world. Go on, I'll wait
Battle of Athens you fucking idiot
>well then why aren't there state militias anymore then?
the states have largely focused more on the national guard for provisional defence
The right is of the people brit bong, not of the militias, this is the supreme court's legal opinion, by the way.
>>77509397
Quantum mechanics?
Dark matter?
>>77509421
>religion and philosophy
>no substance
Every single fucking day, there are more nihilist kids on this board who think society should just be replaced with muslim cyborgs
>>77509397
>Nor will science ever understand such a vague and ill-defined human invention.
I see your point, but don't agree with it. Let's look at the definition of free will:
>Free will is the ability to choose between different possible courses of action.
I just don't think that purely mechanical/physical processes give rise to what we call free will. And science is yet to explain how it works.
>>77509074
>Science still does not understand how free will and the mental faculties work.
because those are illogical constructs purported to mean something when it can tailored to mean anything.
>>77509767
Nice strawman
>>77509421
Science is substantial but it cannot answer "why?", which is the substance I'm trying to tell you is missing in our science. Not that it should have it.
>>77509397
Lol what mechanism is responsible for electron propagation? Science explains things within a framework it is not reality-why it needs to be updated as new information becomes available.
I'd love to hear your scientific qualifications. 1000hrs of Bill Nye and Neil Tyson? Can you even quantize a classical field theory?
>>77508401
Well they knew about the Belton flintlock for sure, because Belton himself submitted his design to the Continental Congress in the hopes that they would fund the production of the weapon for use in the Continental Army. They commissioned and tested some prototypes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belton_flintlock
>>77496001
Not to mention the huge amount of soldiers who would desert when ordered to attack citizens. And that power plants have minimal security. Oh and that the most conservative part of the country controls all the food.
>>77509154
I don't think I'm 'for' or 'against' any laws. Surely laws are made by the State in order to make citizens' lives happier or better in some way; in the 'ideal' State anyway.
I'm of the view that humans cannot have 'rights', as 'rights' are inventions of the time, the 'right to internet' is one of our, recent time.
It boils down to this: we all live in States which can and do control our lives. They do this through the threat of violence (arrest, imprisonment) and through numbers (the police state, government). If the State wants their citizens to do something (drive on the left side of the road, give up all weapons), they will do it by some means.
Rights are meaningless.
>>77509767
Religion and philosophy have no substance when they have to be filtered through the social norms and morals. Just look at Islam, where you can rape, murder, and pillage without fear because of you are told you can.
The gun grabbers are a bunch of racists. They'd stop this nice lady from being able to defend herself.
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-6dWsQMkDE
Really makes you think.
>>77510229
>Science is substantial but it cannot answer "why?"
we know why rainbows, lightning, earthquakes and volcanoes happen though
>>77510329
>If the states want the citizens to do something, they'll do it
Just because you can't doesn't mean we can't defend ourselves, cuck.
>>77510467
"Why" isn't "How".
Rain is causation, not purpose.
>>77510229
> Science explains things within a framework it is not reality
Please, do describe this 'alternate reality' which you are so familiar with. In a way which is scientifically provable and repeatable.
Post-graduate degrees in chemistry and bioinformatics. In big pharma for about 15 years.
> Can you even quantize a classical field theory?
You're right; I'm a chemist. I can't.
>>77510625
we know the why and the how. Light being split into it's colors when passing through water droplets with the processes of reflection, refraction and dispersion explains both how and why
>>77510467
Yeah least action is a nice principle but what does it mean for a man's life? Should he follow that path? Our creator made us within the same image as lightning and rainbows and you're telling me we have their same why?
>>77510898
That is not why
That is how.
How would be the PURPOSE of rainbows, you dense atheist shitstain.
>>77510625
Why do you need a 'why'? It rains because water precipitates from clouds due to colder temperatures.
The wonder in nature is that there is no 'why'. It's all causal, and hence ultimately wonderful. To invent a sky-fairy to 'cause' all of this takes away from the wonderful physicality of it all.
>>77511027
Why**** would be the purpose of rainbows
>>77511027
What makes you so sure there has to be a why?
>>77511027
There is NO PURPOSE, you fucking cretin. It's an accident of physics. WE INVENT the why.
>>77495301
yes, the government needs the right to bare arms so that the government doesn't take that right away
right?
>>77510345
That's because Islam is damn near pure legalism, not spiritualism.
>>77508641
i love this bit of history, it reads like a movie
>>77510775
I don't constrict my thoughts to live within my education so no I won't prove anything to you. If you've been in the industry that long and still don't see the physics from the framework I feel sorry for you.
>>77510329
But the concept of rights is not. The idea of them is not meaningless.
>>77510329
The concept of natural rights isn't that men, in the form of mobs or states, can't or will never suppress them. The concept of natural rights is that when they do, it is wrong, that might makes right cannot be logically defended. And so just governments don't do that, or when they do, they provide recourse and reparation.
>>77510941
<Yeah least action is a nice principle but what does it mean for a man's life? Should he follow that path?
Here we go with the hubris of humanity. I must have some greater purpose, just because i was born, to the point where life is meaningless otherwise. brilliant.
>>77511027
Purpose is a fucking construct made in the heads of those that think a rock in the shape face means something.
>>77510329
How can you think that about rights but not laws?
Surely a law is just as much of an abstraction, while rights are the embodiment of people making the government do what they want.
>>77494920
>well regulated
A) You're not "well regulated"
B) When a law or similar is being called into question, said law's existence can not be used as justification for it's continued existence. That is called circular reasoning, and if that logic were applied to all laws then laws would never be able to be changed.
>>77511038
There's always a 'why' in the end. Even purely physical reactions.
For example, gold (Au) can be dissolved in 'royal water' because "acid mixture causes the formation of a soluble tetrachloroaurate anion" -- but why does it do that? You might be able to answer a handful of 'why's, but the further back you go you always end up with the final question as to the scope and existence of the universe. These questions warrant a belief in a God.
>>77511810
>A) You're not "well regulated"
1) Well regulated at the time did not imply government oversight.
2) The militia is currently inactive. Do you understand that militias are not mustered unless needed? That is the whole purpose of them. Only then would they need to be well regulated. But in order for militias to be mustered, according to the Framers, the people had to be armed, so that they could supply these militias.
>>77496531
I move to give this Swede honorary American citizenship.
Unless you're an American already. In that case, good work.
>>77511810
It's now "A Law"
It's A Right.
Right's are Inalienable.
Meaning meaning "unable to be taken away"
Learn to grammar.
>>77512394
so what's with the talk of repealing the 2nd amendment?
>>77494920
They understand it but they either play semantics or outright disagree with the constitution believing it should change according to our current society.
>>77512525
The Second Amendment doesn't create a right, it guarantees one. If the government withdraws its guarantee, the right doesn't disappear, the guarantee does.
>>77512525
Because numbnut limp-dick grammatically and legally illiterate morons of the 21st century cannot understand that fact.
Rights cannot:
>Be taken away
>Be given away
>>77512948
Rights are a myth.
Sorry to break the illusion.
>>77512525
>repealing the 2nd amendment
You don't repeal amendments, you amend them. You'd need to draft a 28th amendment that somehow negated the 2nd.
>>77495301
It doesn't relate to a government army. It relates to each state having its own militia to protect themselves and the fed cannot infringe on their ability to do that.
Article 1 section 8 says that congress has the power to raise armies but cannot appropriate funds for that army longer than 2 years. How long has the government been in violation of that?
>>77513214
>People genuinely believe this.
>>77507237
>sweedfag telling americans about america
>>77513242
You amend to repeal.
The 21st amendment did just that.
>>77507897
I don't understand your second sentence but yes, most militias are white.
It is the job of the government to protect me from criminals. I should not be able to do that myself.
>>77495301
You are quite thick.
>>77510329
The constitution says that it is self-evident that everyone has certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As Immanuel Kant would say, everyone is given certain freedom, agency and protection because they are rational beings worthy of respect. This amount of freedom and agency that belongs to everyone from when they are born to when they die are their inalienable rights.
The government should respect all people to a certain degree by letting them have the rights to free speech, privacy, trial, attorney, habeas corpus and so on. The ability to defend one's life and rights is the right to keep and bear arms. These are universal and derives from logic and philosophy, while legal rights (such as the right to vote) are dependent of the government. In a sense "rights" aren't real, but neither are laws. This respect of the rational human that the constitution gives Americans makes it different from the rest of the world.
>>77514922
>The constitution says that it is self-evident that everyone has certain inalienable rights, such as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It is the Declaration of Independence that says that.
>>77495301
Yeah they felt it necessary to say that the millitary is allowed weapons. What millitary in history has not been allowed too? it would retarded to need to include that.
>>77515045
Oh right, now I feel stupid after all that rhetoric.
>>77494920
>what's so hard to understand
The founding fathers didn't anticipate Muslims. If they had known about the Muslim problem you would be having I would 99% guarantee they'd write an exception stating "Muslims shall be exempt from this and shall be forbidden from owning weapons of any kind"
Also I just fixed the second amandment you're welcome
And for those saying "hurr they're Muslims but still shall not be infringed"
1. Muslims don't belong there in the first place and should never have been made citizens
2. Disarming Muslims will make it easier to get rid of them when the time come
>>77516419
then it wouldn't be democratic.
>>77517320
It would be if the majority of the population agrees. Tyranny through democracy works both ways
>>77500237
Well-regulated =/= regulated
>>77517320
Well Muslims are anti democratic
You locked up even natural born Japs and denied them weapons back in the day for this reason alone
Why should anyone give democratic rights to an invasion force? The 2nd amendment was written so the people could defend against enemies not give those enemies rights to guns
