I was surprised by Bill O'Reilly's segment in which he made an argument in support of gun control.
>Video
https://youtu.be/sNye7irPf0k?t=3m35s
What surprised me more however, was how he made the argument using the Constitution. I had to check the actual text of the 2nd amendment, because I was always under the impression that the 2nd amendment was basically this:
>"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
Because that is how it is often presented, especially by pro-gun advocates, but that is only half of the sentence.
The full sentence is this:
>"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."
This is the argument made in part by Bill O'Reilly, that the purpose and means of the right to bear arms is clear:
>"a well regulated militia"
I learned to shoot a .357 at the age of twelve, my father gave me a .38 special when I turned 18 and I've shot everything from AR-15s to SKS and AK-47s. I no longer own a gun, but I am by no means anti-gun. However, I do feel somewhat misled on the 2nd amendment, particularly by groups like the NRA. The 2nd amendment is clear as to what it's purpose and means are, a "well regulated militia".
My father is a gun advocate and has always owned firearms and taught me at a young age how to responsibly handle firearms. He reminded me the other day that his political hero, Ronald Reagan, supported the semi-automatic assault weapons ban and even rallied Congressional Republicans to pass the assault weapons ban in 1994. However from the 90s into the 2000s, the NRA had adopted an uncompromising dogma and stronghold in the GOP.
What do you /pol/fags think?
See minute 3:35 in video for the part where O'Reilly makes his argument in support of gun control, I time-tagged the video but 4chan's embed feature doesn't take this into account
babby's first reading comprehension
the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists unrelated to the existence of a weel regulated militia
>o'veyly
>not a massive cuckservative 90% of the time
>>79307575
It's the same sentence, the first part of the sentence is incomplete on it's own.
>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
The second part is clearly the continuation of the premise set in the first part of the sentence above.
>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.
I think you're a faggot considering that "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is a dependent clause, explaining why the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged"
Reagan was a neo con ass half the time anyway.
>>79307425
It's because the GOP knows it is dying. There will be more last ditch efforts before the new right comes in.
>>79307425
The simplest solution to the whole gun issue is to form a well-regulated militias then. Just set one up for your neighborhood and work from there.
>>79307959
I need dis
>>79307824
again babbys first reading comprehension
the fact that the first part of the sentence is incomplete should tell you that it's a subclause and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the main clause and what you should see as the crucial part of this amendment
Well regulated meant well prepare and in working order when the 2nd amendment was written.
Not that this matters as the well regulated militia isn't a qualifier for the right to keep and bear arms but is a statement of its purpose
>>79307425
why didn't the just use a semicolon instead of a comma?
Crowders latest video covers this exact argument. There are hundreds of quotes from the founding fathers, WHO WROTE THE CONSTITUTION, that say things like "all men should armed at all times" and "to enslave a people, first disarm them" etc. This argument has already been covered.
>>79308243
they
>>79307824
>>79307425
learn english you dumb fucker
>>79307425
How easy is it for USA born ISIS supporters to do an Ataturk Airport?
"the militia" at the time referred to all able bodied males that would be expected to defend their homes if for some reason he had to.
Future amendments to the constitution would remove the gender and ability restrictions so technically every breathing american citizen is part of the militia and therefore can keep and bear arms.
>>79307959
THIS.
in order to have a necessary militia (for the security of the free state), the people must have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed.
Gun controls faggots BTFO
>>79308165
/thread
>>79307425
This is the difference between "gun owners" and "gun nuts" right?
Like for example a mate of mine owns a shotgun for sport shooting but because he has 3 kids he keeps it in a proper gun safe that is bolted into the concrete foundation of his house.
I'm not really into guns but what concerns me most is not "gun owners" but irresponsible yahoos who don't respect guns, as in, respect that guns have the potential to maim or kill and do need to be handled and stored sensibly.
>>79307425
You are the militia, you guarantee the freedom of your state, you have a right to own arms.
Fuck off shill.
>>79308542
No, a "gun nut" is literally anyone who owns a firearm.
You don't understand how liberals work.
>>79307959
You need to understand that I was under the impression as well that the "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" was the premise.
I high suggest reading the first gun debate in our nation among our founding fathers when drafting the 2nd amendment. There is no mystery as to what they meant by the 2nd amendment, because the debate that precluded the drafting of the 2nd amendment is well documented:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt
Different state delegates wanted different things, some states wanted no right to bear arms, some only wanted the right to be given to military personnel. The 2nd amendment was a compromise, we know exactly what they meant by it.
>>79308106
>Not understanding the second amendment
Wew
>>79308571
Muh nigga
Hullo from the other side
>Well-regulated means well equipped, supplied or trained
>240 years later people pretend it means something different and hope the average person is dumb enough to fall for it
>They usually are
This is what happens when you let people control the narrative.
>>79308542
I always thought schools should dedicate a day towards gun safety since there are already days where kids learn about sex, or school shootings. Just show a video about how to properly hold a firearm so you don't blast your head off, how a safety works, where to store guns if you have children, local laws about gun ownership, always treat a gun as loaded and only point at things that you are ready to shoot. Trigger discipline alone would cut a good 70% of teen's deaths outside of suicide when it comes to firearms. Despite this, I don't think the "Please think of the children" types would support this.
Some Church got a range permit to help educate people about proper gun safety, while having some fun too. Thought it was a great idea.
>>79308677
sad really considering that in terms of 'classical liberalism', gun ownership should be a function of individual liberty.
but at the same time, I don't think its unreasonable to expect that persons who choose to own guns should be expected to exercise a certain degree of prudent risk-management vis-a-vis secure storage and appropriate firearms training.
>>79309072
It used to be the case, but liberals are so scared of guns they don't even want kids LOOKING at them.
Ideally, kids wouldn't even know what a gun IS.
It tellingly reveals how liberals view education as a form of propaganda and brainwashing, rather than a way to actually educate.
>>79308716
So you're a faggot from reddit pretending to be confused as to the meaning of the 2nd amendment. Fuck off.
2nd amendment = don't touch my fucking guns.
Source: lawyer
>>79309072
yeah this too. you would think considering how entrenched (and perhaps even necessary) gun ownership is in USA, that public institutions would be all for teach kids how to properly handle guns.
>>79308571
Mein Niggaumf
>>79308716
and I suggest fucking off
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers
quotations from the founding fathers in relation to the right of the people to keep and bear arms
The intention doesnt matter anyway, the amendment says that its the right of the people, even if it was just in a militia (all men, Milita act of 1903), shall not be infringed
Americans are so dumb they can't even comprehend their own language.
The meaning behind the sentence is very clear and impossible to misinterpret.
The right for people to own guns is not going to be infringed, the reason is that there needs to be a well regulated militia.
It says that your rights will not be infringed, and it cites a good reason for why your rights aren't going to be infringed.
The founding fathers should have dumbed down the constitution because Americans are fucking retarded.
>>79307425
>>79307824
When Sun Tzu said that laws and military orders should be simple, direct and easy to understand to avoid interpretations, this comes to my mind.
Reading the Bill of Rights in my wattle and daub school I always thought it was a mix of advices and protecting peoples' right. Like, don't take aways the right of the people to own firearms and allowing militias to exist (an addendum to the first) to protect themselves from the government.
>>79307425
>For the United States of America to remain free and independent, the population shall be armed, and no one shall hinder them being armed.
Nothing changed retard, if you haven't heard the full 2nd before, you're just so stupid.
>>79308165
>>79308250
>>79308388
>>79308402
>>79308493
>>79308533
>>79308726
I think there is some confusion here,
this is your right:
>the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
This is the reason you have that right:
>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
You are right that the "well regulated militia being necessary" is conditional statement dependent on the "right to bear arms".
>>79308307
I highly suggest reading the well-document drafting of the 2nd amendment. This is the original gun debate in the US. Some state delegates wanted no right to bear arms, some only wanted it to be granted to military personnel. Some states wanted the right to be granted only to those who were properly trained.
The 2nd amendment was basically a compromise, and the purpose is clear. The right was given so that citizen militias could be formed to protect their freedom. But not just any citizen militia, a well regulated militia.
What I really fucking hate is how they push the lie that the second amendment exists so that people will be armed and can stop the federal government if it becomes tyrannical.
This is completely fucking ridiculous. The founding fathers had just for a very bloody war to establish their government, the last thing they wanted was a fucking killswitch for it.
If you read their actual debates on the subject, like the first congressional debate on arms and militia, 1789, it becomes obvious that the second Amendment of the United States Constitution is NOT meant for overthrowing the American government at all. It's so that people can fucking defend the government. The government is not even supposed to have teeth, it is not supposed to control a federal army when not in a state of war as declared by congress, it is only supposed to maintain a standing Navy to protect shipping lanes. The US government is not even supposed to be able to exert tyranny, by design.
It pisses me off when lobby groups like the NRA spread propaganda, because it just means that people remain willfully ignorant to the full extent of how visionary the founders truly were. They designed a nation in which the government was not intended to be able to ever enforce it's will by force.
And when I point this out, all anybody can do is bleat on about how I am anti-gun, even though the intent I am pointing out is that EVERY American is supposed to be trained and either armed, or with access to arms, depending on the logistics favoured by individual states for their state militias, which every able bodied citizen is supposed to be in.
I don't know if it's because they're too fucking stupid do do anything but lash out the moment anybody disagrees with the exact letter of about whatever propaganda it is that they've chosen to favour, or if they just don't want to look at what the founders tried to create, in light of how far America has drifted away from their intent.
>>79308307
Forgot to provide link above, here you go:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt
The debate that led to the drafting of the 2nd amendment is well documented.
>>79309327
>>79309272
It's just so sad that the argument for sexual education is "They are doing it anyway so better show them how to be safe" somehow doesn't apply to teens playing with guns. One kid in my school died because they were playing with an "empty" gun and tried to mock suicide but he didn't know about the +1.
I cannot think of a downside to gathering the kids in a room and making them watch a thirty minute video about trigger discipline and other tips when we have entire days dedicated to bullying and school shootings.
I can already imagine the moral guardians screaming that it would encourage school shootings or other crap. Like the only thing holding back more murder is criminals not knowing that they should always keep their gun pointed down to the ground or away from others.
This is in Oklahoma so if it doesn't happen here it's not happening anywhere.
>>79309072
>>79309327
Most of the time you learn this from your parents. My father had two revolvers and a shotgun, he told us about it and it's not something impossible to learn.
>>79307824
How the fuck do you compose a well-regulated militia without individuals who are able to own arms?
>>79309689
A militia that in 1903, was determined to be all Male citizens of the united states
>>79307425
NAU FUCK YEAH!
PREPARE YOUR WHITE FLAGS.
>>79307575
The meaning is clear: the militia would get to exist because individual citizens were armed. The militia is the afterthought in the 2nd Amendment, even though the way it is phrased is sort of inverted.
Plus multiple founders explicitly stated the point was the individual arming of citizens.
>>79307425
Why are people like this cuck so afraid of rifles?
They're hardly used at all criminally compared to hand guns
>>79309779
>The founding fathers had just for a very bloody war to establish their government, the last thing they wanted was a fucking killswitch for it.
That exactly what they wanted you idiot, Thomas Jefferson thought there should be a revolution every generation
>>79309851
Problem is some parents are liberal pussies. My dad, ex military, pretended guns didn't even exist around us. I only learned about guns through my own curiosity when I was 19.
You just can't trust that all parents will be traditional like that. Maybe it's their choice not to teach their kids but every time a ND kills somebody we start the whole gun control debate again.
>>79307425
Hes just following jebu's teachings for:
There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. (Romans 13:1b)
Anyone who doesnt listen to their government is a heretic and will burn in hell.
>>79309779
Yea really makes you think, its almost like the founding father himself never mentioned rebellions because of too much overreach or anything.
http://tjrs.monticello.org/letter/100
>>79308716
>(((well documented)))
You are a faggot though, a militia is not a full time job. A militia is a "grassroots army" and the second amendment states clearly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is essential to the formation of a militia. You can't just say we're never going to for any more militias, and the only people allowed to have guns are the people in the current militias.
Basically, I'm saying that even if your entire premise WAS correct, you would still only be able to draw the conclusion that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
>>79309689
>But not just any citizen militia, a well regulated militia.
that means they have access to all weaponry and equipment as able to provided by adequate budgeting,
>>79309779
something about this post disturbs me
>>79309779
>so that people will be armed and can stop the federal government if it becomes tyrannical.
the government can never become completely tyrannical so long as the people are armed
>>79310224
>were never going to form* any more militias.
>>79307425
>Conservatives
always knew these guys were just democrats
>>79309946
Maybe you're a bit confused. I never in this thread made an argument that citizens should not have the right to bear arms. Read my post.
this is your right:
>the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
This is the reason you have that right:
>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
It is a conditional statement, the necessity of a well regulated militia is dependent on the right to bear arms. But this also makes clear the purpose of that right.
Read the proposals and debate that led to the drafting of 2nd amendment, it is well-documented:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt
The 2nd amendment was basically a compromise, some state delegates at the constitutional convention wanted no right to bear arms. Some state delegates wanted only military personnel to have the right, some only wanted well-trained persons to have the right. They all agreed as to the purpose of the right, for citizens to form a well regulated militia to protect the free state.
>>79307425
Shitty bait you cocksucking faggot.
>>79307425
>Conservatives Now Supporting Gun Control
One can't be Conservative and support Gun Control.
Conservative = Conserve Gun Rights.
O'Reilly has always supported firearm registration. He's not a Conservative.
>What do you /pol/fags think?
Shall not be infringed motherfucker.
>>79307824
i like how you left that big, fat, juicy comma out that clearly and distinctly divides the sentence
sage for shilling
>>79307425
If I recall correctly, a "well regulated militia" meant something very different when the 2nd amendment was written.
People think it means a government approved militia being subject to regulations set forth by the government or some shit, but at the time "militia" and "regulated" didn't mean this.
I hope someone else can find the relevant information I can't quite remember exactly
>>79308408
Simple. Travel out west. Get some heavy weapons from Mexican "La Raza" cartel smugglers. And have fun.
Legally purchased guns are harder to get than street Steele. Especially if both the supplier and the customer hate the intended target.
>>79309779
>It's so that people can fucking defend the government.
the just and true government Sally
no get that cute little ass in the kitchen and get me a sandwich
>>79309948
DELETE THIS
>>79310224
This is your right:
>the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
This is the reason you have that right:
>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
Now read the well-documented debate that led to the drafting of the 2nd amendment for a better understanding of what they meant:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt
>>79310454
A militia that in 1903, was determined to be all Male citizens of the united states
>>79309689
The founders and the framers of the Constitution themselves disagree with your interpretation of what they themselves wrote. Read anything of what the founders & framers wrote about what they meant by the 2nd amendment.
>it's a nobody understand how compound sentences work anymore rerun
*click*
>>79310567
>Can't read.
Look:
>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.
That appears to be a big fat comma in the sentence, which I did not leave out.
>>79310096
>>79310177
>only one guy ever wrote anything and he only wrote that one thing
You're fucking morons. Try actually reading their actual writings and debates instead of just taking one soundbyte and letting it sum up decades of works, lazy ignorant trash.
>>79310096
And then there's this retard who can't even fucking read a few short simple sentences. Well done.
>>79307425
Our homicide rate is the lowest it has ever been in 51 years and that gun homicides have dropped by 49% per capita while at the same time tens of millions of guns have been purchased by citizens so I don't think guns are a problem.
https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/
>>79310708
>Thinks one person dictated the entire constitution on his own
Thomas Jefferson didn't individually dictate the constitution. The constitution could be subtitled "compromise" as it was the result of much debate and compromise.
Now, I highly suggest reading the well-documented debate that gave us the 2nd amendment:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt
>>79310846
>hurr I cant uderstand why someone would make a government and want to make sure that government didnt become tyrannical and oppressive, so they made revolution possible and protected
>>79307425
Bill O'Reilly has always been a gun grabbing faggot. He's progressive as fuck.
>>79307425
Originally the 2nd amendment included mortars
because pirates
>>79310649
this anon is correct, but NOT because of the document he outlined
the 14th amendment basically retroactively applies the bill of rights to individual states. meaning: previously, the bill of rights was a lmitation solely of federal power, leaving states to regulate speech etc as they saw fit.
the 14th decided that the bill of rights applied as a limitation of state powers as well.
however, you'll notice in the famous legal case "general sherman just killed some 100k people in the south, half of whom were children under the age of 12. you'll notice the constitution doesn't matter anymore, because if you follow lawful protocol to peacefully secede, we will simply kill you and your wives and chldren."
that famous legal case determined that if you follow the law, but defy the wishes of the northeast coast elite, they will simply kill you. truly a remarkable court case.
>>79307425
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.
Says nothing about banning mortars and bazookas.
Doesn't say the right of the people to keep and bear arms is contingent upon the state's need for a well regulated militia, but merely mentions that the state has a need for a well regulated militia.
>>79310096
No, actually in the debate that ultimately gave us the 2nd amendment (which was a massive compromise between constitutional delegates), the reason most often given for arming militias was to call upon them to squash any rebellion of their new "we the people" government.
And not long after the Constitution was drafted, the first President used his powers to call upon the citizen militias to squash rebellion..
In 1794, armed Americans took up guns against what they viewed as a tyrannical George Washington administration imposing taxes on whiskey. President Washington called up 13,000 militia men, and personally led the troops to squash the rebellion of armed citizens in Bedford, Pennsylvania. No Army. No right to have guns to overthrow the oppressive US government.
>>79308716
>Stating facts and appealing to reason
>on /pol/
You must be new here
>>79309390
And what percentage of Latvia is actually literate?
>>79307824
who wrote the amendment anyway? they were either world class trolls or massive retards.
as clear as the meaning is, it's so stupid to phrase it that way. "apple pie being yummy the right to buy fruit shall not be infringed." unnecessary, confusing and stupid to include a comment like that.
people should spit on the authors' graves.
>>79310121
This is just the media and the government working to take away responsiblities that belong to the family and give more power to themselves.
>>79311454
And yet that has absolutely no bearing on what the amendment actually says. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Literally 2nd grade reading level shit here.
>>79311558
It's only difficult to understand to retards and progressive gun grabbing faggots trying to push their broken agenda.
>>79307425
>Conservatives Now Supporting Gun Control
>Literally one dude.
Sage
>>79307425
I want gun control.
The way I want it is as follows:
1. Require ROTC / Civilian military training
2. Require completion of highschool
3. IQ test score about 95.
4. Be on the draft list
Nigs will lose their 2nd Amendment as will women.
>>79311025
I mentioned the founding fatherS and framerS of the constitution and used one example. You can't comprehend reading a comment on a Mongolian basket-weaving forum let alone the constitution
>>79307425
the miltia is for national defense against invaders that seek to destroy our freedom
the right to keep and bear arms is to defend against criminals and the goverment if it ever wishes to destroy our way of life
The founding fathers know that the American goverment might one day no longer be working for the people and would have to be removed
>>79307425
He's fucking retarded and always has been
>>79310891
the homicide rate has only fallen because of improvements in medical technology. a gunshot used to be guaranteed fatal as recently as the 50's. currently, about 90% of gunshot victims survive despite increased lethality of arms. the gunshot wound rate has increased some 12 times, and the assault with a deadly arm rate a similar amount, whch are more reliable numbers. further, many guncrimes are attempted, but stopped by CC'ers before a victi is killed. this occurs at a rate of about 20x GREATER than the homicide rate itself (many of which WOULD be homicides without intervention)
in all reality, the attempted murder rate with a firearm has increased roughly some factor of 10y(20x) y being the realized rate, and x being the attempted rate, times. approximately about 200 times the (prevented) murder rate of the 1950s. more people simply survive these days, or are stopped by hypervigilant citizens.
just for reference, a reduction of the combined murder/attempted murder rate to 1/200th ofthe current level would make us as safe as japan. america USED to be as safe as japan.
>>79311659
The sentence, is a conditional statement.
This is your right:
>...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This is the reason you have that right:
>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
Now read the well-documented debate that led to the drafting of the 2nd amendment for a better understanding of what they meant. It focuses almost entirely on the need for militias:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt
>>79307425
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
It doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms
nobody has a problem with automatic weapons being banned.
It's about time semi auto guns were banned/severely restricted.
MY idea is that if you need a semi auto hunting rifle for hunting purposes, like hog hunting, then you can sign one out for a short period, and then return it when you are done with it.
>>79307425
The "well-regulated" clause meant adequately equipped for the purpose of which it was intended, not oversight by governing body.
The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to provide protection for the people of the country, who give the government legitimacy through consent of the governed. Allowing the government to regulate (in the modern sense) the militia or the people's ability to own weapons, necessarily undermines the purpose of having the militia be a check against government power. If the government wanted to abuse its power, it would simply stop funding the militia, or regulate the militia into being useless.
You cannot have an overarching government body regulating the militia (either by declaring what stipulations the militia can operate under, or what weaponry they are allowed to own and use) without undermining the intent of the amendment. It's that simple.
>>79312067
It's not a conditional you mongoloid.
>>79307425
SHALL
>>79312148
My idea is that we hang traitors that support disarming the populace.
>>79311910
THIS is sensible gun control that would actually vastly change the landscape of gun violence. It would never happen though.
>>79307425
The term "Well Regulated" does NOT mean government oversight.
It means well equipped. As in the SAME weapons those in the military would have.
Now you know.
>>79311454
if pony masturbators, tomorrow, massively take up arms against the US government, are we to take them for the armed militia in service to the "true" needs of the people, or are we to take them as an illegitimate rebellion?
I do't think you can answer that question in a comprehensive manner. neither can you rightly define whether the whiskey rebellion or the militia was the "true" militia.
>>79307425
a militia has never been a government entity. it's always been a collection of citizens acting in the interest of their community
>>79312148
>nobody has a problem with automatic weapons being banned.
Well, I do.
>>79311973
>The founding fathers know that the American goverment might one day no longer be working for the people and would have to be removed
That's a popular narrative, but it doesn't exist anywhere in the well-documented discussion and debate that led to the drafting of the 2nd amendment:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt
In fact, not long after the Bill of Rights was ratified our first President used his Constitutional powers to call upon these citizen militias and order them to squash a citizen rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion.
In 1794, armed Americans took up guns against what they viewed as a tyrannical George Washington administration imposing taxes on whiskey. President Washington called up 13,000 militia men, and personally led the troops to squash the rebellion of armed citizens in Bedford, Pennsylvania.
>>79312251
Or just shoot them.
>>79307425
Conservatives as we wish they were, no longer exist
>>79312251
you think your pea shooters will protect you? It is our intelligence that protects us, not guns. With our intelligence we have created civil society.
Guns are murder machines, they're obsolete and dangerous.
>>79312159
the problem is that such a militia has never really existed in history. liberals immediately seize upon this as a weakness. for them, might determines legality. the militia does not in fact, exist as an opposing force, so they will trample over us no matter what the paper says.
this is why there will be war.
>>79312067
This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the
people against the mal-administration of the government; if we could suppose
that in all cases the rights of the people would be attended to, the
occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive,
sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to
destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously
scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a
militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of
liberty. Now it must be evident, that under this provision, together with
their other powers, congress could take such measures ith respect to a
militia, as make a standing army necessary. Whenever government mean to
invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to
destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was
actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution.
They used every means in their power to prevent the establishement of an
effective militia to the eastward. The assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the
rapid progress that administration were making, to divest them of their
inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of
the militia, but they were always defeated by the influence of the crown.
>>79307425
this has been discussed to death and not just on /pol/
>>79312657
It's time to go home.
>>79312453
if pony masturbators, tomorrow, massively take up arms against white males in the service of the US government, who promises to grant them the land and titles of the slain, are we to take them for the armed militia in service to the "true" needs of the people, or are we to take them as an illegitimate rebellion?
I do't think you can answer that question in a comprehensive manner. neither can you rightly define whether the whiskey rebellion or the militia was the "true" militia.
>>79309689
Nope. You're completely wrong. Examine the statement. Nothing in the second amendment says that "the well regulated militia" is the sole reason for the procurement of fire arms.
Examine the well balanced breakfast meme. Does anything in that statement suggest that ONLY the "well balanced breakfast" Is the food we can eat?
oh look, the "well-regulated militia" meme again
>>79312373
We wouldn't be having this conservation if you would just read the well-document debate that led to the drafting of the 2nd amendment:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt
In the case of the Whiskey Rebellion, the "true" militia was clearly the ones called on by Washington. The "well regulated militia" was the militias that obeyed Washington's command and protected their new "we the people" government, you see the founding fathers clearly viewed their new government as "of the people" and as long as it remained "of the people" it was justified.
There are a lot of popular new narratives and soundbites taken out of context, but we know what the founding fathers thought of their new government. There exists perhaps one (Thomas Jefferson) who shared your view, but in no way did individually represent the views of the entire Constitutional Convention. Our government was founded on compromise, not the ideas and dictatorship of one man.
>>79309327
they want people ignorant on the issue so they will be scared of guns and willing to ban them.
>>79307824
>tfw Founders fucked us over by forgetting to put an "and"
>>79312925
he's an idiot who was educated to perform verbal sleight of hand tricks to impress crowds of idiots, to get a grade A stamp from an idiot ringleader
the fact of the matter is that speaking to an idiot no more creates the capacity for intelligence wtihin his flawed brain than talking to a motor makes the car run faster.
this is precisely why hoppe is quoted as needing to explicitly repress stupidity with violence. otherwise these idiots will appeal to a crowd of idiots, and they will champion their collective flaws as genius
>>79313089
And no matter how many times you post it, it still has no bearing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
We really need to bring back literacy tests for voting.
>>79307425
The term "militia" is also clearly defined in US Code, under Title 10:
>(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
>(b) The classes of the militia are—
>(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
>(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
The Nationa; Guard no longer counts as militia for the purposes of the 2nd Amendment check against government power following the 1903 reorganizations that aligned them with federal military statutes where they can be seconded to federal duty and rolled into federal military hierarchy. Many states possess "state guard" organizations which are de jure state militias that provide internal services and can never be called to federal duty.
Even a broke clock is right twice a day.
Even a blind hen sometimes finds a grain of corn.
>>79307824
Add the Word "because" to the beginning Of the entire Sentence and the whole thing makes Perfect Sense.
>>79313089
It's as if you willingly ignore all the legal precedents and Supreme Court decisions in order to make your faulty point.
>>79313089
my view? wht is my view?
MY view is that YOUR view is not comprehensive. YOU simply support the side that won with a show of force, and you hide this behind weak documentation and flimsy arguments about precedent.
jefferson was also a president, but that's not a legal or forceful precedent to you. because you simply worship the status quo.
YOU think that any army with state sponsorship is magically a militia. YOU think that legitimacy comes from the state, no matter what that militia happens to do.
Other people think differently, but you're not actually addressing either argument: what is "by the people for the people?" a rebellion is by the people for the people, right or wrong, that's what it is. is state sponsorship by the people for the people? hm....
>>79307425
When ignorant people try to talk about the Constitution, they only reveal how their real goal is not guns themselves but altering our entire conception of rights to facilitate tyranny.
>>79310454
>Maybe you're a bit autistic. I never in this thread made an implication that you said anything regarding who could own what. Read my post.
>this is what I asked:
>How can a militia be formed if the people are not afforded the ability to arm themselves?
>This is the reason we have that right.
>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
>It is a conditional statement, the necessity of a well regulated militia is dependent on the right to bear arms. But this also makes clear the purpose of that right.
No shit Sherlock.
>>79312657
>Guns are murder machines, they're obsolete and dangerous.
No more so than the vaginas of women who support abortion.
>>79312925
>Examine the statement.
Yes, it's a conditional statement. There is a right, and there is a premise for that right.
The breakfast meme is a horrible analogy, why don't you take the time to fucking read what the founding fathers debated and compromised on to draft the 2nd amendment.
The debate focuses entirely on the need for a militia. Some constitutional delegates did not want any right to bear arms, some only wanted it to be given to military personnel, some only wanted it to persons with formal training. In the end, the 2nd amendment was a compromise between many different positions and an agreement on the need for "well regulated militia" to protect the free state. This is why the fucking amendment starts by mentioned the militia first.
Read the fucking debate for yourself, it is well documented:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt
>>79313280
>BobsTgirls
>>79313578
Yeah, it's called lying. Liberals do it a lot. Something about the greater good and them knowing what's best for us peasants. Sprinkle in a bit of virtue signalling.
>>79313757
>There is a right, and there is a premise for that right.
you got that backwards. The premise is first.
dafuk?
>>79313757
>"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
>>79307425
>Now
They never have
They do what gets them votes
>>79308716
we've been over this, the constitution is interpreted based on what's actually on the paper, not the FF's intent.
>>79312453
>That's a popular narrative, but it doesn't exist anywhere in the well-documented discussion and debate that led to the drafting of the 2nd amendment:
>>79312713
George Mason authored the 2nd Amendment and basically said the militia is comprised of the people except for public officials.
>>79312373
>Not joining the horsefucker rebellion.
You'll be hung along side the liberals you nigger.
>>79313089
OP is a god damn fucking moron. Everyone on this thread has explained to you in so many ways (linguistically, historically, legally, ethically, etc.) why the second amendment grants the people the right to bear arms. You keep talking about compromise and linking to a website, but the constitution was written as an independent document. They specifically dragged on and on about each word and punctuation so that the intents were clear. They did not write it down and think "well, if they don't get it, they can just read about all of our debates in order to understand." Why is the second amendment the only one ever questioned? No one says we have to look at history in order to defend freedom of speech or the right against illegal searches and seizures. Just shut up and go suck a dick already OP.
>>79313757
>"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
>>79307425
Here, OP.
>>79313578
I'm relying on what the Founder Fathers themselves discussed, debated and agreed upon in the Constitution Convention in which the 2nd Amendment was drafted.
The debate focused entirely on the need for a "well regulated militia" to protect the free state. This is why the 2nd Amendment starts by referring to this need.
Why don't you fucking read it for yourself:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt
>>79313757
From your link:
>"..Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to
destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
Suck a dick.
Even the founding fathers were doing their best to prevent the government from removing the future rights of gun ownership.
>>79313812
To be fair there aren't that many good tgirls with guns pics online.
>>79314305
you're either willfully ignorant, or an idiot
what was specifically STRUCK DOWN during the negotiations you keep posting was the requirement that the militia be centrally organized, or be organized in such a fashion as to be permanently standing, to be exploited by political arrangements threatening peace for the interests of profit.
the wording as is was decided to avoid situations of manipulation. arms, in the hands of citizens, allows them to self organize without being beholden to specific, arcane, legal arrangements exploited by politicians. the best way to do this was to allow individuals to decide for themselves to bear arms or not, for a militia or their own choice.
>>79313757
The entire purpose of the Bill of Rights is to secure unalienable rights for posterity. NONE of them are given to the people by the government but ALL of them are written in carefully chosen language that presupposes their existence.
Which is to say in very plain words: "We are not giving you these rights. This rights exist before the signing and ratification of this document and the purpose of this document is to prevent any infringement of the rights included within"
Now I ask, if that is true, then under what rationale would the limitation of the second amendment to only government-run militia purposes be sound
>>79314273
It's called Original Intent. It's how constitutional law is often interpreted, and is the method often used by conservative justices.
Yes, the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment was a compromise. Do you know anything about the Constitutional Convention?
Each amendment was the result of discussion and debate. We know exactly who held which positions because the debate is well-documented:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt
The "Founding Fathers" was not a singular person with one idea you fucking idiot. It was many people with many different ideas who debated and compromised to reach an agreement.
You would have to have a very childlike view of government and politics in general to think that the Founding Fathers did not have different views which they debated and compromised on.
>>79307425
O'Reily has always been a retard and, with this, still is.
Do you know what a regular army is? It is an army that is kept equipped and ready to fight. A militia is a fighting force that is self armed, as in they bring their own weapons to use. So a well regulated militia is a well armed group of citizens that outfit themselves.
In the most strict interpretation, the second amendment ensures that the citizens can own and use modern weapons of war so that they can form a fighting force that supplies it's own weapons.
>>79314305
>"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot
>>79307425
Do you know what a militia is? Its the armed citizenry who own weapons personally who can be called upon in times of trouble to supplement whatever forces are needed. People like calling this or that group a militia in honor of the second amendment, but that's not the whole of what a militia is. If you keep citizens from owning their own weapons you have prevented the militia from existing, so even by this tenuous logic (That its only for a militia, its not) it doesn't internally work.
>>79307425
Bill O called for a ban on AR-15s last week.
Just another pompous neocon stooge.
>>79307425
The word regulation has no connotations of government oversight.
>>79307425
>>"a well regulated militia"
Doesn't mean what you think it does. Or, you're shitposting.
Those are the two options.
>>79312041
No. Violent crime as a whole decreased dramatically, even with the increase in firearms. Guns are not a problem.
>Today, the national crime rate is about half of what it was at its height in 1991. Violent crime has fallen by 51 percent since 1991, and property crime by 43 percent. In 2013 the violent crime rate was the lowest since 1970. And this holds true for unreported crimes as well. According to the National Crime Victimization Survey, since 1993 the rate of violent crime has declined from 79.8 to 23.2 victimizations per 1,000 people.
http://www.brennancenter.org/blog/americas-faulty-perception-crime-rates
>T-there was a debate when it was written!!
Historical revisionism in full effect.
"Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans."
- Tench Coxe, 1788
"The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."
- Tench Coxe, 1788
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, 1788
>>79314940
Well Regulated means Updated, Fully Functional, and Instantly available.
>>79314874
>"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States
>>79314723
>"..This will lead to the violation of another article in the constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms,"
Notice he says PEOPLE, not militia have the right.
>>79314812
correct. and I agree with you. but what you're ignoring is that the reality of the situation is that whigs have been ignoring this since basically the civil war.
they treat federal power as an attempt to ENFORCE the bill of rights, rather than federal power being limited by the bill of rights. a subtle difference, but it makes a HUGE difference.
somene has free speech. does the federal government use its power to PROTECT him, or does it simply ignore him and all squabbles pertaining thereto? the former leads to a dangerous expansion of police power. the latter leads to... nothing at all.
when the government EXPANDS it power to "protect" the second amendment, it leads to background checks for weapons, and a central regulation of the militia, say, california being overrun by mexicans who commit gun crimes in the street. when the government realizes it can do NOTHING about arms ownership, you end up with safe states like north dakota.
subtle difference. huge consequences.
>>79314790
What was "struck down"? The "well regulated militia" which was written into the 2nd amendment?
>>79308542
YOU CAN'T SAY GUN NUT, THAT'S OUR WORD.
Seriously though, I self describe as a gun nut, because guns and shooting are my primary hobby. I shoot local competitions, take classes, own a bunch of them, etc.
The term gun nut doesn't bother me, but more about the context of how it's used.
For example:
>me and a couple other gun nuts are taking the 4 day rifle class this week.
versus
>these fucking gun nuts and their huge penises keep strectching out me lady kangaroos pouch, govna', mate, barbie, I'm a an oz cunt, etc.
See?
>>79314305
why don't you stop spamming your own thread and actually reply with your own arguments based on your own logic you silly fuck
>>79315175
Which again, doesn't not imply the government has to be involved.
>Americans trying to language
>>79307425
regulated by the states not the fed
>>79314913
no anon, a militia is an army regulated by the state for the needs of the people.... kind of like a standing army... which is also organized centrally... for the needs of the people...
newspeak is in, my friend. they've already stolen our language from us.
honestly, we need to enact language reforms. maybe we should start using chinese characters to write. the chinese managed this problem by using chinese characters, which more or less prevents literacy and the ability to think for anyone of an iq threshold below 110. that's how they manage to avoid massive shitshows from polluting conversations about family and morality.
>>79313757
>why don't you take the time to fucking read what the founding fathers debated and compromised on to draft the 2nd amendment.
Because I've read it all already. Years ago and under the supervision of a linguistics prof.
You're very selective and pig headed.
You said it yourself that they were very meticulous in the wording of the amendment.
One more time: What in the wording of the Second Amendment states that the militia is the SOLE reason for enshrining the right?
>>79307425
>2nd amendment made to ensure citizens could stop a tyrannical government
>liberals somehow believe the government should be in control of this "'militia"
>>79315347
because he's a shill
>>79315233
>"..their will be no Dispute Between people and rulers in that may be secured the right to keep and bear arms for Common and Extraordinary Occations such as to secure ourselves against the wild Beast and also to amuse us by fowling and for our Defence against a Common Enemy"
>>79315411
Not at all.
Regulated does not mean under state (or federal) control. It means prepared and ready to use.
>>79314874
What are you not understanding? The constitution was a stand-alone document. They didn't write the second amendment down and then put an asterisk next to it stating "make sure to read our debates in order to fully understand." They chose those exact words and that's it. It doesn't matter what was debated or for how long. All that matters is what was written down. That is the law. When a two people compromise, we don't acknowledge both of their statements. We acknowledge the compromise. If you link that website one more god damn time, I'm just going to assume you're trolling.
>>79315574
What is the point of the state regulating our only defenses from the state?
sounds kinda cuck tbhq
>>79315319
>YOU CAN'T SAY GUN NUT, THAT'S OUR WORD.
It's okay, he said is with an "a" nor an "r".
>>79307425
> I am by no means anti-gun. However,
You're an enemy of freedom and will be afforded no sanctuary when the day comes.
The first clause is context; it does not say, nor imply that a militia necessitates the right to bear arms.
>>79315684
he already got btfo by >>79312713
and conveniently skipped over it.
its pretty funny how much americans love their various amendments, as if they were written by god
fucking pathetic
>>79315713
He's being sarcastic about the definition, I think.
>>79308716
This is the original draft:
The 3d clause of the 4th proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows; "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person, religiously scrupulous, shall be compelled to bear arms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
>the only thing really in dispute was the part - "but no person, religiously scrupulous, shall be compelled to bear arms."
>One of the arguments against:
I wish that in establishing this government we may be careful to let every person know that we will not interfere with any person's particular religious profession. If we strike out this clause, we shall lead such persons to conclude that we mean to compel them to bear arms.
>>79315844
It's so we don't end up like you
>>79315574
You are incorrect, and possibly addled.
its pretty funny how much swedes love their big black cocks, as if they were made by god
fucking pathetic
>>79315080
wrong. violent crime has
1. been reclassified as "mental illness" remember that an insanity ruling is an innocent verdict, and not included in public legers
2. murder is only murder if the victim dies. if he survives it is reclassified as attempted murder, or even "assault" because of plea bargaining
3. murder charges are often downgraded to "nonviolent drug charges" out of practicality and weight of evidence
if you compare total victimization rates from sources compiled by foreign governments, our violent crime rate has risen some 200x. not percent, TIMES.
oh, also, this is DESPITE having thrown some 20% of all niggers in prison. any time to release niggers from prison or mental institutions, there's a doubling or triplng of crime.
violent crime is almost entirely genetically expressed. mexicans in america have the same murder rate as mexicans in mexico. africans have the same murder rate as africans in africa. asians, same as asia.
you do NOT have falling rates of violent crime when half of this country is nonwhite.
>>79314305
Which is still irrelevant to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
You're being intentionally obtuse at this point.
>>79311624
>implying the founding fathers were learned english majors
>>79315313
are you illiterate. the proposed passages, written out to be voted on, which contained any HINT of central organization or a militia or arms, were ALL rejected with extreme prejudice.
are you fucking illiterate
>>79307425
i never liked that asshole. Proof they are just propagandists for the social engineering.
>>79315844
not like sweden with their laws dictated by a pedophile, illiterate, rapist, war mongering, camel piss drinking, goat fucker.
>>79316012
>2. murder is only murder if the victim dies. if he survives it is reclassified as attempted murder, or even "assault" because of plea bargaining
A-are you stupid, anon? Murder by definition is only murder if the person died. It have never included attempted-murder.
>>79315307
>they treat federal power as an attempt to ENFORCE the bill of rights, rather than federal power being limited by the bill of rights
This is complete bullshit. You're stating this as if it is fact but the truth is that there was GREAT disagreement on this premise. It's why the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers exist.
It is extraordinarily hilarious that you posit that the men who had fought an invasive tyrannical government for the sake of individual liberty would turn and create a massive government bureaucracy in the hopes that it would defend their rights. Literally hilarious.
O'Reilly is a Yankee liberal that has masqueraded as a Conservative over the years to further his career and bottom line.
He's always been pro-gun control and a fan of many government programs and leftist policies.
>>79315713
>>79315978
I was being sarcastic as the other anon mentioned. I was tryin to point out how our opposition is CHANGING the definition of militia, which is of central importance to this discussion.
if you can change the word militia to mean what you arbitrarily want it to be in the minds of listeners, you WIN.
>>79316012
Watching you faggots try to lie about shit in an era where a child can debunk you with a smart phone is pretty fucking hilarious.
>>79309689
>I think there is some confusion here
on your part, there certainly is
>>79307824
You fucked up
That's not a comma, that's a semicolon
Which indicates not that the second part is a continuation of the first part, but rather that the second part and the first part are analogous.
What it's saying is: A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
>>79307425
Bill O'Reilly is a typical degenerate paddy mick.
>>79315968
end up like what? a country without mass shootings?
oh no
>>79316229
i dont know what that means
>>79315307
Cont.
In-fact, the only entity that govt entity that operates in the manor you're suggest would be the supreme court and the power of judicial review was established WELL after the signing of the constitution.
>>79316451
Sorry ackmed I cant translate it into arabic for you
>>79316244
holy fucking shit anon-kun, you're such a fag
every stabbing and gunshot wound used to be fatal.
the decline in homicide rates is due squarely to hospital improvements and ambulance response times
the decline in violent crime is due to the reclassification of violent crime into the categories of mental illness and drug crime because of peculiarities in prosecution.
fucking learn to read.
>>79316588
make it chinese then
>>79316451
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
You're implying that people wont just get illegal guns. Please tell me how gun control would have worked in miami during the 80s
>>79315844
At least we have principles Swedecuck. Your flag is an eyesore.
>>79316451
>end up like what? a country without mass shootings?
Maybe you should read some Thomas Malthus. You stopped the natural development of your culture through external threat, and ended up being taken over by invaders. Mass shootings are just culling the weak, and Malthusian population controls.
>>79316693
why did you let them overrun your country too?
>>79316252
u wot m8.
this is in fact what happened. the whigs won with the 14th amendment, which first, applied the bill of rights to the states (which it initially was only applied to the federal government) and THEN tasked the FEDERAL government with enforcing the bill of rights onto the states.
it took a LONG time, but that's exactly what happened.
so we IN FACT, went from the situation where the government could NOT interfere in maters of free speech, to NOW, ERIC HOLDER goes around suing schools for "repressing niggers' speech" by only admitting people into schools who can read.
this is DEFACTO what happened. leave your fucking motivational arguments at home you idiot. it happened. kennedy bussed in niggers at gunpoint. affirmative action is defended at gunpoint. this is the government ENFORCING the bill of rights via a central apparatus instead of being limited by it
fucking, how old are you?
>>79312159
Is that a benis?
>>79316740
Gun control doesn't work in a decade. It will take 50 years at least to rid America of guns.
>>79316758
your principle is retarded.
>>79316800
how is history 101? you know about ww2 yet?
>>79316841
i just wanted to make it easy for you. not many chinese here. lots of thais though.
>>79314723
Context is everything here, keep reading from where you left off:
You quoted Elbridge Gerry, as he was arguing to remove the words: "But no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" from the 2nd amendment. You see discussion back and forth about the meaning of religious freedom and duty to protect the free state and they actually struck down Gerry's motion after his argument was made.
Gerry actually then goes on to say this and suggest adding more regulation to the 2nd amendment:
>It ought to read "a well regulated militia, trained to arms," in which case it would become the duty of the government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.
>"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.
Basically it states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. In order to have said militia, the people have the right to bear arms. In a militia, you usually have to bring your own weapon.
>>79316012
Give me some sources then and back up your claims. I've looked hard but can't find any information that states crime has not dropped dramatically since the 90s. Please prove me wrong.
I specifically want a source showing a 200x increase in violent crime rate, as you have stated..
>>79307425
>Conservatives Now Supporting Gun Control
>Conservatives
>2nd Amendment - "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."
>"...shall not be infringed."
>disregarding the U.S. constitution
>Conservative
Anon, I have news for you. You can call yourself a Honeycrisp Apple is you wish. Doing so does not make you a Honeycrisp Apple. Calling yourself a conservative does not make you a conservative. If you disregard the constitution, you are not a conservative. There is no "sort of a conservative". You either are or you are not. Not only does a conservative abide by the letter of the constitution, a conservative is well studied on the original debates that led to the formation and text of the constitution. There is no conservative who hasn't read the Federalist Papers. And there is no conservative who is in favor of gun control.
>>79317061
There are more than half a billion unregistered guns in the US. You will never rid America of guns.
>>79316424
What the absolute fuck are you talking about?
You must be trolling at this point.
The official text has a comma, not a semicolon.
>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're just completely making up shit in your fantasy factory of a thick skull.
>>79316604
>the decline in violent crime is due to the reclassification of violent crime into the categories of mental illness and drug crime because of peculiarities in prosecution.
>fucking learn to read.
Still waiting on that peer-reviewed source with all those academic studies you cited.
>>79307425
As has been said a million times before whether republican or democrat they are all statists. in the end.
>>79315932
If they are not compelled to bear arms, and just the right to bear arms, wouldn't the person just voluntarily take up arms?
>>79317061
it won't work ever. there are currently 60 million gun owners in america, with a grand total of some 600 million guns. assuming only 1% are willing to actually fight to kep them, that's still a militia of 600k guns, spread over an area the size of 30 iraqs.
our entire army could not fight against 60k insurgents in a single iraq
republicans KNOW that democrats commit 90% of violent crimes. wen a democrat asks them to give up their guns, for the safety of democrats, a republican KNOWS what is going to happen. give me your gun so I can murder you.
kek. it's not gonna happen until every white male is d ead.
>>79316922
>leave your fucking motivational arguments at home you idiot
Right back at you dipshit. Not a single word you've just posted was in defense of what you claimed earlier.
No, the founding fathers did not all agree that the bill of rights was to be enforced by the federal govt. It was a do not touch list. PERIOD.
>>79316176
You seem to be very fucking confused, the 2nd amendment says this (Protip: this IS the 2nd Amendment):
>"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."
>"well regulated militia"
This is the actual 2nd Amendment, not a proposal.
>>79317435
>>79317721
THIS. Whitey won't die out for at least another 50 years so true gun control is over 100 years off.
Bill is secret commie
No surprise
>>79317721
>there are currently 60 million gun owners in america, with a grand total of some 600 million guns. assuming only 1% are willing to actually fight to kep them, that's still a militia of 600k guns
And that's the well regulated militia the founding fathers meant
>>79317515
>peer review
you sound like one of those sheboons who spits out "I's gots muh sources!" you all fucking run to it, like a fucking voodoo charm. even the niggers are starting to shout this, when they clearly don't have sources.
the academic establishment lies to us about the equaity of the races or the health of the economy, AND lies about the muslim rape crisis, but you expect them to tell you the truth about this particular thing? fuck off.
if you could read chinese, japanese, or korean, they've studied the matter in depth and it's well known. google search in one of them, if you can
>>79318087
Even if it does mean "regulated" as in over sight, who has the right to regulate?
>>79307425
Well-regulated in 18th century parlance means well-equipped.
O'Reilly knows this.
>>79315932
What the fuck are you talking about, this was not the only issue in dispute. It was one of many.
One of the proposals:
>It ought to read "a well regulated militia, trained to arms," in which case it would become the duty of the government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt
You're just completely making up your own narrative, read the fucking discussion to see what was debated before deciding to make up your own bullshit narrative.
>this pathetic little creature
>a shill
>is actually putting in more effort than the actual shill
>and is probably still doing it for free
>>79318504
>makes claim
>can't support it
>wonders why his movement has been failing for decades
Gun grabbers in a nutshell.
>>79318504
Is this the /pol/ version of the navy seal copypasta?
>>79316147
If it's irrelevant then why did they write it in the same sentence as a conditional statement? The right does not appear elsewhere, it is only in this conditional statement which starts with the need for militia.
>>79318715
I'm not a gun grabber, you fucking idiot
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124155/
Medical advances mask epidemic of violence by cutting murder rate
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324712504578131360684277812
In Medical Triumph, Homicides Fall Despite Soaring Gun Violence
5 fucking SECNDS in google. if you have an IDEA, you ca GOOGLE it and get results, you fucking retard
I support the second amendment unconditionally.
BUT, niggers are shooting MORE people, EVERY FUCKING YEAR. medical improvements make these NOT murders, and legal changes make half of these "drug related offenses" because of changes in prosecution.
FUCK OFF.
"much sources" is nigger speak. there ARE sources, you can google them.
>>79319064
>District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.
>McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.
"Muh militia"
>>79309779
Of course a leaf would post this. Is your country still burning? I gave up caring after the first month.
>>79312148
I do.
>>79319135
>"much sources" is nigger speak. there ARE sources, you can google them.
In academic research, it is not only common but required to present sources backing up assertions in order to complete a fully formed argument. One cannot simply claim "they're out there, I swearz" and expect to be taken seriously. If you make an extraordinary claim, you must back it up.
>>79318087
>very fucking confused
indeed you are
>>79319064
Does it out right say you need to be in a militia to own a gun?
>>79307425
"A well regulated militia" essentially means "a well armed populace that can be converted into a militia at a moments notice". At least according to me.
Read Heller. If you haven't read the Heller decision, then you are probably trolling. On the off chance you aren't trolling, here is a link:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
That is how the 2nd Amendment is interpreted.
>>79307425
Traitor.
>>79310454
The whole point of it is that every citizen is part of the militia, every citizen can own arms. Just by being an american citizen you are part of the militia.
>>79315844
gr8 b8 m8
>>79319795
The Supreme Court ruled that all able-bodied adult males comprised a militia.
Later, that definition was expanded to all adult citizens.
>>79309779
>it becomes obvious that the second Amendment of the United States Constitution is NOT meant for overthrowing the American government at all. It's so that people can fucking defend the government.
"Consent of the governed" was the principle foundation upon which the government was built. The government is only legitimate as long as the people provide their consent to be governed by said government. If and when the time arose that the government lost legitimacy by people withdrawing their consent to be governed, the people themselves would need means to cast off the government. Additionally, the power creep of government was intended to be kept in check by the fact that the people had access to arms, to prevent such overreach.
I thought Canada had a decent educational system?
>>79313620
>jefferson was also a president, but that's not a legal or forceful precedent to you. because you simply worship the status quo.
No, his individual views aren't a precedent on their own because that is not how democracy works, that is not how our country was founded and that is not how our Constitution was framed. It sounds like you would rather assume a dictatorship or Cult of Jefferson.
>a rebellion is by the people for the people
Correction, a rebellion is by the people. In the case of the Whiskey Rebellion it was not "for the people", it was a rebellion for a minority of the people. The people had already voiced what they wanted by electing government officials who squashed the rebellion.
>is state sponsorship by the people for the people?
It can be if "the people" elected state representatives of their choice to protect and represent their will. In this case, the will "of the people" was to protect their new free state from a group of angry rebels in Western Pennsylvania.
>>79320099
I agree with you, but that kind of crumbled during the civil war
basically, new york determines what the consent of the people is, then seeks to kill anyone in opposition
new york decided the south couldn't consent to its own governance, and then killed all of them and removed the police force and courts they consented to.
now new york decided that you can't consent to wave a particular flag. they also decided that the consent of the people is to open up bathrooms to trannies. they also ecided that people consented to grant affirmative action to ngigers.
oh by the way, if you disagree, you get to be killed by the fbi. the people consented to it.
>>79308716
>>79307425
the 2nd amendment is a red herring.
the fact is you dont need it for the right to bear arms.
the bill of rights is a safety. the real question is - what right does the government have to regulate arms. the government only has powers given to it.
the constitution gives no powers to regulate arms. in fact, to get gun laws they have the shoehorn the commerce clause.
thats right, all federal gun laws are based on the commerce clause.
before you even get to the question of the 2nd amendment, the first question is : what right does the governmetn have to regulate arms.
the asnwer is little if not any
>>79313089
>http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt
But that debate merely says what we already know. That the people are allowed to keep and bear arms because having a well armed populace is conducive to being able to raise a well regulated militia when needed.
>>79319974
>>79320056
I still don't believe gun ownership is pertinent on being in a well regulated militia. Only that a well regulated militia is pertinent to a free state.
>>79318504
Oh...
You're one of those people.
The same liberal academia that wants gun control banned would make up statistics showing violent crime going down while gun ownership is increasing.
You yourself said:
>
if you compare total victimization rates from SOURCES compiled by foreign governments, our violent crime rate has risen some 200x. not percent, TIMES.
I've spent my own time to find these sources that you claim to exist and I cannot so please provide them. You have a genuine chance to change my view on the subject.
I can't form an argument around some guy's ramblings on /pol/
>>79307425
>Bill O'Reilly and Fox News say gun control is needed
>Boy, suddenly gun control doesnt seems so bad!
Kill yourself, fucking sheep. Typical retard who just parrots everything the media says and cant think for himself. I bet you live in Texas too, you guys are soft Conservatives, borderline Democrats as far as Im concerned.
>>79320614
"What, sir, is the use of a militia It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty"
OP and left twist what is meant by militia and the basis of why the 2nd amendment was made
>>79320439
>http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt
>But that debate merely says what we already know. That the people are allowed to keep and bear arms because having a well armed populace is conducive to being able to raise a well regulated militia when needed.
Exactly, but some here seem to be unaware that the debate and reason for the 2nd amendment revolved entirely around the need for militia.
Another interesting point in that debate is their aversion to having a standing army during times of peace, which was the very reason for enabling citizen militias in the first place. I never see that argument being made here, the very presupposition for the militia clause.
Wait a minute, if the 2nd amendment exists, and shall not be infringed, how come laws that ban guns exist in places like Chicago and NYC?
>>79320614
It isn't dependent on it. Read Heller. It is one reason the right exists, not THE reason it does. It is a very important reason, though, especially in that time. I again recommend you, and everyone else, read Heller. Scalia does a good job of addressing the issue from a bunch of different angles. He absolutely destroys grammatical arguments that have been used to attack the 2nd Amendment.
>>79320618
where the fuck do you idiots come from
I support 2nd am. but the fact is that gun crime is going up, because nigs gonna nig, and spics gonna spic.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1124155/
Medical advances mask epidemic of violence by cutting murder rate
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324712504578131360684277812
In Medical Triumph, Homicides Fall Despite Soaring Gun Violence
holy shit, shut the fuck up.
liberals control academia. you might as well say "black scientists have proven that blacks are equal. can you find a single black scientist source that blacks aren't as intelligent?"
you need to break the conditioning.
>>79319135
If that is true then the rate of nonfatal firearm injuries should either be rising or be steady over time.
That is not the case.
>>79307824
A comma is basically a place holder for and. Thsee are two thoughts. You can have two thoughts in one sentence ya know?
>>79320874
hint: They aren't constitutional
>>79307425
> no really I don't understand english
> I don't understand that well-regulated means well-equipped (as in the more firepower the better)
>I don't understand that every single time the Founding Fathers mentioned the militia they were referring to an unregistered bulk of the American public to defend against government corruption.
Gun control is common sense for you guys. Keyword: control. Not ban, not prohibition. Yeah, you've got a lot of guns on your black market that won't be affected. How did they get there in the first place? If you had a more carefully cultivated firearm ecology in the first place you wouldn't have so many guns in the hands of criminals. You have too many guns in circulation, if changing that means Billy-Bob can only own one semi-automatic rifle at a time then so be it. There might be an uptick in criminal gun violence for a few years after as the rate they filter out of the system will obviously differ for law-abiders and law-breakers but hey - you brought that on yourselves by being so gay for guns in the first place.
>>79313280
>Chicom SKS rig on backwards
That triggers the fuck out of me.
>>79308106
Well-regulated meant well-equipped when it was written dumbass.
>>79320774
Actually I mentioned this if you follow my comments. Clumping me in with the left is very inaccurate.
This is the very argument I have been making in this thread, about the basis for the 2nd amendment. The very presupposition for the militia clause was an aversion that they had to standing armies.
>twist what is meant by militia and the basis of why the 2nd amendment was made
I would say that you have this backwards, that the 2nd amendment has been twisted by an association of lobbyists and corporations who stand to profit immensely by obfuscating it's clear purpose.
You yourself seem to understand the premise and basis.
I've been posting this link consistently in here to try and get people to read the debate that led to the drafting of the 2nd amendment so that they can understand that it revolved entirely around the need for militias:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt
>>79311459
>facts
>failing english
>refusing to recognize the definition of words at the time it was written
>refusing to recognize that the dependent clause gives the reason
>>79321535
>A comma is basically a place holder for and.
>>79321121
You said word for word:
>if you compare total victimization rates from SOURCES compiled by foreign governments, our violent crime rate has risen some 200x. not percent, TIMES.
I need those sources. Not some article from 2002 that only ESTIMATES (very scientific) the increased number of homicides that would occur without medical advancements or some bullshit WaPo article I have to subscribe/sign in to.
I'm only asking for something you claimed that existed.
"> 1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
THAT IS THE OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT. FUCK OFF WITH THIS BULLSHIT ABOUT "REGULATED". SUCK SCALIA'S BRILLIANT COCK!
>>79307425
It's almost like our founding fathers intentionally added two conflicting clauses into the second amendment to troll retards for generations.
>>79307425
>(((conservatives)))
Fox News is the long con.
>>79313122
Not really, because he is using well-regulated incorrectly and doesn't deal with the fact the right to bear arms is being given to the people. Had they put, "King George being a massive cock, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," the fact the justification being that King George is a cock doesn't change the fact the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. You can't possibly claim the people have the right to bear arms if you then say they must be part of an organized militia.
>>79321016
I don't get why we're still having this debate after Heller. I'm getting really sick of armchair justices that think they have a better understanding of constitutional law than SCOTUS. If they disagree with the 2nd they can push to have it amended but they need to shut the fuck up on the interpretation argument.
>>79321730
they didnt want forced conscription into the army , and they feared standing armies. its literally arming joe schmoe next door, and also, scary to them, letting them train
but there is no need for the 2nd amendment, the government has no right to regulate arms
>thinking this grandpa potatonigger neo-con is relevant
>>79309072
We had hunter and firearm safety at my school. It is dependent on the FFA program.
>>79321730
>revolved entirely around the need for militias:
This is a very simple concept that seems to keep escaping you.
The need for a militia is ONE of the reasons that the second amendment is enshrined, but it is not the SOLE purpose for it's enshrinement
(((Conservatives))) have always supported gun control, they simply have to pretend otherwise to appeal to their voters. That's what (((Conservatism))) is, gnashing your teeth and wailing as the Left destroys everything, but not actually doing anything to stop them. And the money flows in.
>>79320614
The people have the right to have weapons is directly stated. The freedom of the state is dependent on having a militia available, which is also stated. The dependency of a militia on the armed citizens is implies by the definition of the word militia.
The right to own and have weapons is independent of anything, by definition of an unalienable right.
>>79322384
Well, we are having it because SCOTUS is a nest of vipers who make shit up as they go along with no concerned over the actual words or the context of the constitution. Heller represents but a single case where they actually said "this is what it says, and this what they said about the intent of it, so it must mean this."
Something must be done about activist judges.
>>79319064
It's not a conditional you illiterate monkey.
Wow, this is disappointing.
>>79321685
White America has he murder rate of Belgium.
It doesn't have a gun violence problem, it has a nigger problem.
>>79323028
Where do the niggers get their guns?
>>79322546
Why is the 2nd Amendment presented as a conditional statement which starts with the need for a militia?
Maybe if you took the time to read the debate that led to it's drafting, you would know that it revolved entirely around the need for a militia.
NOWHERE does it state any other purpose for the "right to bear arms" other than to maintain a militia. I'm very curious as to what other "purpose" you're referring to? You're making a claim, now back your claim.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt
>>79312148
>nobody has a problem with automatic weapons being banned.
kys
All militia have the right to bear arms.
All able bodied people are militia.
>>79322384
Exactly. Almost every single person who argues against the second would be aghast at anyone attacking the right to abortion or privacy or gay marriage, when those are tertiary consequences of Amendments. They are horrible.
>>79307425
Op use the fucking commas
>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
PAUSE
>The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
That comma makes a big difference with out it you would be correct and it would only mean you can keep and bear arms if you are in a well regulated militia to keep the USA free
What it means is our right to bear arms is if the goverment ever goes tyrannical we can form a milltia to secure our government and implement a free state
>>79322776
Heller is not a singular case, the interpretation was reaffirmed and incorporated for the states in McDonald so the interpretation is more or less set in stone.
>Something must be done about activist judges.
That's a pretty daunting problem that you're not going to find easy solutions to.
>>79323153
Illegally. So punishing people who buy them legally makes no sense at all.
>>79323205
The law defines the militia as all adult male citizens under sixty. You could make the case for banning guns for the very old or for women, but that's it.
>>79323351
That's literally a completely incorrect interpretation of the amendment.
>>79307824
>militians have the right to form
>the people (who can make up the militia) have the right to arms
not that hard
>>79323351
guess all those handicapped people are shit out of luck then
>>79323488
>So punishing people who buy them legally makes no sense at all.
It's not a punishment. It's a necessary measure to lower the number of firearms overall so that they're harder to get for the dindus.
>>79312148
>not wanting full auto funs
>>79323489
Hm? Its the only possible interpretation, period. Anything else is just pretending to be retarded.
Literally everyone (or if you prefer, men under sixty) is in the militia by law. Deal with it.
Either guntards allow the "right to bear arms" to have sensible restrictions (like your right to Free Speech, and frankly every other right), or pressure inevitably mounts for an amendment to the Constitution. Which will inevitably curb gun rights significantly more than regulation.
By not giving a single inch on any form of gun regulation, no matter how common-sense, the NRA makes the second option more or less inevitable in your lifetime.
All that's left at that point is some form of Le Chimpening, which will simply fill the beds in some of Merchant's less-populated for-profit prisons.
>>79323671
>It's a necessary measure to lower the number of firearms overall so that they're harder to get for the dindus.
Except that it won't affect that. They don't buy them legally, remember? Christ, you're retarded.
>>79323713
Only restrictions I should ever have on my guns is my 2 hands
>>79323205
Will you shut the fuck up about this transcript? Read Heller. Understand that decision is the binding interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Heller looks at the 2nd Amendment from multiple angles, not just one. Here is a link:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
>>79323713
>By not giving a single inch on any form of gun regulation
Gun owners and the NRA have compromised many, many times.
All we get for compromising is being told that we refuse to compromise, and more gun restrictions.
>>79323713
>little or no restrictions
considering arms is everything from blowdarts to swords and spears and we're pretty much restricted to 3" knives and limited firearms, I'd say there are plenty of restrictions
>>79323799
>They don't buy them legally, remember?
So where do they buy them. The black market?
Where do you think the black market get them? The number of firearms smuggled illegally into the U.S. represents a relatively small proportion of the number of guns in illegal circulation. The majority of guns in criminal hands in America are lost by/stolen from legal owners.
>>79323671
>there are people sharing the planet with you who are actually dumb enough to believe this
>>79323713
I like when gun grabbers imagine they're winning this war.
>>79324005
>The majority of guns in criminal hands in America are lost by/stolen from legal owners.
Yep. Fuck all can be done with that. As the murder rate is decreasing, staying the course is the best.
Dems pass harsh gun control laws in their cities anyway. Where there is actually gun violence in America, there is already the maximum level of gun control to begin with.
>>79323368
Well now they're willing to throw the 5th into contention with their retarded terrorist watch list gun ban scheme. That law will be challenged and it will end up in front of SCOTUS where there's a very real chance we'll get a ruling that suspension of rights without due process can be permissible without due process for the interests of "public safety" which is a terrifying precedent.
It's incredible how little people care about their fundamental rights and how much they care about bullshit like tranny bathrooms and free birth control.
>>79323972
I'd really like to know how you are restricted from buying a sword.
Or do you mean you aren't allowed to go all World of Warcraft on some businesses, private property?
That's their right.
>>79307575
This, rthe Kraut reads better than liberal Americans
>>79322814
Read, you illiterate fuck:
>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.
One half of the sentence is dependent on the other. This is referred to as a conditional statement. The sentence has a comma, with a premise and is incomplete without the whole.
There is a prefatory clause, which announces a purpose:
>"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
and an operative clause, which is incomplete without the prefatory:
>"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Even the very conservative Justice Scalia said, "The Amendment's prefatory clause announced a purpose." The purpose being the need for a militia. At the time, the Founding Fathers had an aversion to standing armies and preferred protection of the state by militia.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2013/02/12/a-grammar-lesson-for-gun-nuts-second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-gun-rights/33796/
Now read the debate that led to the drafting of the 2nd amendment, it revolved around the need to maintain militias:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt
>>79307425
Militia Act defined militia as all able-bodied men aged 18-45.
>>79324387
Which has dick all to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It's not conditional.
>>79323713
>or pressure inevitably mounts for an amendment to the Constitution
Good luck with that.
>>79307425
At the time it was written the people referred to in the 2A was not everybody in the US: It was eligible voters, in other words White wealthy landowning males--the same guys that wrote the Constitution and who ran the government and who collected taxes. The 2A was also written before modern policing was conceived. When both of those are considered along with events like Shays Rebellion--a tax revolt by common folk, it becomes clear that the 2A was written so that the wealthy elite could force the common man to pay taxes by using militias as enforcers. There is no guarantee that every individual can keep and bear arms and in fact many poor people did not own firearms. Most of the uprisings of the day started with breaking into armories and arming the mob.
>>79324225
>Fuck all can be done with that
If there's fewer guns in the hands of legal owners then fewer guns make their way into the hands of criminals. That's axiomatic.
>Where there is actually gun violence in America, there is already the maximum level of gun control to begin with.
Because if there's strict gun laws in state A, and lax gun laws in state B, and I'm a criminal in state B who subsequently has a lot of illegal firearms, there's little to stop me traveling into state A and selling my guns to criminals there. You need federal-level action for overall results.
>>79307575
We're not even really allowed to have militias anymore.
>>79307425
so, it took the Brittish 15hours to figure out they where lied to.
and you guys never checked anything for what, 150 years roughly?
the French city of nice
>>79324669
>If there's fewer guns in the hands of legal owners then fewer guns make their way into the hands of criminals
Ok. Unfortunately for you liberals, the rights of the law abiding come first. Guess we'll just have to do what already works, punishing people for, you know, crime.
>You need federal-level action for overall results.
The law as is works fine. If you're concerned about terrorism, keeping people from countries with 51% or more support for Sharia Law out should work.
I like how murder rates are falling in the same fashion in western countries with gun bans and ones with tons o' guns.
>>79324620
>There is no guarantee that every individual can keep and bear arms and in fact many poor people did not own firearms. Most of the uprisings of the day started with breaking into armories and arming the mob.
That's blatantly untrue. Effectively everyone in a rural area owned at least one firearm and arsenals were raided primarily to acquire powder and lead.
>>79323803
I'm referring to the actual Constitution and the debate that led to the drafting of the 2nd amendment.
You're appealing to a very recent divided Supreme Court opinion from 7 years ago with one side appointed by a party in the pockets of an association of lobbyists and corporations who stand to profit immensely by the obfuscation of the Original Intent of the 2nd Amendment.
Again, the Constitution does not refer to any other purpose for the right other than "militia". It does not say "hunting" it does not say "home protection", these things were not even mentioned in the Constitutional Convention.
>>79324995
>to hell with a logical, reasoned solution, muh guns is muh guns, fringes and so on
K.
>The law as is works fine
Literally doesn't though, you've got a major problem of niggers with guns. You've proven incapable of solving the nigger problem, you should at least try facing the gun problem instead of basing a significant chunk of your culture on a single sentence in a 250 year old document. The founding fathers weren't gods, they weren't even particularly brilliant or special. It's possible to do better than they did.
>>79324551
It is a conditional statement.
The first half is a prefatory clause, which announces a purpose:
>"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
and an operative clause:
>"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The sentence is incomplete without both halves, which is why it is separated with a comma. Not a semicolon, not a period.
Even the very conservative Justice Scalia said, "The Amendment's prefatory clause announced a purpose." The purpose being the need for a militia. At the time, the Founding Fathers had an aversion to standing armies and preferred protection of the state by militia.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/opinion/2013/02/12/a-grammar-lesson-for-gun-nuts-second-amendment-does-not-guarantee-gun-rights/33796/
Now read the debate that led to the drafting of the 2nd amendment, it revolved around the need to maintain militias:
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt
>>79325624
The most logical, reasoned solution is to:
1. Safeguard our rights
2. Do what works
Not give the government free power because they made puppy dog eyes.
>Literally doesn't though
Literaly does. Look at America's falling murder rate.
Countries with gun bans: Look at the crime stats, gun murder has gone down since the ban!
America: Look at the crime stats, ALL murder has gone down in our country.
![B20LbnbCYAA4n6V_2[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/ZbgpNHl.jpg "B20LbnbCYAA4n6V 2[1]")
