How do I dismantle his argument in one go?
2A/the bill of rights are not a set of privileges bestowed upon the citizenry by a benevolent government, they are our innate rights as human beings, 2A being to protect our nation, and to protect ourselves from the nation becoming tyrannical against it's people. The military/militia argument is at best half the argument.
>2A:musket::1A:printing press getofffacebook.png
>government is evil/only government should have guns
His definition of a militia is moot due to the Supreme Court ruling that the American militia automatically included every able-bodied man from (if memory serves) ages 18-65. The people whose actual job it is to study and interpret the Constitution have already come to their own conclusions on this, so his random, uncited dictionary definition doesn't mean jack.
We've had automatic weapons since long before that point, and given how many of the people involved with the drafting of the Constitution were either senior military officers or directly associated with them, it'd be silly to pretend they didn't know that. Hell, Lewis and Clark's Army-supplied expedition had an automatic rifle in 1804, and it wasn't brand new at the time.
basically this, yeah.
she's a fucking moron. arguing with a fucking moron is pointless, because they'll never understand how stupid they are.
she was trying to come up with some points, but basically just barely scraped the tip of the iceberg on points other gungrabber try to argue without really understanding what she was saying.
>The military/militia argument is at best half the argument.
you mean the part where she incorrectly defines what a militia is, then says that we don't need a militia anyway? that's the best half?
the minutemen were a militia. the minutement were private citizens that had literally nothing at all to do with the government. the fact that people don't understand that is fucking stupid.
I'm like 99% sure that breach loaded naval cannons existed during that time. Could the founding fathers not have envisioned that guns would somehow get more advanced. Also the point that we considered a 15 (?) shot muzzleloader for the army not long after the war.
Just tell him to do some actual research on his stance if he so passionately wants to debate it and come back with something that isn't based on feelings, generic recycled lib media talking points, or how he 'thinks' it should work, because that's all he has currently.
anon, I think you're confusing automatic with multi shot. The first automatic rifle wasn't made until around 1900.
the first multi shot gun was the puckle gun, made in... 1718?
Not to mention that the fact that America stumbled its way into becoming a superpower 60 years ago does not nullify a constitutional amendment. Even the 3rd Amendment would spring to action should the circumstances ever arise.
OP here, posted the Breakfast analogy as well as the "you are wrong" pic, waiting for libtard reply. laying in wait with the supreme court ruling.
Any more nails for this fuckers coffin???
2008 Supreme Court Ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, confirms right to bear arms is a generally applicable right and not dependent on membership in a militia. As a supreme court ruling about the Constitution, it can only be overturned by another ruling or by a constitutional amendment.
Tell the dumb nigger it can't even read.
then tell him his reading comprehension is abominable. When he replies with a 'snowman' comment. tell him he can go suck on your 'Frosty' balls.
By not even bothering since he's a fucking Australian. It's funny how all these foreigners use our country as a topic of conversation when their country might show up a few times in an American's life as "maybe a nice place to visit for a vacation."
...I just don't understand these people's way of thinking.
To be fair, you posted that passive-agressive green image instead of just stating the facts. Thus, she's reacting defensively instead of thinking about what you said.
Just post the supreme court shit, no commentary. It's a done deal, can't be overturned without an amendment. Then when she argues you can just laugh.
so basically he just completely ignored the entire argument, called you racist, and said we don't need a militia anyway?
what a fucking moron.
>hurr da gubbermint is so powerful why would the people need any power?
>He eats vegetables
The fat on my chin reduces recoil.
These arguments are so stupid and retarded, the only answer would be to state that Australians have a bizarre obsession with American internal policies, and it would be best if they fucked off and died.
Or maybe just make it real short-- Why are Australians so obsessed with our guns and our freedom?
Does she not understand how her native language works?
>using memes as arguments on facebook
You screwed up. Even if the messages are spot on, just uploading them instead of paraphrasing in your own words makes you sound like you can't think for yourself and you're just regurgitating whatever you found on the internet.
Tell he/she/it that if he/she/it doesn't like the laws in the USA, he/she/it can buy a plane ticket and get the fuck out. There are plenty of countries that don't allow guns. If she wants to be elevated above "American idiots," she can go join the snaggle-toothed cucks in Britain and Australia
>this was invented 50 years before thw 2nd amendment was written.
The internet is not covered by the first amendment because the founding fathers could have never predicted anything like the internet. The first amendment pertains to news papers and books, not counting war time. This person should have no problem with the government censoring anything she says that it could find problematic. Tell her that and watch her stumble around
Same reason the religiotards whined when the Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.
1. Cause they don't like it.
2. Cause they don't actually know how the Supreme Court works.
Supreme court rulings are law. Literally. What they say goes, until another law supersedes their ruling. In the case of the 2nd amendment ruling, that can only be done by another amendment.
It wasn't that popular and few people invested in it.
Fun fact: there were two bullets designed, one for Christians and one for Muslims. The Muslim-removing bullet was square, which was believed to cause more damage and would "convince the Turks of the benefits of Christian civilization."
Hell, it gets better than 1900
he Kjellman LMG was a machine gun produced in Sweden. It is notable in being one of the first fully automatic weapons ever conceived (if not produced) and one of the first light machine guns as well.
Although the patent dated back to 1870, and prototypes may have existed at least a half a decade before the Maxim was invented, black powder ammunition made the weapon virtually unusable due to rapid residue build up.
Someone in 1870 went "hey, these gun things would be a lot better if they reloaded themselves".
It basically does what six musketmen could already do, while also lacking mobility.
Plus, flintlocks tend not not work well with revolvers. They only really came into vogue with the invention of the percussion cap because it was more reliable and safer (particularly from chain fires).
It's better to sarcastically say "our founding fathers never envisioned the internet, so why should the 1st amendment apply to it, too?"
Bonus points if you include Islamic radicalization and recruitment though the internet. That's certainly an unwarranted liberty in the interests of national security!
I skimmed the thread, so I may have missed it being covered but "well regulated" means "competent and able to work as a group" as opposed to an "irregular militia" which would be people picking up granddad's blunderbus and charging in like a tard.
The framers wanted people of fighting age to be ready and able to repel foreign or domestic threats but did not want an actual standing army. This is fairly similar to the Swiss system of mandatory gun ownership and training. Actually, the most in-the-spirit of the 2A thing the government currently does is run the CMP.
The issue there is that people claim the National Guard IS the "regulated militia," and any others are unregulated terrorists. They are wrong on both counts.
Plus, it's possible the amendment was worded to differentiate a militia that defends the "the security of a free state" versus mobs such as from the Whiskey or Shay's rebellions. Those are also funny examples in that they were put down by the state and private militias.
At the end of the day - it really doesn't matter what she believes.
There are over 80,000,000 gun owners and over 300,000,000 guns and her opinion, vote, or any other aspect of her life won't do a god-damned thing.
You don't need to convince her of anything.
She doesn't have a choice.
Most notably, the Lewis and Clark expedition was a success attributed almost solely on their possession of a Girandoni. It scared the piss out of the local Injuns, who assumed every man had one and as a result didn't scalpfuck them to death.
Post links to Cornell University of Law militia definition.
Educate him on the proper use of the comma in English.
Privateer Navy had frigates with arrays of cannons which are much more destructive than an AR.
ALSO, why did none of the framers of the constitution straighten the misunderstanding out while they were alive?
Why has every SCOTUS disagreed with his personal interpretation of the 2nd?
Also, why is he an uneducated faggot.