>"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security

>>2323841
dude

commas

lmao

File: kek.png (441KB, 532x398px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 532x398px

>>2323841
>Americans follow rules made in the 1700s

Militia is composed of private citizens with guns pretty self explanatory imho

>>2323841
any miltias of the people and any weapons they own cannot be handicapped or confiscated by the goverment
t.non american

>>2323841

It's awkward but hey, it was centuries ago, that was probably perfectly clear to them

as to how it turned out, I'm sure they had no inkling of how nation states would develop and how antiquated the notion of a militia of the kind they knew would become. So we here are of two minds about this.

>>2323889
>americans try to take away the guns of other americans by trying changing constitution then when someone they don't like threatens the constitution they are all for muh freedoms and muh libertys
what did they mean by this?

citizen militias was a very liberal idea of the time and was absolutely necessary for the defense of the early settlements.

in reality it's still a liberal idea and one we need to get back too if we want to fix areas like chicago and detroit.

>>2323841
Even just adding a "because", changing the first comma and the word "being" to "is" and getting rid of the capitalization of random nouns would improve it pretty significantly.

"Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

>>2323889
Except it's still today one of the greatest constitutions ever written

>>2323841
Milita's are the private citizens who keep and bear arms. This is the interpretation most constitutional scholars take. The "only militia are allowed to have guns" argument you here from retarded neo-liberals (calling them liberal or leftist is disengenous) is pretty much false.

>>2323841

it is easily interpretable, unless you're trying to force the words to mean something they don't to take arms away from the people

>>2323841
I'm a little bit confused. How do you get "everyone should be able to own a firearm" out of "well regulated militia"? What is a well regulated militia? does that mean that people outside of well regulated militias shouldn't have a right to own a firearm?

The commas are confusing as fuck but the part "the right of the people" is clearly a separate sentence from my own interpretation.

>>2323952
>How do you get "everyone should be able to own a firearm" out of "well regulated militia"?

Militia are common citizens who, in an emergency, can supplement the armed forces as well as defend their communities. There's official (National Guard) as well as unofficial militias in the US, and so keeping a gun extends to pretty much everyone as a result.

>>2323952

idiot, learn to reading comprehension.

"a well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to stock bacon and eggs shall not be infringed."

the people don't have a right to a well regulated militia, they have the ability to form a well regulated (read well equipped) militia because they have the right to keep and bear arms.

>>2323961
But what does "well regulated" mean?

>>2323963
English is not my first language, sorry

>>2323964
Well supplied/equipped. Militias have to adhere to certain standards to be classified as such.

>>2323964

well equipped.

more specifically uniformly outfitted.

>>2323952
"regulated" at the time meant closer to what "balanced" or "functioning" would mean today

>>2323921
They honestly just need to teach the basics of gun safety/conflict resolution in schools, especially in poor neighborhoods, and they'd fix a lot of the issues with how guns are used in poor minority communities in America.

>>2323889
Are you implying that's a bad thing?

>>2323981
>teach the basics of gun safety/conflict resolution in schools,
fucking kek, they dont even teach science at public school anymore

>>2323964
in good working order. In the 18 and 19th centuries, well-regulated had nothing to do with government regulations.

>>2323981
I dunno, first time a dumbass kid decides to pull a gun on a teacher or something the entire country would flip.

>lol what do words mean guize

>>2323981
the kids who need better conflict resolution skills are also the least likely to pay attention in those classes.

btw, accidents make up a very small minority of gun deaths. Most are suicides; something like 19k per year, out of 30k.

OP here.

After reading it over and over dozens of times, it does seem to me to be protecting individual right to own a firearm.

Why the fuck did they like commas so much? It's all throughout the amendments.

>>2323963
you're the idiot, he asked what the definition of well regulated militia is

>>2324000
Shut up, retard.

Stop acting like it's obvious. It took over 200 years for the Supreme Court (people far more learned than you) to finally make a conclusive decision.

>>2324005

different time, conventions change.

>>2324008

he asked several questions einstein

>>2324010
>took over 200 years for the leftist judges (people far more corrupt than you) to finally convince a large number of people that something completely obvious had been thrown into doubt

fixd

>>2323841
Its certainly a very weird way to say it. Was it so hard to just say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

>>2324010
>far more learned
I guess the memes about American education were true.

>>2324059
Idiot. Learn what learn-ED means.

>>2324044
>fixd
Dude you Americans have been arguing over this since before it was even written

>>2324049
They felt that wasn't strong enough. They brought up the militia to emphasize that the people should be armed as well as the military.

And they were at the time; John Paul Jones gave his famous speech on his own ship. Not a US navy ship or whatever, a privately-owned warship.

>>2324068
>Americans
>arguing about the 2nd Amendment
No, Americans have been arguing with monarchists and commies.

>>2324059
1(of a person) having acquired much knowledge through study:
‘a learned, generous, and notoriously absent-minded man’

Fuck off.

>>2323841
Civilian Militias, not Military and Police State, OK!

>>2323942
What other constitutions are well written?
Asking because as far as I'm aware, only the American one is worshipped.

>>2324117
The swiss constitution is pretty good

I'm not a fan of constitutions in general, do more harm than good really. Im glad my country doesnt have one

>>2323944
>neo-liberals (calling them liberal or leftist is disengenous)
No you're just thinking of liberals. Leftists tend to be pretty pro-gun, and neo-liberalism is purely an economic philosophy.

>>2323841
It's pretty clear that the right to keep and bear arms shall not fucking be infringed you dumb commie dickbreath.
That means firearms on par with the military of the country.

>>2323841

it's so easy to interpret, that only oppressive statists and the newer crop of extreme 'liberals' seem to struggle with its meaning.


It clearly means that to have a militia formed by the citizens, you obviously need to allow them to own their own weapons to use in that militia

Why has no extremist constitutional scholar taken the US Government to court for the failure of successive administrations to field these constitutionally mandated citizen's militias, or even at the state level? On the face of it, the Constitution seems to require militias to be fielded.

>>2323900

honestly it reads pretty easily comparative to the way they wrote legal documents back then

>>2324117

Pretty much only the Magna Carta and the Code Civil even come close to the universal themes and global recognition that the American Constitution has

>>2323841
Sounds like some ancap retardation.

>>2323981
>teach the basics of gun safety/conflict resolution in schools

why doesn't the NRA ever fund programs like this? Oh wait I forgot they are an industry lobby group

>>2323841
Non american here, I thought it meant something like
>If we want our country to stay free, the country needs to have an effective militia
which is more of a reasoning for the second part which is to not infringe on the right of citizens to bear arms

but the supreme court judges or the guy who wrote it probably knows more than i do, I just wonder why a lot of focus is put on the 'Militia' part when the second part states the actual right they're protecting

>>2325165
I believe there have been judges who interpreted the 2nd Amendment as a right to join the military,.

>>2324010
>It took 200 years for the minarchist ideals of the Jeffersonians to erode to such an extent that the SCOTUS felt the need to make "a ruling" on something so fucking obvious the rest of the country's (outside of the nebulous lib-filled shithole that is DC of course) firearms ordinances didn't even predicate on any alternative definition.

>>2325198

the military and militia seem to be differentiated between in the document but it's pretty unclear, it references "calling forth" militias but then mentions a military as well

yes im sure your ancestors meant that you carry grandpas arsenal to compensate for your small dick

instead of a precaustion in case the bongs take a visit to a newly independent cunt with a week military

>>2323889
Yes, most stable countries still follow the same rules and procedures after hundreds of year

>>2323841
Most of the Founding Fathers were classical liberals big on small government and thus held up the militia as the purest form of national defense as it was done at the state and local level compared to the tyrannical federal overreach of a standing army. The right to keep and bear arms is pretty self-explanatory despite whatever "debate" but does spin out of the glorification of the militia. After all, if everyone owns a gun, then when the militia is needed a man can easily grab his weapon and join up.

Of course the idea of the militia being the ideal form of military protection is retarded as was proven by the War of 1812 and the fact Rome didn't start BTFOing people until it gained a professional army but there you go.

>>2325186
oh wait they fucking do. Someone never heard of Edddy Eagle and stop/dont touch/leave the area/tell and adult

>>2323889
>non-Americans have to have a violent changing of government every couple of decades

>>2323900
>as to how it turned out, I'm sure they had no inkling of how nation states would develop and how antiquated the notion of a militia of the kind they knew would become.
Hamilton was pushing for a standing army almost from the outset because he spent a lot of time researching the European states and what led to their successes and the idea of a standing army was a huge debate at the time (Jefferson hated the idea for instance).

So yes, the founders were perfectly aware that the militia was falling by the wayside but some were too stubborn because of how much they hated the idea of federal authority to admit as such.

>>2323889
The reason the UK constitution is good is that, because most of it is not written down, and therefore virtually unalterable without significant cross-party support, stupid shit like this can be tossed aside.

At the time the new trendy hip idea was that a locally driven initiative for self defense would prove an adequate response to the threat of both foreign invasions and the country from becoming too tyrannical. In actuality, local militias would perform very poorly against a relatively modern standing army.

The founding fathers I believe wanted everyone to be able to access guns but it wasnt held in the same almost religious mission that is seen nowadays. It was more of a practicality to have one.

>>2325554
So while I agree with your attitude that worshipping guns is retarded, I do have something of a problem with your idea that citizen militias would do poorly against a modern military. Asymmetrical warfare has been and for the foreseeable future will continue to be a viable way to fight. Having a good percentage of your national population at least somewhat prepared for that kind of fight is an advantage. While I'm not for totally eliminating the US military, I do think that the idea of national security should be democratized.

>>2325587

While Asymmetrical warfare is always a pain in the ass, historically extremely few "rebels" have ever won a fight without a great power indirectly or even directly assisting them.

In any case, if the totality for the 2nd Amendment was to fight a foreign power, its unhelpful in the context of America. In this case only a national military effort makes sense. And in any case no one has the will or resources to be able to fight the USA in an existential war and win.

Of course, things get murkier when you consider the intent for using such guns in a revolution against a bloated and tyrannical government. But again, if a government really was willing to stay onto power at all costs and the rebels have no outside help, it would be an uneven fight.

For the record I am for guns, I just think there needs to be greater educational efforts to teach the stupid off of people regarding guns.

>>2323841
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8

It never occurred to them that in 200+ years people would still consider it relevant. Like politicians today they don't think for the long haul. When Obama wrote an executive order, you think his main question was "how will people in the year 2300 grapple with this?" Fuck no. Is Trump wondering how people in the next thousand years will maintain the wall? Shit he's not even thinking a full week in advance, of course not.

Passing the buck down the line is great when the line is multiple generations long.

>>2323905
Because the freedoms that exist don't exist in a vacuum. They exist because they benefit the society, and they have to be defended because they hurt the established power. Who ever is in charge doesn't like free speech, free press and free guns but they can't do shit about. We the society benefit from being able to say what we want about our leaders, report any facts we learn about our leaders, and own guns so our leaders aren't the only ones who can resort to the final argument.

That said, some people want to change the right to own guns because they believe that its value to society (in keeping the government weak and the country defensible) is not worth the cost to society in the form of gang violence and murders. I'm not convinced that they're right, but we can at least admit that their goal is not simply to curtail freedom for the sake of it.

>>2325587
>Asymmetrical warfare has been and for the foreseeable future will continue to be a viable way to fight.

No it always gets fucked hard unless the weaker force has a lot of help and those were periods where the military tech gap was less gaping then it is now..

>>2324449
What modern country doesn't have a constitution?

>>2326589
Gang violence and murder happens for reasons entirely separate to that of gun ownership. Gangs exist in the first place due to socioeconomic reasons that lead to their formation, not simply because there are 'guns'

>>2323841
This is perfectly clear to anyone who knows how to read.

>>2323889
If it ain't broke don't fix it.

>>2324449
written law does more harm than good

>>2323841
>ctrl+f
>whig
>0 results

What's wrong with you fags

>>2327076
gangs happen due to cultural reasons*

>>2323841
>>2323940
I agree. There should have been some kind of connecting clause or connecting words. This is a mess and it has nothing to do with age, there's Shakespeare more readable than this, there's KJV Bible sections more readable than this.

>>2325500
I've never heard of them either and I've spent tons of time on /k/. You would think one person would bring them up.

>>2323981
they taught conflict resolution in my elementary school, although to be honest I don't remember what it entailed and it was mostly focused at people who acted up
what's needed is teaching how to not fly off the handle, not even to the solve the problem because that's always different and people will want to use their own method, people just need to take some time to fucking calm down and think about their situation
>>2324004
sadly this
you can fix people, no matter their genetics or background, but you can never fix people that don't want to be fixed, and hotheads usually like being that way

>>2324044
>every Supreme Court for the last 200 years has been leftist
uh-huh
if that was true it would mean the US has a traditionally leftist bent to it, or at least US jurisprudence, I mean a strong leftist tradition, that's really something

>>2325212
>implying Congress wants guns in DC that aren't in military hands
lad

>>2324449
>constitutions are bad
why?

>>2325658
this
you can have your guns, but don't think you're going to overthrow the government
the most ordinary citizens could do is just about overthrow North and South Dakota and that's it

>>2325198

well then they are very stupid judges because militias exist now and existed then and at both times too were standing armies. There has never been any confusion between the two. They are distinct and serve different purposes

>>2325554

It is important now for the same reason it was then: it keeps the jackboots on the back foot. The need to watch out for tyrants has certainly not abated in the modern world.

they saw it as obvious and requiring no special zeal to put forth; as it stands now, considerably more zeal is required to defend it

>>2328047
Every culture forms gangs though. Socioeconomic is more applicable.

>tfw just want to have guns to shoot on my property and hunt
>tfw just want to have fun
>dumb liberals, europeans, and city niggers insist upon regulating my fun
fuck off. firearms are a tradition and an ingrained part of american culture at this point; if you don't like it, fuck off to canada or europe

It's not really all that hard to make sense of.

"A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the healthy start of the day, the right of the people to keep and consume fruit, shall not be infringed."

Who has the right to fruit: the well balanced breakfast, or the people?

I'd say the main criticism against the second amendment is that its main purpose wasn't realized: having militias as a core component of its national defense rather than national militaries.

>>2323841
Meanings of words change over time. For example "well regulated" sounds to us like it has to do with being under regulations, but at the time meant something closer to "properly equipped."

>>2323889

It has been repeatedly modified and updates since then, though.

>>2324117
prussian constitution.

>>2328135
yea and I spend lots of time on /k/ too but you know where I heard it? In my elementary school. Not my fault if you went to a shitty one that didn't show Eddy Eagle tapes

>>2323841
Non American here but why is arms in the second amendment apparently synonymous with specific guns rather than arms as a general concept of a weapon?
Why are restrictions on 'bigger' firearms, explosives, various chemical or even nuclear arms rarely a part of second amendment discussions?

>>2328754
how about you educate us then? this is a piece of obviously historical Americana that's not well known

>>2328874
nearest I can tell, it's because almost everyone is willing to draw a line somewhere and say "well, this is kind of ridiculous for a private citizen to own, let's clamp down on that"
also the strongest defense of that right these days is, well, defense, of yourself, your family, and your home, and ABC (or CBRN) weapons are not feasible for that, and neither are explosives unless you use them in traps, and setting traps for thieves is illegal in a lot of places because it's indiscriminate

>>2325186
The NRA actually supported most gun control legislation, until there was a coup in the late 70s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#History

File: James_Caldwell_American_Revolution.jpg (84KB, 640x873px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 640x873px

>>2323841
It was perfectly clear. Especially when it was written, since it came from a time when the USA literally almost had *no* Military.

Following the American Revolution, there was a great debate concerning the armed forces.

You had one side who opted for the classical citizens militia which was the staple of Free city states & Classical European republics. The logic being that for a truly free state, citizens ought to be responsible for its defense, not a standing army of professional soldiers who would be loyal to a king/general/whoever paid them.

Then you had military men who pointed out that the above was wishful fucking thinking and that professional soldiers should exist for the USA's defense. The Revolutionary War *was won by professional soldiers,* and soon the whole world would be filled with professional fighters.

Anyway they debated this shit until they compromised in points.
1) The Continental Army would be disbanded.
2) A small professional army would exist in the form of the first US Army Regiments, the US Navy and its Marine Corps.
3) A school for the training of professional officers would be established. This was Westpoint.
4) But most of the United States Military will draw its men from volunteer armies formed by individual states mustering militias.

To aid #4, the second amendment was therefore necessary. Since the USA *did fucking raise armies of people who brought their own fucking uniforms and weapons into the fight.*

That system however lasted up until the Civil War- when volunteer militias created a nightmare of ill trained men in mismatching equipment getting slaughtered in the field.

Volunteer Militias participating in the military however would last up until WWI, when USA went over to Europe and was so woefully outdated they had to spend two years or so training for a modern Western Battlefield.

File: well regulated militia.jpg (513KB, 1517x1496px) Image search: [Google]

513KB, 1517x1496px

>>2323964
>what does "well regulated" mean?
/rummages

>>2323889
>kikes follow rules made in 700s. 700s BC.

>>2323889
>Humans use tools in which the design hasn't changed in any way, shape, or form for the past 200,000 years xD

>>2323940
But the original sounds more like the right to bear arms is only there in order to provide for a militia. Not as an individual right per se.

The US have a highly effective and well funded military, airforce and navy so the chances of invasion are, outside science fiction novels, zero.

So what is the point of having a militia anymore? Regardless of how effective (or not) it would be, the chances of it acutally being needed to protect the country are effectively nil.

If the point is now to protect the right to own a firearm, wouldn't it be better to make another amendment about it or simply to modify the 2nd and conserve the right to bear arms while erasing any mention of militia? Because from what I gathered, the debate nowadays isn't really about a militia but gun owner rights, with the former used as a justification for the latter.

Not American here so forgive me if I sound ignorant about the subject.

>>2330050
another not american here
I know the US government becoming tyrannical comes up when talking about 2A, not that I know whether that would work out like it should

also I don't think its that simple to modify an amendment, but I've never tried it so i don't know. maybe the official interpretation of 2A can be changed tho

>>2330098
>I know the US government becoming tyrannical comes up when talking about 2A
Oh yes I forgot about that, thanks.

The President going full Sheev would depend on the US military. It it was in opposition then nothing would happen and if it supported the move I really doubt militiamen could do anything.

Then again when I think militia I think of the idiots who occupied the Malheur refuge.

>>2330137
There's a lot of factors going into it like news media

Its never happened before but while a lot of people in the army say they would desert if the president turned out to be some sort of dictator, i don't think it would be that cut and dry

If it really was army/cops vs militia/citizens, I think the militia would probably win, but this discussion by itself could probably fill a whole thread

File: 2-A_Meaning_pg2.gif (44KB, 827x628px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 827x628px

>>2323841
Is English your second language?

>>2330050
>If the point is now to protect the right to own a firearm, wouldn't it be better to make another amendment about it
it would
there's a combination of people not caring enough and people who want to not just be right about what it means, but to have always been right, and to always continue to be right (which is very much in keeping with a conservative viewpoint IMHO)

>>2323841

Because the citizens need to be organized into militias if need be, the rights of the citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Pretty simple.

Kind of hard to form militias to fight a tyrannical government if all you have are rocks and sticks.

>>2323841

Why on earth do you think that the Constitution was meant to be easily interpretable? It was deliberately made to be vague, so that way future governance would be flexible. You think the 2nd is bad? Try the 4th.

>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

You'll note that nowhere in the text of the amendment do you find definitions as to things like what makes a search and seizure reasonable as opposed to unreasonable, or what the hell "probable cause is" that is apparently necessary to provide a warrant.

>>2331314
that is all we have in comparison to the government though
they have everything from knives to guns to to turrets to grenades to missiles to nuclear weapons, not to mention the ability to take down infrastructure from roads to bridges to dams to power and phone lines to TV and computer networks, and if they don't have chemical weapons they could whip them up in a jiffy
if the US government actually put up a not-half-assed effort to keep down the populace we would be able to do fuck all about it

>>2323889
IT'S THE CURRENT YEAR COME ON

>>2328937
>live in some left-wing urban shithole that has defacto banned guns and attend a school with zero tolerance policies so strict even drawing a picture of a gun is verboten
>acts surprised that he was never exposed to gun safety courses that teach that guns are not autonomous killing machines

>>2330050
>So what is the point of having a militia anymore?
To defend your neighborhood against rampaging mobs of Molotov cocktail throwing, club wielding "peaceful protesters" composed of communist revolutionaries, black nationalists, Mexican supremacists, shariah advocates, and useful idiot college kids.

>>2330050
>So what is the point of having a militia anymore?

Because it's a right and a tradition? What's the point of having a monarch anymore in many countries where the monarchy has no political power?

>>2331355

You presume the military will fight the populace; I do not.

But a hundred million people with pistols and rifles are not a trivial force.

>>2323841
Shit might get ugly. We might need you fuckers to be armed at some point.
The right of you fuckets to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, just in case.

>>2331396
I'm from Michigan, and I've never lived in a big city, so how about you try again.

>>2331454
I said if they don't half-ass it, which they likely would
>a hundred million people
you presume the populace would fight the military, again they would likely half-ass it because when it comes down to it people usually value life over liberty, even people with guns

>fucking burgers actually think their right to bear arms is worth a goddamn, as hundreds of people die from ACCIDENTAL gun violence every year
>actually believing this is morally defensible in the name of freedom
>the fucking Declaration even puts life before liberty
>hurr muh militia, just a bunch of survivalist retards who spend hundreds of dollars on metal sticks and balls durr
>people actually think Newtown was a hoax and attack victims' families

I can't wait to get the hell out of this country. Fuck this.

t. Connecticut resident

>>2324010
>>2324010
It took so long for the Constitution that originally only applied to the federal government to be enforced against state governments. Not all of the bill of rights is currently interpreted as restricting the ability of state governments to restrict those rights. In the early years, states were able to restrict speech, due process, etc. If they didn't also include such restrictions in their states laws or constitution. That changed around the 1920s.

>>2331829

b-but if i dont have guns then the gubmint will come get me, because a bunch of rednecks with rifles would totally be able to stand up to the most powerful military on the planet

>>2331454

>You presume the military will fight the populace

If the military is already on your side what the fuck do you need weapons for?

and if they aren't going to fight you what do you need the weapons for?

>>2331903
>you can't win goyim, just surrender and don't ever resist tyranny :)

>>2331914

Define "tyranny". Do you mean decisions made through the democratic process? Are you going to shoot up congress because you didn't get your way?

>>2329290
As always, kill yourself, phil.

>>2331914
>representatives, elected by popular vote
>senators, elected by popular vote
>POTUS, whole can of worms but popular vote is relevant
>22 states' judges, elected by popular vote
>OMG WHAT IF TYRANNY HAPPENS DUDE WE NEED GUNS FOR SURE

So fucking retarded.

>>2323841
wait till your great great great nephew reads current hate speech laws

>>2331960

>A democracy can't be tyrannical.

>>2331996
>implying American democracy isn't fundamentally opposed to tyranny even without militias

KYS

>>2331792
>Michigan
>the literal birth place of Michael Moore
>not a lefty shithole

>>2332009

>implying American democracy isn't fundamentally opposed to tyranny even without militias.

That stopped being true in the Jackson administration which marked the beginning of the end of aristocracy. Democracy is a oppressive form of government. It can never be fundamentally opposed to tyranny.

>>2331937
Yes.
>Four wolves and a sheep vote on what's for dinner.
>Wolves attempt to shame sheep for not meekly submitting to being the main course because "lol democracy".

>>2332033
Wow.

>>2323841
Can i ask, why don't they just have militia's then? Like independent from the government organisation shooting clubs basically. But the guns are kept there.

>>2332057
Kept where?

>>2323889
Another reason why americans are retarded, must be all the inbreeding.

>>2332082
private property

A well organized militia is aka the National Guard. Not a bunch of hillbillies in a pickup truck, driving around with a Confederate flying, and shot guns.

>>2332091
Not Americans but literally what is wrong with following rules made up in the 1700s?

>>2332130
If you weren't completely retarded you'd see there are two claims in the text.

>well regulated militia is necessary
>people have the right to bear arms

I doesn't militia has the right to bear arms. It says the people do.

>>2328181
Not him, but it can cause a lot of resistance to change, or at least argument and controversy with it instead of adapting as it comes. Like in our case, every new social or governmental issue (abortion, gun ownership, gay marriage, etc.), instead of being voted upon in the lens of the moment, must now be looked at not only in that lens but also be brought up against a document from hundreds of years ago when beliefs were drastically different. Doesn't make it impossible, but certainly creates a lot more struggle in terms of social change. However it does do a lot of good as well, namely in limiting powers of the government.

There was tons of debate over if we should even have a bill of rights, because the belief was that as soon as we enumerate them, anything we forget is fair play to trample across, or anything that changes or comes up is fair game because lol didn't write it down.

>>2331792
>>2328135
>>2325500

I thought Eddy the Eagle got shitcanned because even talking about guns in school was scary. Never had that shit in Elementary school

>>2332242
I remember eddy the eagle

>>2332020
do you fucking understand how big Michigan is? do you understand how rural it is? there's Detroit and a few other cities and their suburbs and the rest of it is fucking nothing
people hunt around here, tons of them
you need to face the fact that no one saw your stupid Eagle tapes besides whatever place you're from

>>2332389
>do you understand how rural it is? there's Detroit and a few other cities and their suburbs and the rest of it is fucking nothing people hunt around here, tons of them

Yes and Michael Moore is a lifetime member of the NRA.

>>2327076
>due to socioeconomic reasons
Stopped reading there.

>>2328162

>reading comprehension

>>2325587
>Asymmetrical warfare has been and for the foreseeable future will continue to be a viable way to fight.

only so long as the more powerful force doesn't just btfo the civilian population you hide within and derive support from

this is a huge caveat

>>2326589
>They exist because they benefit the society

no, individual freedoms generally do not benefit society so much as a state with total power does.

Those rights are enshrined to protect the individual.

>>2329269
>The Revolutionary War *was won by professional soldiers,*

with massive guerrilla support

don't forget that it was lost by professional soldiers fighting against both regulars and militia

>>2330050

tyranny is not always foreign you know

>>2331355

>nuke your own country to remain in power

what's even the point

also if you say armor and airforce I'm just going to point towards the infrastructure needed to sustain those forces

>>2331960

>democracy has never been overthrown by power-hungry blocs before

it's like you have no idea what you're talking about

>>2332130

>he doubts the power of the technical

>>>/k/

go get educated fucktard

>>2332558
this honestly. I wish I had the screencap of a guy basically laying out how shitfucked the US is if civil war broke out. As far as infrastructure, with a country as massive as hours, there's no way that A) the government would survive logist

>>2332574
wow I fucked that up.

>A) the government would survive logistically, and
>B) the government would have the full support of the military

>>2331334

>I'm retarded so something that's clear to other people isn't clear to me.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

>>2332583
> implying someone with nuclear codes needs support from anyone

>>2332741
>dude just nuke your own population lmao

File: InquisitiveFroggo.png (185KB, 693x662px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 693x662px

>tfw there's no reason American civilians shouldn't be allowed to own ballistic missiles or nuclear arms

>>2332574
I'm not gonna trust /k/ to lay down the truth about rebellion or Guerilla warfare ever. The board in general has a ridiculously optimistic and romantic view of the subject.

File: 1486432144268.jpg (38KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 480x480px

wish foreigners would shut the fuck up about the 2nd amendment desu
baka gaijin will NEVER understand

File: 1441851075435.png (1MB, 912x905px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 912x905px

>AMERICLAPS LITERALLY BELIEVE GEORGE WASHINGTON WANTED PEOPLE TO HAVE AR-15s

File: article-2066616-0EF248CE00000578-241_468x303.jpg (37KB, 468x303px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 468x303px

>>2323963
>the people don't have a right to a well regulated militia, they have the ability to form a well regulated (read well equipped) militia because they have the right to keep and bear arms.

This is all well and good, but you understand literally everyone in the United States is classed as militiamen?

>Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

Let me now put that into perspective.

>Overweight refers to an excess amount of body weight that may come from muscles, bone, fat, and water.
>Obesity refers to an excess amount of body fat.

Pic related is your majority of peoples. 20% of your WHOLE country is OBESE, as of 2015, OBESE, not overweight, OBESE. The same data says that 68.6% of Americans are overweight. Your whole country is fat, to the point where the only ones who are not are your servicemen, who can still come in the XXL variety.

Pic related is your militia. This was written too long ago to still be relevant today, you literally have to skew meaning past it's literal interpretation for it to have relevance in the modern world.

It actually is hilarious.

The amendment isn't ambiguous or hard to understand at all. Anti-gun people just pretend it is so they can pretend to "interpret" it to mean something more in line with their politics. The grammar is very straight forward, you have to willfully obfuscate it to make it seem ambiguous.

>>2332942
Yeah clearly the founding fathers only intended powder loading muskets and that's why they specifically mentioned the type of arms-- oh wait they didn't. They just said "arms", the most general possible term, because it makes no sense for a militia to be deliberately weakened if its role is to be the effective defense of liberty and the state.

>>2331829
>hundreds of people die from ACCIDENTAL gun violence every year
There are more guns in the US than there are people and there are over 350 million people in this country. And yet only "hundreds" of accidental deaths per year. That's so remarkably low that it's actually a point in favor of guns. Owning a gun is literally less statistically hazardous than owning a ladder and trying to clean your own gutters.

People like you are just ultimately afraid. You're cowards, too scared to defend yourselves, and frightened of those with the will to defend themselves. You want everybody to be in the same position of abject fear as yourself, you want them disarmed instead of secure and confident.

>>2333118
You are an actual literal moron.

America gets ~2million home invasion a year, how many of those are actually fought off, by someone with a gun? It never fucking happens, you're all literal cowards, fat as shit, don't want to loose ya guns.

>>2333151
>America gets ~2million home invasion a year, how many of those are actually fought off, by someone with a gun? It never fucking happens, you're all literal cowards, fat as shit, don't want to loose ya guns.
please provide proofs

>>2333151
Nice ad hominem attack.

>why don't we turn a hundred million people into criminals over a relatively minor issue

Then why not ban alcohol. That kills 20,000 Americans a year.

>>2333118
Just a sidenote: more people are killed by swimming pools and dogs.

>>2333151
According to you most of these people would have guns to defend themselves with, ye they do not.

It's not about defence, at all, that' simply your only argument, literally, the only one. Like, what you are saying should have some statistical relevance, no? Meaning if people are using guns to defend themselves, logically, if they were doing just that, crime rates would not be as high as they are.

People simply do not do what you say they do, even if someone if getting robber, has a gun under his pillow, this man will most likely shit himself and not get out of bed.

But in your mind, he loads his AR-15, puts on his cammo, throws down a flash bang and engages the robbers.

Seriously, consider suicide.

>>2333155
>>2333165

>didn't even approach the question.

File: 1483156209543.png (14KB, 604x618px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 604x618px

>>2333181
>According to you most of these people would have guns to defend themselves with, ye they do not.

>>2333181
Well, defensive gun usage is a pain in the ass to measure, because most of the time nobody is getting shot, and a lot of times the police don't even get called.

The Department of Justice says it's around 70,000 times a year.

>>2333155

>makes statement
>>people have guns to defend themselves from others with guns
>asks for him to give me a number on how many actually defend themselves
>you then ask me to prove my statement
Okay?

Seriously, give me the number of people who successfully defend themselves from an attacker, because those people are usually unarmed, and end up on the news.

>>2333191
https://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

Here's the National Crime Victimization Survey.

They said 83,000.

>>2333187
So, you are basing your whole legislation on the fact that the DoJ says a number, and that number cannot even be proven.

Keep in mind, it's you guys who say that its for self defence.

Then we move onto the next point of 70,000 of 2 million being negligible. Keep in mind, that's 2 million HOME INVASIONS, not 2 million crimes, as 70,000 is times people have supposedly scared of others with guns.

These numbers do not really work in your favour, in 2013 there were more non-fatal gun injuries than there were people who supposedly defended themselves.

This simply ins't logical.

>>2333204
where are you getting your 2 million home invasions per year number, but from the DoJ?

>>2333204
>So, you are basing your whole legislation on the fact that the DoJ says a number, and that number cannot even be prove

You know, when there's a controversy or ambiguity, the default position isn't supposed to be "ban that."

There are more than a hundred million gun owners in the US, there is going to have to be an exceptional benefit to justify trying to coerce all of these people into giving up their property.

For our Australian friend here.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cdc-study-use-firearms-self-defense-important-crime-deterrent
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/18319/priorities-for-research-to-reduce-the-threat-of-firearm-related-violence
"The Institute of Medicine and the National Research Council released the results of their research through the CDC last month. Researchers compiled data from previous studies in order to guide future research on gun violence, noting that “almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to more than 3 million per year.”

>>2333212
The DoJ number is higher, senpai.

3.7m if I use their number. Can refute your hole argument right here right now.

An estimated 3.7 million household burglaries occurred each
year on average from 2003 to 2007. In about 28% of these
burglaries, a household member was present during the burglary.
In 7% of all household burglaries, a household member
experienced some form of violent victimization (figure 1).

3.7m ON AVERAGE each year from 2003 - 2007.
28% of people are home
37% of your population is armed (with enough guns to give a gun to every man women and child, let that sink in)
318.9 Million people.
117.9 people with weapons.

Okay, SO chances are, if there is an armed robbery, the person being robbed is also armed. On an average year 3.7M people are robbed, if 28% are home then 1036000 are being robbed, while potentially armed. MAXIMUM 70,000 of those people actually defend themselves.


Simply illogical.

>>2333276
Remember, this excludes all type of crime, except home invasion.

>>2323841
I never understood why a luxury good would be deemed a right.

>>2333353
Firearms weren't a luxury back then, and they aren't now.

>>2333230
See below,

500,000 - 3 million a year is still extremely negligible. Because that number can account for literally all crime in America, which is an aboszultley huge number. And probably less DGU's on average than previously thought from

>>2333276.

Here are some highlights from Crime in the United States, 2014:
There were an estimated 1,165,383 violent crimes (murder and non-negligent homicides, rapes, robberies, and aggravated assaults) reported by law enforcement.
Aggravated assaults accounted for 63.6 percent of the violent crimes reported, while robberies accounted for 28.0 percent, rape 7.2 percent, and murders 1.2 percent.
There were an estimated 8,277,829 property crimes (burglaries, larceny-thefts, and motor vehicle thefts) reported by law enforcement. Financial losses suffered by victims of these crimes were calculated at approximately $14.3 billion.
Larceny-theft accounted for 70.8 percent of all property crimes reported, burglary for 20.9 percent, and motor vehicle theft for 8.3 percent
Police made an estimated 11,205,833 arrests during 2014—498,666 for violent crimes, and 1,553,980 for property crimes. More than 73 percent of those arrested during 2014 were male.
The highest number of arrests was for drug abuse violations (1,561,231), followed by larceny-theft (1,238,190) and driving under the influence (1,117,852).

1,165,383 violent crime
8,277,829 property crimes

11,205,833 total arrests

Of which 500k - 3 mill are "defended". That's what, like 3.6%? 36%? My maths is off right now.

>>2333358
How are they a necessity in our current age?

>>2333001
>you understand literally everyone in the United States is classed as militiamen

not everyone, just males.

do you understand the significance of """3%"""?

>>2333373
So then women technically are not allowed to own guns.

>>2333353
Are you under the impression 2nd Amendment advocates think the government should be forced to pay to buy people guns?

>>2333369
rural areas require them for livestock protection, and plenty of people supplement their diet with food acquired from hunting.

>>2333377

you still display a weak grasp on the english language

reread the entire thread until you understand why toast is important

File: 3746974645ac7797b525511c2a570ae3.jpg (62KB, 439x561px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 439x561px

>>2333382

>>2333378
No, I've just never understood why anyone would need them for anything besides activities like hunting or ski shooting.

>>2333382
That makes sense.

>>2333386
You know you literally just proved the fact that women, via the strict meaning of the 2nd amendment and the meaning of militia, they cannot own guns.

I mean, I am not meme'ing. That's a loophole. But you won't stop women from buying a gun, would you?

>>2333391
Incase a tyrant ends up in power

>>2333401

you are an idiot and do not understand the english language

right to bear arms =/= membership in the militia

>>2333390
.223 is a perfectly viable hunting round.
many hunting rifles are based off of military rifles.

>>2333404
Yeah, definitions only work when you want them to, right. Like, you are saying I do not understand the English language, you do not understand American legislation.

Your legislation says if you are an able bodied man aged 17 to under 45 you are a member of the unofficial militia, that's simple fact. In order to protect this militia, free bearing of arms is enforced (fair I guess), but women can never become part of the militia, so how can they have the right to bear arms?

>>2333418
>In order to protect this militia, free bearing of arms is enforced

no

you read at a 4th grade level

>>2333406
>the size of the round is the point being made
>you need to be able to shoot around 80 rounds per minute in order to effectively hunt deer
Ignorance at it's finest.

>>2333403
A fleet of drones would destroy any human army.

>>2333369
For the same reason voting is.

To defend your rights against anyone who would want to violate them.

>>2333430
Kek

Literal interpretations is all that matter senpai, that interpretation you take as fact which was interpreted long past the lives of anyone who ever wrote this thing is not correct, just because you want it to be.

>>2333432
semiautomatic hunting rifles have existed long before the AR-15.

>>2333433
drones are controlled by people

>>2333448
>yes
>you need 80 shots per minute in order to effectively hunt deer

>>2333440

this retard just got hooked on phonics

>>2333433
Yep, everyone knows an insurgent army such as the VC could never stand up to the US government

>>2333458
deer aren't the only animal people use firearms against.

>>2333469
>yes
>you need 80 rounds per minute to hunt any form of animal

>>2333463
Just answer the question, can women, according to your legislation and 2nd amendment, buy guns? Legally? The answer is literally no, if you say yes, then you agree that the 2nd amendment is not set in stone and is flexible.

>>2333477
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubt19wLNcKM

IF THEY RUN, THEY'RE HOGS

IF THEY STAND STILL, THEY'RE WELL DISCIPLINED HOGS

File: 1475027383398.jpg (112KB, 806x960px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 806x960px

>>2333477
>need

>>2333451
For now but that will change.

>>2333485
>this is why our schools and cinemas get shot up so often.

>>2333484
But it's "right of the people" not "right of the militia."

The militia part is a declarative clause, not a modifier.

>>2333492
drones will always follow the will of people.

>>2333464
So why have a military if it can never be used in a rebellion against tyranny?

>>2333501
>So why have a military if it can never be used in a rebellion against tyranny?
what did he mean by this

>>2333484
Either English is your 2nd language or you're certifiably retarded.

File: 1479356813534.png (167KB, 494x559px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 494x559px

>>2333493
>he doesn't have a strong, borderline compulsive impulse to get a UH-1 and a pre-86 M60 and reenact the chopper scene from Full Metal Jacket with feral pigs

This is precisely why you're stuck on the gay side of the Atlantic.

>>2333484

remember

reread till you can into toast

>>2333496
Stop skewing the meaning past it's most literal. It's extremely literal. it says.

>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 is the only meaning you can have, anything else is subjective interpretation you want to be correct, these people who wrote this cannot argue if it is wrong, they do not exist anymore, you can skew it to mean spaghetti monsters live in the sky.

Like I mean, your interpreted meaning is so vastly different from the literal meaning, you can agree o this yeah? If you say no you are being simply intellectually dishonest, why interpret something if the interpretation is exactly the same as the original?

Your interpretation is explicitly different than the meaning they wrote down.

This is all simply retarded, grammatically rules, the ones you are using to express this translation ,were not created or even relevant until the 19th century, after this was written. I.e. you are using rules which didn't exist at the time this was written to intemperate it. Some of the first studies to come about the English system and grammar rules did not come about until 100 years after the creation of this piece of writing.

Still, simply illogical.

>>2333504
You didn't answer the question.

>>2333525

*yawn*

>>2333503
I meant militia.
I'm playing Titanfall 2 right now.

>>2333525
Okay, let's try this with a more modern example.

A well balanced breakfast being necessary for the beginning of a good day, the right of the people to buy and cook eggs shall not be infringed.

Who here has the right to buy eggs?

Is it

A: the breakfast

B: the eggs

C: the people

D: The woefully inadequate public education system of whatever communist cesspool you crawled out of.

>>2333540
>missing the point
You understand you are using grammar rules written at least 100 years after this piece of writing to prove yourself correct?

You understand, the people who actually wrote this piece of writing are not alive and cannot deny what you are saying?

You understand I am not saying you CANNOT intemperate this in another way? I literally said the opposite, you can intemperate it to mean literally what ever you want.

What I am saying is you should not, and what you most certainly shouldn't do, is build legislation ,laws and others around sketchy pieces of writings you have to use rules written after the fact in order to defend them.

It's simply not about interpretation. But I mean, you will keep bringing it up, because it's the only argument you have.

>>2333555
>You understand you are using grammar rules written at least 100 years after this piece of writing to prove yourself correct

Nigga, it was Madison, not Shakespeare. English was an established legal language at this time. The British drew up their own Bill of Rights a hundred years earlier and you don't have pedantic assholes pulling this kind of crap.

And the Federalist Papers explicitly say what the amendment was for. This isn't rocket science, America had just fought a long, bloody war because the lobsterbacks tried to disarm the militia of Lexington.

>it's simply not about interpretation

The Supreme Court disagrees.

They said that the Second Amendment was an individual right, and that the militia clause was a declarative clause rather than a modifier.

They're the final arbiter for this kind of thing, actually.

>>2333555

>*autistic screeching*

>>2333555
Look.

Answer this question.

>do you believe the 2 version of the 2nd amendment have different meaning
>literal
and
>interpreted

They obviously do, otherwise the two version would not exist, and we would not be having this argument. If you say no, you are lying to yourself and me. So, the answer HAS to be yes, this thing has 2 different meanings, depending on which interpretation you take. Fair enough.

Now, considering the people who wrote it are long dead, and the way you hold up your interpretation is using rules and grammar sets not available to the people who wrote it. You simply cannot use the interpreted version and hold it as fact over the original, that's simply idiotic.

I mean, you want to, and that's fine. But it's 'wrong' in the most purest sense.

I mean you can do what you want, but you do see the stupidity? right?

>>2333570
>English was an established legal language at this time

You know this is literally my point? You are not using the grammar rules of the time this was written in order to intemperate the meaning of this statement, you are using grammar rules which were created after this piece of writing, and using those rules to apply them to your interpretation.

It
Is
Simply
Idiotic

>>2333572
>using death of the author in a legal context
Wew

>>2333576
>You are not using the grammar rules of the time this was written

Nigger, semi-colons and commas existed in 1789.

They meant the same thing then that they do now.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is literally the single strongest, most unambiguous statement in the entire Bill of Rights.

The top experts in US law on the planet voted that this was the correct explanation.

>>2333587
You have no idea what you are saying if you think the problem lies with commas and semicolons when referring to evolution of grammatical rules and the English Language as a whole.

File: gunsviolence.jpg (184KB, 1437x922px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 1437x922px

>>2333501

Why do deterrents even exist?

>>2333464

Because God forbid people defend themselves against tyranny.

Also, the VC were awful... we were hung over and shirtless when the VC attacked EVERY base in south vietnam.

>>2323978

Gun ownership is what we're arguing here, not grammar, which is something I wish leftists would understand.

>>2324004

>Conflict resolution

I forgot they don't teach you europeans what to do when someone isn't interested in compromise? Do they teach you evil exists at all? Or that it's just a misunderstanding or a bad upbringing?

>>2333593
Hey, that's "you and the supreme court have no idea what you are saying"

>>2333593
Who gives a fuck about an Oxford comma?
I've seen those English dramas too
They're cruel
So if there's any other way
To spell the word
It's fine with me, with me

File: gunsviolence2.jpg (120KB, 1731x555px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 1731x555px

>>2333595

forgot to add how many bases got overrun.

>>2333601

h-how many?

>>2333576

It's almost like arguing about semantics is a waste of time.

>>2333660

It's equivalent to the number of freedoms a european has.

>pro tip, the number isn't negative

>>2332404
I'm not from Flint
I lived there for a long time but I'm not from there, and I lived in the ghetto when I was there
if that didn't convince me guns need to be banned (and it didn't) I don't think anything will

>>2332549
you say that but there are a lot of Americans that would like to nuke some other part of America just on principle

>>2333687
Maryland has had it too good for too long

t. Virginia

>>2333391
>or ski shooting
Norwegian detected

>>2323889
>bill or rights
>law
You must be from Continental Europe, where they use a codex of laws. That's unfortunate.

It's perfectly clear. For clarification you can just read all the letters, speeches, and papers that the people who wrote the bill of rights created. The only people who ever claimed that the 2nd didn't apply to the general public were those that wished to take guns away from the average citizen, but didn't have the balls to push for a new amendment. The "debate" didn't start until long after all the framers of the constitution died.

>>2326978
England

>>2328874
>Why are restrictions on 'bigger' firearms, explosives, various chemical or even nuclear arms rarely a part of second amendment discussions?

Because it is clear in the plain language of the amendment and context, along with vast quantities of jurisprudence that arms means guns. Furthermore, I'm not aware of any licensing and restricting arrangements on the purchase of other such arms in the U.S.

>>2333595
That picture reminds me of the State Opening of Parliament. It's a tradition where, among several other things, the British parliament will lock the doors to the room they meet in and a deputy of the queen or king (known as Black Rod) bangs on the doors and they exchange words until the deputy is let into the room. The big difference here in America is that not only is there no ritual or script, this NEVER HAPPENED.
There was no event where there was disconnect between the people's representatives and the sovereign, or anything like that. Americans have never used violence to take control of the country from other Americans. Americans have never even taken their own part of the country and made it independent, despite one very spirited attempt and many almost-attempts.
Because of that, most people won't make the connection to that possibility, from guns or from anything really, because it doesn't seem realistic or relevant.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, part of the problem with America is how good we have it. People here often don't know any other way of living so they take it for granted. There's no direct way to fix it either because if you put them in worse conditions it would defeat the point of having a nice country that's worth living in and protecting.

>>2331960
Oh yes anon, I am sure the people of the United States totally knew what the NSA was doing when they were electing their representatives. I am sure of it.

>>2333954
>Because it is clear in the plain language of the amendment and context, along with vast quantities of jurisprudence that arms means guns.
Not him, but this is bullshit. "Arms" means weapons. At the time the law was written civilians could get all the same weapons that military powers had access to. Merchants could arm their ships with cannons and nobody could tell them they couldn't. The modern equivalent to cannons would be shit like autocannons, heavy machine guns, and missile launchers. Civilians can't acquire that sort of stuff without going through mountains of paperwork, getting fingerprinted, and paying "tax stamps" for permission to buy the item they want.

Up until the prohibition era National Firearms Act was passed civilians could buy machine guns with no restrictions at all. It wasn't until the Gun Control Act of 1968 (which amended the NFA) that things like grenades and 20mm cannons were regulated.

>>2333891
laws should stand up on their own, and those letters revealed they went to near-autistic lengths to write the constitution and bill of rights in such a way as to not be debatable
I know what they meant to say, but the amendment is still written in a messy way

>>2323841
>Who the fuck wrote this shit and thought it was easily interpretable?

Genteel LARPers from the late 18th Century that were hellenaboos and romaboos

>>2333986
I would like to point out that civilians can still buy black powder cannons.

They're unregulated.

Exploding shells are destructive devices though.

>>2333986
to be fair, I think explosives are a whole different can of worms from guns
a gun accident may kill one person, and that'll probably the operator
an explosives accident can kill several people at once

>>2333990
It's true that black powder weapons are unregulated, but that's irrelevant. We get into the whole "Freedom of press only applies to quills and manual printing presses" argument with that.

>>2333994
We're not talking about whether or not it's a good idea to allow civilians to have explosives. We're talking about the letter and intent of the law.

>>2333998
Well, the logic the Supreme Court used was something to the effect of

>militias tend to use small arms
>fuck it

The more important point being that I need to buy a revolutionary war era gun boat and sail it up the winding rivers of the Texas back country, and provide critical fire support onto feral hogs.

>>2334009

Not him, but the logic that the Supreme Court used was that the phrase "To keep and bear" implies something that you can hold in your hand, which IS contained in the black letter of the text.

>>2334043
Which is stupid, since anyone can hold a grenade, rocket launcher, or plenty of other weapons that are regulated by the NFA/GCA.

>>2332793
There actually isn't tho

>>2323841
The militia act clearly defined the militia to be any male aged 18-45 (I think) and was later interpreted to be absolutely everyone in accordance with the amendments that made it illegal to give people rights based on sex and age.

>>2323841
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are intentionally vague. Not because they wanted future generations to interpret them differently, but because the framers wanted the documents to be ratified. It was a pragmatic choice. They had to pander to a wide swath of people.

>>2323963
The breakfast analogy is really good.

I'm hungry.

>>2333956
>Americans have never used violence to take control of the country from other Americans.

hehe

HahahaHAhahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>2333994
>explosives are a whole different can of worms from guns

what do you think they used as ammunition?

black powder.

>inb4 black powder technically burns, not explodes

effect is essentially the same

You know why Paul Revere rode? It's cause the British regulars were coming to take away the supply of black powder away.

>>2334009
>buy a revolutionary war era gun boat and sail it up the winding rivers of the Texas back country, and provide critical fire support onto feral hogs

yas pls invite

I will bring grog, shanties, and lashings

>>2336227
What we need is salt pork, seabiscuit, and rum.

And enough shiny beads to pay for some native American bitches.

In all seriousness, I've been toying with the idea of /his/torical reenactment with hogs as the REDFOR for a while now.

It still seems less autistic than doing it without anything living to shoot at.

>>2336211
what?
I hope you don't mean the Revolutionary War, that was taking the country away from a foreign power

>>2336221
yeah I thought of that right after a posted, go me
still, usually people don't use gunpowder for explosive weapons these days because there are more effective explosive compounds