How do you make a country that's pro-gun ownership while

We had one until 1968. It's all downhill from there.

>>31761419
Repealing the 19th

>>31761432
>1968.
Well before that.

The NFA was enacted in 1934. but before that, Kentucky passed a law forbidding the concealed carry of firearms, and took 10 whole years before it was struck down by the KY supreme court. Georgia banned the sale of pistols in 1837, and that didn't get struck down till a decade after too.

a homogeneous society, no voting rights to women, and capitalism

but that's still impossible to insure because that right gives people the right to take away their right

>>31761497
Can't you just write a law saying that owning guns is the right of all citizens, and shall never be infringed upon?

File: second-amendment1_t670.jpg (43KB, 665x385px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 665x385px

>>31761513
>and shall never be infringed upon?
huh, and here i thought that was already what was written.

>>31761513
someone will say banning x,y,z is not infringment and courts will uphold

>>31761538
It's phrased in a way that allows people to reinterpret it.

You have to be more specific in your language if you want to keep later generations from questioning it.

>>31761497
Unrestrained capitalism will ruin the first two things you listed.

>>31761554
>shall not be infringed
There is no better way to interpret it.

>>31761554
No it's pretty clear. You just have to shoot whoever challenges it instead of being a nation of decadent fatasses.

>>31761538
>>31761559

Faggots have tried to undermine it and have purposely misinterpreted 'well-regulated' against it.

>>31761419

You make an amendment that says "Everyone can own a gun and you can't fuck with them"

File: 11j0vgh.jpg (155KB, 681x385px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 681x385px

>>31761567
there is no misinterpreting. if you cannot into English as when the Law was written, you have no place dictating law.

If in 200 years from now, the word Gun is turned into something that means something different, every law with the word gun would not suddenly mean something else.

>>31761554
No, it isn't. That's always been a bullshit arguments by people choosing to be politically illiterate.

You simply cannot form a militia if you don't have arms. Militia formation for the defense of the state is offered as one reason for the state to support private ownership of arms.

>>31761576
>and you can't fuck with them"
Thanks, asshole. now i can't stick my dick in the magwell.

File: 1446616558135.jpg (58KB, 505x306px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 505x306px

By not creating a government based on collectivist principals like the founding fathers did.

Only give the 2nd amendment to yeoman and gentry, same with voting rights.

>>31761419
Make it a crime to even attempt to abridge the rights of citizens, punishable only by hanging from the steps of the capital building. Also strict term limits to prevent calcification of power bases. Lastly, agents of the state (police, military, etc) cannot be exempt from any law applying to the citizenry.

>>31761614

Never said you couldn't fuck them.

>>31761576
>"Everyone can own a gun and you can't fuck with them"

"Hey, man, I own a gun, you can't enforce building codes on me."

>>31761635
But your wording left open interpritation.

Now instead of meaning "you cannot abridge this law," it can mean you're not allow to modify, or fornicate with.


There's a reason laws are written in lawyerese. it's to keep as little interpretation as possible, unless there is a deliberate loophole or an honest to god mistake.

>>31761559
By including the phrase "a well regulated militia", the amendment itself is left open to reinterpretation.

>The Stevens dissent seems to rest on four main points of disagreement: that the Founders would have made the individual right aspect of the Second Amendment express if that was what was intended; that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only; that many lower courts' later "collective-right" reading of the Miller decision constitutes stare decisis, which may only be overturned at great peril; and that the Court has not considered gun-control laws (e.g., the National Firearms Act) unconstitutional.

>>31761477
This
the real bullshit is our system you gotta show harm done after the fact

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

44KB, 827x628px

>>31761670
A Well Regulated Militia is a separate issue included in the same amendment. what good are keeping arms if you cannot form a militia.

Failing highschool english is not an interpretation

>>31761702
I guess some of our SCOTUS justices couldn't pass a high school English class.

>>31761737
Or they were persuaded to forget them.

>>31761747
Persuaded by who?

File: Abe Fortas.jpg (9KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 300x300px

>>31761810
You never know until the scandal comes to light.

File: 1454304826050.jpg (29KB, 604x453px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 604x453px

>>31761538
>huh, and here i thought that was already what was written.
>>31761559
>There is no better way to interpret it.
>>31761565
>No it's pretty clear.
>>31761608
>there is no misinterpreting. if you cannot into English as when the Law was written, you have no place dictating law.
>>31761702
>Failing highschool english is not an interpretation

Sometimes I wonder if we're going to lose, if this is the kind of defective mental process that's defending our rights surely we are doomed.

NO.

All of you have failed basic civics and sociology, congratulations you do not know what you're talking about. I've quoted the relevant phrases, especially that, "you have no place dictating law," horseshit; the court of public opinion isn't held and attended by legal experts. Unlike the 1st Amendment which has a language that we can understand today quite easily, the usage of "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment has made things hard for us. Why they used "regulated" out of all the goddamn words available in the late 18th century, I don't know, but they should have actually committed to fully ripping off the Constitution of Vermont. Had they done so we would have had a 2nd Amendment that couldn't possibly be misinterpreted by even the simplest of idiots, but alas they did not. Just for reference, this is what I'm talking about:

>XV. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the themselves and the State; and, as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

Gee, I wonder why they didn't want to include all of that! Certainly it wasn't because of faggots like Hamilton and Madison were arguing against the bill of rights entirely.

That's right, I said it. They were statist faggots. Had they accepted that federalism would come naturally maybe, just maybe, we wouldn't be knee-deep in this bullshit today.

>>31761975
Congrats on your wall of text kid, but it's clear you're 2 cents shy from a handjob.

>Why they used "regulated" out of all the goddamn words available
Because it meant what it meant. I guarentee there will be some piss ant like you getting angry over words that meant something different to you in the future.


If you can't swing a bat, don't play ball bud.

>>31761975

You have realized that the constitution is full of compromises and vaugeness in order to get a huge array of different people to agree to it.

The hidden brilliance to the constitution is the checks and balances that it has for the people against themselves.

Its a perfect balance of property rights (aristocracy, statism) VS collectivism ("we the people', democracy). once one side wins, the whole system collapses. You can find no more a perfect device for keeping Americans at clenching each others necks, but just shy of actually strangling each other.

>>31761999
What a waste of triples.

>Because it meant what it meant.
No, even then it had the same meaning it has today. Using a word or term that can be grossly misinterpreted in a legal document, the most important legal document, is a terrible lapse in judgement. Defending it is just as bad, if not worse, and you're a bad person for doing that.

>I guarentee there will be some piss ant like you getting angry over words that meant something different to you in the future.
Firstly, it's "guarantee" and since all browsers automatically spell-check you have no excuse other than pure laziness for this shit. Secondly, I'm not "getting angry over words" (the irony) at all, I'm pointing out the failure of having imprecise language in a legal document.

>>31762026
>You have realized that the constitution is full of compromises and vaugeness in order to get a huge array of different people to agree to it.
I do realize this, I am fully aware of the reasoning why they used the language they did in all ten amendments. Yet with that in mind they could have done precisely what I said and stuck closer to the document they were stealing from but unfortunately New York was being represented at the convention.

>The hidden brilliance to the constitution is the checks and balances that it has for the people against themselves.
Completely irrelevant, the Bill of Rights was opposed by Hamilton precisely because it afforded no compromises and he didn't want it to be regarded as untouchable and absolute. Of course he had a point for several reasons, beyond the obvious ones the constitution doesn't guarantee a basic right we all enjoy now: privacy. Only through the 4th Amendment is it alluded to, and evidently that isn't enough to fully secure it.

That has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, and I've yet to be convinced that the actual language of it is "brilliant" in any way. It's even been called perfect by some, no doubt by the dipshit who can't read a "wall of text."

>>31762026
Adding on to what I said here >>31762110 I want to clarify something. (and ignoring the grammar mistakes I made, had to conform to the character limit)

Hamilton wasn't opposed completely to protecting the rights of citizens with the law, if I seemed to have implied that I'm sorry. What he was opposed to was doing it in such a way that made it seem like they were the only rights afforded to citizens, and I do think that he was thinking far enough ahead to see our current issues. That aside I think he and the other Federalists went about it in a completely inappropriate way, they essentially forced the issue of federalism to deal with state disagreements. Alternatively they could have worked to overcome those issues and naturally the federal system we have today would have arose, I think it's commonly understood that confederations shift to federations simply out of necessity.

That's still irrelevant though, the issue of the language used in the 2nd Amendment is something else entirely. Every single act of gun control legislation has taken advantage of the absurd phrasing, particularly with the "well-regulated" phrasing and the implied, but not explicit, link between "the people" and "the militia." Going back to what I said about the 4th, it's clear that merely implying a right is there simply is not enough to protect it.

>>31761975

Military historian fag here

The reason they used regulated was probably in reference to the use of equipage. The term "regulated" was used far more than the term"equiped" or "armed" when discussing these matters as it had the connotation of not only being "well equipped" (well regulated), but also of good rank and file and with sufficent skill/drilling.

>>31762221
I know that, see >>31762110 for more information. That usage of the word is technically still relevant today, of course it is definitely antiquated and we can still understand it if used in conversation.

As I said already the word "regulated" also had the same meaning that it does today, everyone at the Philadelphia Convention was well-educated and would have known of the word's dual usage. There isn't any way to defend their choice of words, they could have used any of the many, many words available at the time to convey "combat effective" in the amendment. Additionally they could, and should, have made sure to properly link the individual citizen and the militia, much like their predecessors did in the Vermont Republic.

>>31761497
>no voting rights to women

why? women can be gun owners too

Put in place a clear constitution, worded so that we don't have all the legal bullshit happening today. Make violating the constitution a capital offense.

>>31761497
>a homogeneous society, no voting rights to women, and capitalism

You got two out of three of those right.

Pro-gun fascism.

>>31762715
Pretty much this.

>>31762730
>>31762715

Shoot anyone not carrying

My kind of country

What would it be called?

>>31762769
Af/k/anistan

>>31761419
Make sure the army is small, only made of volunteers and largely underfunded.
Same for the police.
Encourage the rise of private firms and militia to fill the void left in the security sector.

That way, your government can't take away the guns even if it wanted to.

File: USconstitutionWeThePeople.jpg (941KB, 1028x684px) Image search: [Google]

941KB, 1028x684px

A U.S. constitution. With stiff-ass judges.