Non american here. So what exactly is the Second Ammendment,

The founding fathers believed in small government with not so much government involvement that we have presently. Every state had a militia to protect again the US government from becoming tyrannical. You also need to remember, the militia was also made of, for the most part, volunteers who had firearms. Thus, a militia could be formed at any time to protect individual states from the United States government itself. It could possibly happen again. It would be pretty a pretty bad situation to be in though.

>>33410279
What people leave out is the fact that any militia would be immediately AUTOCANNON'd

>>33410259
>I'd rather not
Too bad, this is a completely political discussion and even here it will turn into conservative vs liberal.

Needless to say, you have to go back >>>/pol/

>>33410290
not really

>>33410259
>need
The second amendment is on the bill of rights not the bill of needs trotsky

>>33410290
Thus the"It would be a pretty bad situation to be in though".

>>33410290
just like in Vietnam? Iraq? Afghanistan? Because America totally won those wars outright and all resistance was mopped up in like a week, right?

>>33410279

Not saying it can't happen, but in the current state of things I find it very unlikely the citizens would have to defend against a government going tyrannical in the western world. Full retard, yes, but it's still a long way from turning into a dictatorship, and hell this country was in one until 40 years ago.
Still leaves me with some doubt, I'm sure (I think) each state has its own well stated do's and don'ts on gun use, why some people still justify it with "I might need it tomorrow to defend us from an oppressing government"?

Thanks for the explanation though, really helped clear up things.

>>33410297

Maybe, but I'd rather not have to walk into /b/ 3.0

>>33410341
I agree, I would not see the common citizen doing anything about a tyrannical government. I do not use that as a justification for the firearms I own. I'm a grown ass man and I wanted them..... There, I said it.

>>33410354

Don't take me wrong, I'm not against it, if you're allowed under the law and mentally sound to use a firearm, I don't see why not.

>>33410290
Imagine if isis and muslims were started and based in the USA. Imagine that their "religion" and "belief" are accepted by an unknown number in the country, not everyone will actively participate, but enough will turn a blind eye at best and cooperate with actual insurgents at worst.

Who also lives and works in the same country? Families of soldiers and cops. People who work the factories and companies related to supplies and defense. Infrastructure is open and accessible to all. The fucking list goes on.

>>33410369
That was my point. No jab at anyone.

>>33410334
Fighting on foreign soil is extremely different than fighting in your own country you fucking walnut

For one you know most of the layout very well and also you likely have knowledge of the citizens taking part in the militia

Entirely different scenarios

>>33410354
I'm a grown ass man and I want guns to close with, engage, and destroy agents of tyranny, weather they are from a foreign or domestic entity.

assymetric warfare works. especially against first world nation states.

>>33410372
Freedom of religion does not apply when there is active violence perpetrated on others in the name of said religion.

Boy, this did turn into pol quickly...

>>33410381
except the citizens in the militia gain advantages too. fact, domestic insurgencies gain the biggest advantage of all, well placed traitors inside the tyrant's forces.

>>33410389
I live to serve. And this discussion has played out exactly like this, on this board, for longer than either you or I have been on /k/.

>>33410290
>Implying the military would want to turn their guns on their countrymen
>Implying that even if they did, there wouldn't be massive outrage that they did
>Implying that minutemen weren't BLACKPOWDERCANNON'd and SHIPOFTHELINE'd
>Forgetting that we lost a war against a bunch of rice farmers hiding in holes with SKSes

>>33410259
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.

>>A well regulated militia
The founders believed that all men of military age should be part of their local militia. The Swiss army is actually probably a lot closer to what our founders would have wanted. The founders feared a professional standing army, and believed that a militia (ordinary citizens with their own weapons) should be maintained at a local level to respond quickly to external threats, tyrannical government, or emergency. These militia could then be called up by their state Governor to act in concert as an armed force. They were not under federal control.

The founders would be absolutely pissed if they saw the National Guard, or the militarized police force in the US.

>>being necessary to the security of a free State

A state that is unable to defend itself is not a state.

>>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

"The People" here means all able bodied men of military age. Arms is a general term referring to weapons in general. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means just that. The founders did not envision weapon restrictions. Americans in the revolutionary war fought with the same weapons as the British. Hell, cannons were privately owned, as well as warships. The founders would have scoffed at the idea of limiting what kind of weapons the people could own, as they expected the Militia to BE their military force, the idea of preventing civilians from owning "military grade" weapons is laughable. If that had been the case the American Revolution would have failed utterly. Militia/Civilian weapon ownership was expected to be on par with whatever weaponry the Military used.

It's worth noting that the British learned from the American revolution, and imposed strict gun control in their other colonies.

File: genocidelaws.png (1MB, 850x930px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 850x930px

>>33410259
There is absolutely no possible reason to deny gun laws. Nope, not one. No trend at all.

>>33410381
>>Fighting on foreign soil is extremely different than fighting in your own country


Yeah, fighting in your own country means politicians, public officials, your kids, friends, and extended family are all valid targets for the opposition. Or did you never read anything about the IRA or the Balkans. Civil wars are fucking horrible once they get started, and there is really no way to prevent that short of overnight mass internment of anyone you suspect to be an opponent, gulag style.

>>33410411
Yeah. People tend to forget that criminals follow the law.......

>>33410396
underrated post

File: it's super effective.png (487KB, 699x534px) Image search: [Google]

487KB, 699x534px

>>33410259

>>33410290
>tfw the white house orders the glassing of major cities with weapons of war to defeat ar-15 toting peasants

>>33410398
the people means everyone because it's not the militia who has the right to bear arms but everyone, a natural right to bear arms exists regardless of where or when it is necessary, otherwise it wouldn't be much of a right

>>33410290
What people leave out is any civil war would have a 100% chance of coup d'etat, and massive ammouts of military equipment would quickly fall into the hands of millitamen/rebels.

>…that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic...

It's literally every soldiers duty to defect if the civil war is over the construction being infringed.

>>33410381
Asking a voulenteer army to openly fire on US citizens is an entirley different scenario than anything the United States has faced, and 90% of U.S. personel said they would not fire on U.S. citizens.
>inb4 but the civil war!
we are much less sectionalized today.

>>33410259
Essentially, the "right to bear arms" is recognised as absolutely essential to the maintenance of a free state, just like free speech and free press are, and thus is an essential human right that absolutely cannot be denied or infringed. This right is therefore protected by American law, albiet way too fucking flimsily. The issue is that other constitutional rights, like free speech, are restricted when the exercise of these rights is seen as posing a threat. For example, "free speech" does not cover the incitement of violence or the making of threats. So why not guns? Some people see certain levels of exercising the right to bear arms as a threat to the public good (or to their own power) and so want such rights restricted. However, a view that often starts with relatively simple and sane restrictions (keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill or consistently violent without cause) often turns into muh chillins, guns is ebil, nobody needs, et cetera. As a Canuckistani citizen, our gun laws are much more restrictive but still free compared to, say, Bongistan. For example, it's been some time since we had to register long arms and can still own ARs and handguns (albeit only for sporting purposes) and our licensing process is fairly easy and cheap. If you can afford to buy an SKS and feed it, you can afford a license and the requisite safety course. On the other end, we have extensive by-name ban lists, no right to defend ourselves with guns in our homes or to carry (except of course for hunting and sport) and still must register restricted weapons like handguns. It's still not good but it could be worse. I don't mind needing to have a license and a safety course- what bothers me is ban-lists and registries. I can't have my raifu and it makes me very sad.

>>33410496
coup detat implies a subversive takeover by a faction within the government, e.g. CIA.
Not a civilian revolt.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

>>33410381

>bombing your own infratructure
>all of the collateral damage from airstrikes suddenly becomes a huge problem because they're american civillians this time

Amendment II

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.

Amendment III

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV

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.

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

>>33410520
>>33410524
>>33410529
>>33410530
knigga he asked about the 2nd not all of them.

Amendment VIII

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

>>33410493
I'm just talking about the founders intent. I'm cool with there being zero restrictions on who can own a weapon, which makes more sense in modern context where we don't have communities or towns that get their militia together every month or two to drill and practice maneuvers.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

>>33410501
I think a better example would be the Whiskey Rebellion.

Even the Civil War wouldn't be firing on US citizens, as the people of those states had seceded and were technically not part of the US anymore. The politicians knew that, which is why they treated it as a war against a foreign nation, but wouldn't acknowledge it publicly.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

File: 1427908829047.jpg (144KB, 819x783px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 819x783px

>>33410259

>>33410533
it needs context, fuckface. you want to understand the intent of the authors? read the rest of the document. now go outside and light yourself on fire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_NzZvdsbWI

>>33410547
Whiskey Rebellion is a bit worse of an example, because the Republic and it's authorities were still developing.
A civilian revolt (anything at or more than 1-2% of the population) would most likley result in revolt victory.

File: 1467703814929.gif (380KB, 1500x2700px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 1500x2700px

>>33410259
P E R T I N E N T

>>33410381
>Fighting on foreign soil is extremely different than fighting in your own country you fucking walnut
>For one you know most of the layout very well and also you likely have knowledge of the citizens taking part in the militia

And yet you COMPLETELY neglect the most important fact of your statement that it's "extremely different"
>Half of the armed forces if not more would either refuse or defect because killing their own countrymen would be considered unconscionable.

>>33410385
That isn't the point. The point is to imagine a fundamentalist insurgency in the US (similar to the type of insurgency that ISIS, the Taliban, Al-Quada, etc. are), it has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with the style of fighting. Asymmetric Warfare is a bitch that the US doesn't have a great history of.