You get to rewrite the 2nd Amendment. What changes do you

>>33503287
Nothing.

>>33503287
everyone can have a weapon of any sort
the right thereof shall not be infringed

>>33503287
You can only own and use any weapon of any sort if you either have a mare-fleshlight or a ponysona

>>33503287
All gunz are good
No gunz shall be discrimnated based on size or function
And no, right of the people does not mean "right of the militia" you fucking leftist snowflakes

No expiration date

>>33503433
>recreational nukes

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

44KB, 827x628px

>>33503287
None
Only slack jawed faggots would say other wise

>>33503287
Because of the spirit of the second amendment, the standard issue rifle of the US military at the time should be used as a standard of what the people should be allowed to have.

>>33503287
I specify the common citizen gets anything the military is allowed to own. without permission.

>>33503299
fpbp

>>33503454
This.

File: 1485828947476.jpg (159KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1280x960px

>>33503287
put SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED in bold so politicians stop looking over it

>>33503287
>everyone replying "none"
look fellas, we can all agree that it's plain language and it takes a slobbering moron to misunderstand it. Unfortunately, guess what most people (especially politicans) are these days?
I would drop the militia clause, and expand the definitions of "the people" and "arms." Something like
"The right of all people to keep and bear non nuclear arms, shall not be infringed by any federal or state government."

>>33503287
If I could clarify it for modern english users (I.E. the illiterate) I'd write, "The state shall not limit, restrict or regulate the ability of citizens to arm themselves in the manner they see fit, nor shall it permit any persons or organization to do likewise. No weapon or manner of armament shall be considered illegal for a citizen to own, nor shall the responsible use, traffic or display of weapons be prohibited from public venues."

>>33503993
>Non-nuclear

What are you, gay?

I would explicitly clarify that Congress, state, and local governments have zero power to write laws that restrict the type or quantity of arms that a free citizen of the United States may own, carry, or use.

>>33506324
So what you essensially want is that nobody should be able to change a law?

>>33506329
Right, zero firearms laws of any kind except "don't use guns to commit crime."

>>33506329
Hey, they can amend the constitution if they want, right after they pull a two thirds majority of the states outa their asses.

I would probably go into detail about what a militia is (so people cant say that the FFs were just talking about the national guard) and make clear that bearing arms refers to any weapon available both when it was written as well as into the future, regardless of features or perceived capabilities. Probably provide prescient examples like mags higher than 20 rounds or the ability for multiple rounds fired with a single trigger pull.

Refocus on the concept that it means no fucking stupid bans and other stuff.

I would probably also include a clause that clarifies that arms do not mean any and all weapons or devices, and that weapons that are not 'arms' such as nukes could be restricted or controlled as seen fit by the rules and bodies that govern those fields of industry/tech/science.

Thus a nuclear device falls under nuclear regulatory space, and would be limited not because it is or is not a weapon, but because of its nuclear status. Same as chemical weapons aren't arms but they would be allowed or banned based on criteria set by the bodies that control such substances (DOT, DEA, etc)

But in general it'd say the right to keep, bear, and express the use of any and all arms by the individual in the service of a better society shall not be regulated.

File: 1490990510041.jpg (144KB, 494x1024px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 494x1024px

>>33503433

File: Download.jpg (6KB, 266x190px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 266x190px

>>33503287
>All ya sick fucks can hav dem gunz and dem ordonances and shit dat goes boom and brrrrrrrrrt and non of those fuckin federal normies gonna take dem gunz n shit from ya cause gunz rule mang

>>33503555
>>33503454
Nah, if anything the founders were farsighted in writing the constitution but they couldn't have forseen how people would "interpret" it 200 years later. I would just add more explicit language to ensure that the original intention wouldn't be lost as language evolved and times changed. In modern times, almost no one depends on hunting for survival and we have had a standing military for decades so our safety from foreign attack isn't a major concern to the average person. However, the second amendments was written so that the populace would have recourse against a tyrannical government, and that's the reason gun rights have been eroded for the last few decades.

DONT TOUCH MY SHIT. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO FUCK PEOPLE UP FOR TOUCHING YOUR SHIT. FUCKING PEOPLE UP TO PROTECT YOUR SHIT SHALL NOT BE FUCKED WITH

In the pursuit defending one's self, Country, and freedoms, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Except for banana clips and those shoulder things that go up. I'm scared.

>>33503287
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I've never understood why they had to throw in that extremely frustrating justification about the militia in the first half. No other amendment includes such a thing. We already had the right to assemble enumerated in the first one so it's not like they had to get their plug in for armed groups of citizens petitioning for redress of grievances, it just sounds like they were literally on the fence so they tossed in the justification to remind potential ratifiers that they need a militia to defend their new country and militia is made up of armed citizenry.

File: pepedali.jpg (32KB, 500x402px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 500x402px

>>33503287
Nothing.

>pic-related
Marxist governments disarm the worker when the revolution is over. As government provides all a citizen could need, crime is eradicated. Without crime, a citizen has no need for weapons. :^)

A lot of tough talk is necessary to stir the people to communist revolution, but no human ruler communist or otherwise would actually want millions of guns in his country. The US constitution is a wonderful thing.

>>33503287
you can't be an american if you don't have a gun on you at all times.

>>33503467
All jokes aside, this is the best one

>>33503467
This

>>33506522
>In modern times, almost no one depends on hunting for survival
City faggot detected

Stop projecting

>>33503287
"The 2nd Amendment only applies to people who have gone trough at least 2 months of military training."

Ban all weapons. They lead to violence and therefore must not be handled by any white men who own land.

I would remake the entire american constitution because fucking americans think it is still acceptable to live by laws that are centuries old

also most motherfuckers need to learn the rules of law priority when two laws are in conflict, such as newer laws being above older laws and specific laws (like a regional decree) being above a general law (like a fucking constitution)

>>33503287
Fuck you commie

>>33503287
"Only white people who aren't fucktards are entitled to this article's rights"

>>33507076
>2 months minimum

So basically marines and no one else since you know the fucking supreme court would rules lawyer only basic being recognized as being training. Not to mention why the fuck would you need basic military skills if you're just some lady who wants a CC?
i mean, I get you're going for a militia angle but this would be interpreted very, very poorly.

>>33506577
Because in the verbiage of the day the militia was a reference to all able bodied men. It wasn't a reference to organized military forces in the way we use the term "militia" today.

Their use of the term "well regulated" also had a different meaning. It didn't mean controlled or regulated, it meant "well trained' as in all able bodied men should know how to use a gun.

These definitions have been recognized by SCOTUS numerous times,

>>33507102
Poor quality bait euro, you need to step it up.

>>33507115
>implying bait

>>33507076
There's nothing in the 2A that says you need 2 months training. As I said in response to another poster, using the verbiage of the day the term "well regulated" meant well trained, and the militia was a reference to all able bodied men, so "a well regulated militia" meant all able bodied men should know how to use a gun.

>>33507132
do you even understand the point of the thread you cunt

>>33503467
>government puts out a law stating the military is only allowed to own the armaments they have now and future ones must be confirmed to be allowed by the government
>you are now only allowed to own the exact same guns as the military has and as there guns go out of use you then have to hand yours in

>>33503287
the only change i would make would be to dissolve the 9th circuit court of appeals as they are the root of all constitutional misinterpretation and legal misapplication

Include rifles, pistols, machine guns, smgs, assault rifles, artillary, armed vehicles, bioweapons, and nukes.


But chemical weapons should stay regulated

>>33507147
>But chemical weapons should stay regulated
SHALL

>>33507102
We already have a means to change the Constitution. They're called Amendments. It's been done 27 times.

The Constitution defines the entire structure of our government. It restricts the power of our government. It defines the system of checks and balances as well as defines the House, the Senate, the Presidency, and our judicial system.

It's an amazing document. Just because it's 240 years old doesn't make it outdated.

The only reason to "remake" it would be to install a dictatorship. Don't be an ignorant dumbass.

>>33507161
>dictatorship
there is literally nothing wrong with dictatorships considering how shitty democracies are in times of need

although I must be thankful for the few times they work out for the actual best interest of the people(like the last american election) the democratic system has turned into a joke that instead of doing the best of the country and its citicens it has degraded into a popularity contest where the objective is not to make good laws but laws that will make politicians look good in order to be reelected

Nowadays one can only imagine the wonders that competent people would make for a country if they were freed of the burden of having to appeal to the retarded masses

>>33507241
>government is stupid so lets give them supreme power and trust the guy in charge will be good.

get the fuck outta here ceasar

>>33503287
Add: kill all commies and idiots that take Karl Marx seriously.

>>33506307
A sacrifice is necessary to make sure niggers and women don't get nuclear codes.

>>33507252
you are retard who either
a)understand perfectly the point but changes what it meant as to not look wrong
b)can't even understand the point

because I fear it is "b" I'll spell it out for you the most simple way possible
"democratic governments are retarded and incompetent, so lets give a group of competent people supreme power"

>>33503287
>hammer and sickle
>same Icon of the nation that did not allow firearms to the peasants

Eat a dick, commie loser. Name the commie nation that did allow american tier gun rights.

>>33507285
>Name the commie nation that did allow american tier gun rights.

jugg of saliva did. there was a milita arsenal in every city more or less and if you didn't own a gun of your own, you could pick one up there to go hunting etc. - they began to stop that after people started murdering animals with AKs and SKSs en masse.

>>33507160
NOT

>You get to rewrite the 2nd Amendment. What changes do you make?

I'd add a clause that forces America to go to war against any country that restricts gun rights.

t. Australian.

File: 1115639153523.jpg (35KB, 362x403px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 362x403px

>>33503299
FFBBBFFF!

>>33506329
An amendment is different from a law, Sinbad

File: 1486006925553.png (120KB, 316x320px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 316x320px

>>33506453
Kek

>>33503287
Shouldn't "Shall not be infringed" make it unconstitutional to take away from people who aren't allowed to have guns under current law?
ie. Felons

It is the people's responsibility to own military arms to prevent tyranny. That's what I'd add to prevent any gun grabbing on those grounds

>>33503993
>shall not be infringed by anyone
ftfy. Knowing politicians, they'd find some way to get around the "by federal or state governments" part.

>>33503299
Fpbp

>>33506577

Because the constitution is vague sometimes in regards to collective and individuals.

They probably implied militia as in state forces under the control of states, and not federal forces nor citizens under their own control.

I think people today don't realize how much legitimacy people gave their state governments had back then. They really did believe in democracy as giving the state the will of the people.

Its something libertarians don't get about early American society.

>>33503287
What fucking commie made this shit?

>>33503287
"the workers"
Good way to fuck up since that can easily be redefined.

>>33503460
>Because of the spirit of the second amendment, the standard issue rifle of the US military at the time should be used as a standard of what the people should be allowed to have.
then go apply that line of thinking to everything else in the Bill of Rights and see what happens

>>33506427
wtf is the "NAP"? really, I've tried googling it and all I get is some computer software bullshit

>>33508594
Non Aggression Pact, I think. Basically "don't fuck with me and I won't fuck with you." Regardless of ethics/morals. For example, if you were to stop a rapist, you'd be violating the NAP. The rapist is also violating the NAP, but it would be up to the victim to stop the rapist.

>>33503454
You forget how many slack jawed faggots are drawn to politics. Simplify the parts that give them trouble:

> A well armed populace being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear all arms shall not be infringed

>>33508537
>mfw leftyfags now consider obese pangendered queer muslim trannies on welfare as "workers"

>>33503287
>No military grade weaponry
>Everyone who wants a gun has to make it themselves
>All civilians who want a license must'n't have a mentally disturbed person in the house
>No Tumblrinas can have one

>>33503287
probably remove the ambiguity about the militia

>>33506299
This is lit.

>>33507354
BE

>>33508708
Wew lad, what hitler youth rally did you just blow in from? Was Obama leading the meeting this time or was it ol' George Dubya?

>>33503993
>non-nuclear
>implying VX is okay to CC

As much as muh recreational nuke, etc is great for bantz, the reality would become significantly less fun once ISIS buys a nuke from the US and uses it

Or any political adversary for that matter.

>china wants to be most military
>pays people to buy nukes/VX, etc in US

WMDs (nuclear or chemical or whatever) cannot be publically available. Shit, even countries can't use them without breaking every convention ever

>>33508771
I don't think you understand how expensive nukes are to acquire and maintain

File: image.jpg (221KB, 636x926px) Image search: [Google]

221KB, 636x926px

Workers does not include counter revolutionaries, the Bousqusie, enemies of the state, or pretty much anyone who pisses off the party leadership.

Under communism everyone is an enemy. It's just a matter of time.

File: 1489617463188.jpg (90KB, 960x925px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 960x925px

>>33503287
kill yourself leftist scum

>>33506299
>Organizations

Good luck fighting corporate armies when they decide to eminent domain your ass to death.

>>33503287
basically re-write it as-is cept very carefully worded in modern legal terms explaining in detail, word by word, what "shall not be infringed" means

definition of shall
definition of not

etc so theres absolutely no question or alternative way it can be spun. zero interpretation needed

"Every citizen has the right to own weapons at home and use them, either for common defense, his own defense, against any illegal agression which would put in jeopardy the life, members or freedom of one or several citizens"

-Article X of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789.

That article was discarded in the final draft for the following reasons :

"The right declared in discarded article X was obvious in its nature, and one of the main guarantors of political and civil freedom, that no other institution can replace."

The writers of the declaration outlined that owning weapons was a natural right, existing everywhere since the dawn of time, making it "a superior and unyielding principle, which forces itself not only upon the authority of a determined state, but to the authorities of all states."

The only thing I would add is "right to own and carry any weapon anywhere"

>>33508877
I do, and im not saying any dindu could buy one. But a country? An organization?

>>33503287
Just because Karl Marx accidentally said something good doesn't mean he wasn't a retarded, huge, workshy chode.

>>33503287
Nothing.

Though I would try to have it where you need a license, but all you have to do is take a 3 hour class and demonstrate that you know the golden rules of how to handle a firearm. Thats it

>>33508676

The 2nd amendment is about the states rights to have their own military, and the feds can't say no.

A democratically elected republic represents the will of the people.

>>33507076
Statist fudd detected

>>33507241
The stupidity of NatSoc, gentlemen

>>33509386
neetsocs like to think they won't be the ones with a boot under their necks after the RaHoWa

>>33503460
Fun fact:Rifling wasn't used by militaries before the minié ball (1848),but civilian hunters used them since the 1500s.So,if the standards of the time were adopted,civilians should be allowed to get railguns and laser cannons.

>>33509468
t. antifa

>>33509060
Yes he was but even a retarded chode can say something cool once in a while

>>33508652
it is the non aggression principle, and what you just said is false the rapist.It is initiating force and anyone is allowed to stop him as the aggressor.

>>33509750
Just had a short circuit.
rapist is initiating force*

>>33503287

>The people shall not be denied any weaponry regardless of type, size, function, intended use, or destructive capability under any circumstance.

>>33509808
The penalty for violating this amendment is to be hung by the neck until dead

>>33508676
I like this, bit I think something about the populace having parity with the established military should be worked in there because
>You have one gun for each person in your household? That's well-armed to me!

>>33508652
False. If the rapist is violating the NAP you're allowed to fuck with them.

File: 1478673660001.jpg (257KB, 861x1000px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 861x1000px

>>33507367
>America takes over the world and gives every single person on the planet the protections and freedoms of the constitution
Yes, please

>>33509584
Shit. I better get working on my lazer gun for hunting big boy animals like grizzley, moose, lions, tigers, and even your mom.

The later, only a REAL big boy can handle. Like me, im a real boy.

>>33503287
Put some common sense restrictions in it.
Pretty appalling that americans can own weapons of war

>>33503287
It's too wordy. I would tighten it up some:

"The Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Plain and simple. No troublesome punctuation, no room for revisionist interpretation. All these other motherfuckers ITT who are going all word nerd on it are overlooking the fact that the more detailed you make it, the more restrictive you make it. Every excess word and comma is another weak spot that will be exploited at some point in the future.

>>33508594
The None Aggression Principle. There are two interpretations of it:

1: It's worthless because it's just a more direct statement of the ethical principles of liberalism

2: It's one of the most aggressive moral principles that heavily favors propertied classes

It's proponents argue the second.

>>33509386
>t. Member of the retarded mass
Fuck off, democracy is worse than a dictatorship and you know it

>>33509750
>>33509854
No. If that were the case, what would even be the purpose of having the NAP?

>>33503467
>billionaire buys an F-22

>>33503460
So what you've just done is eliminated civilian shotgun and pistol ownership, and restricted gun owners to 1 style and caliber of rifle. Libs will also push legislation for military style controls on storage and ammo, meaning that you turn your rifle back into the armory when you're done at the range and you have to account for your ammo.

In the end this all really pointless because no matter what it says the Constitution literally does not matter at this point. It's toilet paper. The government doesn't give a shit about what it says, so who's going to stop them?

>>33506324
Instead of saying what you would do, just do it. It's not as easy as you think.

>>33510005
>that guy off of greese buys an F-16
I cant remember his name, but Its no different. He even built a runway right up to his house.

>>33509990
The NAP doesnt exist in our society. Its an ideaology, but not everyone goes by it, and most just dont care and do what they want to others.

Its not a law. Its not a commonly practiced principle, other than the "stand your ground" and most self defense laws.

Its all just baised on the "do on to others what you expect done on to you."

>>33506345
>except

If you allow any exceptions, the grabbers will use them as a basis to create more and drive them up your ass.

>>33508652
You could always defend others on their behalf

>>33507074

He's right you stupid hill billy faggot.

86% of Americans live in the cities. The other percentage in huge towns where it's becoming like cities. There might be some hunters there though very few. And then the smallest percentage. Then middle of nowhere donkey fucking retards like you who hunt in order to survive.

I have no issue with hunting mind you. Just double digit I.Q. retards who think they're the center of the universe. He's right. Very little people hunt for survival in this day and age.

>>33507074
You misunderstood my post. I live in the country and enjoy hunting, but even the majority of people who live away from civilization still go into the city every so often to buy stuff including food; hunting supplements food, but isn't a necessity. It's a common argument that anti-gun people use to say "See? Hunting isn't necessary, therefore guns aren't necessary and should be banned". Obviously hunting with guns is a major benefit of the 2nd amendment, but it was designed to be much more robust than that because hunting is a subset of firearm ownership.

>>33506413
>in the service of a better society shall not be regulated.

Fatal flaw right there. That phrase will lead to a complete and total ban within a generation. Gun owners will be constantly defending every activity they do as being a social service. Say goodbye to all forms of recreational shooting, because they're not of service to society. You'll be restricted to punching paper at 25 yards at the range, because that's what society decided is the best way to be of service. Oh, and it's of greater service to society if you keep your guns at the police station. That way, if you're dead or incapacitated your guns are still available to society.

See how that works out?

>>33509990
What?
You just don't get it.
Breaking the NAP means you are subject to retaliation from everyone.
The NAP is between all individuals, not a one-on-one deal.
Are you retarded enough to be incapable of understanding as much?

>>33507076
Do you think before you post this shit?

>>33510156

You can't get him to understand that. He's probably a fud. And if he isn't, he's most definitely too retarded to see that playing politics with the leftists isn't working.

All second ammendment supporters should just come out and say it like it is. The guns are to protect us and our future generations from Tyrannical Governments and to insure our freedoms.

That is it's first and most important purpose. All this beating around the bush

>muh hunting
>muh plinking
>my sport
>muh self defense

Great things that come from gun ownership and i dont wish to see them gone. But not the purpose of the 2A

>>33510227
No, thats the purpose of shit posting.

>>33507076

Let's say you're right. Then my rights are being trampled on because i was a Muhreene but now live in Los Angeles where CC is illegal. What are you gonna do about it

>>33510190
The main problem with the NAP is it can be abused via commercialisim (friendly neighborhood anthrax seller....pest control!) and it assumes all participants will have self preservation.

File: 1488587687058.gif (1MB, 800x667px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 800x667px

>>33503287
God what a shitty quote used by dumb fuck leftists to pretend they aren't anti-gun.

Read the full quote in the context in which it was uttered. Marx was referring to the need for workers to arm themselves to fight the upcoming revolution that he predicted to happen soon. He says nothing about private gun rights or gun rights AFTER the revolution.

Lenin said very similar things, but after the revolution, he confiscated guns from the peasants and implemented extremely restrictive gun laws. Communists are a blight.

>>33507324
Tito's Yugoslavia had very strict gun control. You have no idea what you are talking about.

>>33507102
>think it is still acceptable to live by laws that are centuries old

You mean like England and all 52 of the Commonwealth countries? The basis of their law is the Magna Carta, dating from 1297.

And then there's French law, based on the Napoleonic Code of 1804, which was itself based on Roman laws which are thousands of years old.

Unless you're Chinese or in an Islamic hellhole, you're probably living under Commonwealth or Napoleonic law. Fix your own outdated shit before you start bitching about ours.

>>33507102
>specific laws (like a regional decree) being above a general law (like a fucking constitution)

That's ass backwards, and a perfect recipe for anarchy. You would have ever-smaller political subdivisions ignoring the laws of the larger entities above them, until you get to the point of the smallest political subdivision (citizens) ignoring all of the laws.

Are you pissed off because you got put on restriction or something? Don't leave your bong on the window sill where your mom can see it when she comes home, retard.

>>33503299
>>33503529
>>33507501
>>33508316
>t. idiots
>not adding taxation of guns and ammo as infringing
>not adding any and all attempts to restrict the buying and possessing of guns and ammo as acts of treason mandating the death penalty as the minimum punishment
if these were added we'd have no gun control, period.

>>33507269
>so lets give a group of competent people supreme power"

Who decides on the members of that group?

>>33503287
I'd be more specific as to say
"morons, that means any firearms during any time period. Fuck you you're not regulating guns unless you get rid of this amendment, bitches"

>>33510114
That can easily lead to a dictatorship.
"Protect them from themselves"
>>33510190
Then the NAP is retarded and constantly being violated.

>>33510536
The smart ones would find a way to get there and be in power. With democracy, you only need to be charismatic and rich.

File: 220px-Augusto_Pinochet.jpg (15KB, 220x298px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 220x298px

>>33509904
I'm still waiting for your argument.Oh wait you have none.

>>33509848
no you have to the old French or Roman thing
.eg conscript the poor and commission the rich
raid and pillage all you neighbours
to the victor go the spoils

File: 731a699e7fbd05e2bf52610acf9d8b10424c4b23a0177f52e320b89884e12ea3.gif (3MB, 415x352px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 415x352px

>>33506299
Absolute best alternative.

>>33503287
"The congress shall make no law preventing or hindering the establishment or existence of regulated State militia.

The right of the individual to bear arms shall not be infringed."

That wording is more clear that the intention to to prevent Federal monopoly of force both at the governmental level (States rights) and at the individual level.

muskets only, if technology or weapons ever become better ban that shit immediately. Nobody needs a automatic assault rifle

>>33510753
Oh no, i wasnt arguing. I was LITERALLY saying that. I just threw tge your mom joke in because im autistic like that.

>seriouslu, theres no sarcasn in this post

>>33507241
don't be fooled its all dictatorial and elitist
democracies just shift the power to people who manipulate though the skill of deception and diversion
a good look at the history of Athens shows nothing more than rabble either mindlessly acting in self interest or being roused for purposes they have no understanding of

>>33503287
MODS ARE GAY AND FAGGOTS

File: I hate the yankee nation and everything they do.jpg (83KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 850x400px

>>33503287
>thinking that a piece of paper protects your freedom

>>33510533
All of those things are infringement already. They would just be ignore, just like the very plain English of the 2A is already.

>>33510942
Well they worship it like a golden calf, so it better protect my freedom, otherwisr ny guns will.

File: 1491113706894.gif (2MB, 270x188px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 270x188px

>>33503287
People who think the Constitution is what protects their rights are shortsighted in the extreme. Typical plebs with now perspective or vision. What matters is whether the public has the WILL to stop the government WHEN they try to take the guns. At every loss all I have ever seen is capitulation. The direction this is going is obvious and Trump is making things WORSE. He is simply leading the conservative leftward--maybe not on gun rights but on other things. It's classic and common sense strategy: pace and lead. Trump is the ONLY person who can moderate the public on immigration, because he was cunning enough to gain their trust. If he betrays us, people will rationalize the defeat and moderate their opinions rather than damage their own ego for trusting him. When rural Whites are a minority, then kiss your rights goodbye. Hillary actually WOULD have been better because it would have galvanized the opposition. TRUMP IS KEKING YOU! All presidents moderate themselves when they gain power.
>inb4 share blue
I'm not anti-Trump in the sense of being counter-Trump; I am anti-Trump because I am ultra-Trump

File: tmp_19244-1491049409001-1346099518.png (228KB, 470x265px) Image search: [Google]

228KB, 470x265px

>>33508744
INFRINGED

"Do whatever you want. Leave everyone else alone. Anyone can own any guns."

>>33511343
>Do whatever you want
>Leave everyone else alone.
Surely no logical confusion would result from such a vulgar wording of the law. Considering they misinterpretation of words like "regulated" and "shall not be infringed" but nah... your opinion has enriched us all. Thank you.

>>33510942
This.
Constitution was a nice idea, but we're all fucked and there's nothing we can do about it.

>>33510722
So, in other words, the most ruthless and corrupt bastards with the most resources. Wealthy sociopaths.

And you somehow think that's a better system?

"A civilian population armed to the same degree as the military is indispensable to protect the security and safety of a free country. As such, no form of limitation upon the ownership of any form of weapon may be passed by any branch of government."

>>33511706
People don't rally around a piece of paper or an abstract idea. It sounds nice when you're giving speeches, but people fight with their hearts. We need a cohesive identity, and not the corrupted one we are taught in schools. And by 'we' I don't mean the entire US. There is more visceral hatred within these borders than the rest of the world, which makes sense because Americans don't travel outside the country.
>>33511793
Popular support does matter. Tyrants can only push the people so far. It is the lesson of the Sword of Damocles. But trust in your own education, because you were taught by progressives and surely they will tell you if their system is flawed.

>>33510336
>He says nothing about private gun rights or gun rights AFTER the revolution.

Kind of a strawman. Marx was opposed to human rights, as he viewed them as being reflective and existing only to serve the interests of the wealthy rather than of the masses. EG, the conceptualization of Rights is linked to bourgeois ideology. SO if we are to draw anything from Marx regarding "gun right" he would be opposed in the way that we tend to phrase the issue.

>Lenin said very similar things

Lenin also said he wanted to get rid of firearms after the revolution. Other Revolutions built themselves off of Lenin, rather than directly from Marx.

Marx not only didn't say anything about guns after Revolution (aside from saying he would like to hunt), the fucker spent his entire life savings on them.

That's not to say that Marx wasn't retarded because, frankly. he spent his life savings on guns. But the lefts position of Firearms and Firearms ownership is fairly diverse which is why they can't stop fighting each other.

>>33503287

>any politician, media personality, head of corporation, or education employee who calls for gun control or any anti-second amendment legislation must be dragged into the streets, stripped naked, have a rope tied to their ankles and pulled by no less than ten men as crowds beat them to death with sticks and chains.

>>33511922
>kind of a strawman because marx was opposed to human rights

Gun rights have nothing to do with human rights, unless you mean to say that Marx opposed the concept of rights.

>marx spent life savings on guns

Citation needed you idiot.

>but the lefts position of firearms is fairly diverse

Every communist regime had very strict gun laws, and almost all gun control support comes from leftist parties in almost every country.

File: 1491087847915.jpg (58KB, 614x376px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 614x376px

>>33511922
>why they can't stop fighting each other
HA!!! Consider the fact about 2/3 of the political spectrum, outside the allowed dissent of extreme conservatives and some libertarians, will all agree that the progress we have made in the last 150 years was in the right direction; and absolutely everyone is against the absolute right. Meanwhile you have literal leftist terrorists working in higher education, being celebrated, and printed on t-shirts. We lowered our flags to half mast for Mugabe for God's sake!

>>33512082
Also where did Lenin say he wanted to confiscate guns after the revolution?

File: IMG_4056.jpg (60KB, 605x412px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 605x412px

>>33503287
I've been saving this picture for a while now

>>33511793
Yes. That is objectively a better system.

>>33508457
Its not vague at all faggot. Name ONE place where the phrase "the people" refers to a collective.

>>33512094
>Also where did Lenin say he wanted to confiscate guns after the revolution?

I believe that was the Disarmament slogan.

>>33508965
Hey man, any corporation that can afford a bigger army than the state is de facto, the new state. Also, if americans ever allowed this to happen without engaging in good old armed revolt, we'd deserve it.

File: M2 Carbine.jpg (204KB, 4270x1650px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 4270x1650px

>>33503287
There shall be no restrictions or limitations of any kind of ownership, purchasing, storage or transfer of any weapons, weapon parts, ammunition or accessories.

>>33503287
add "any law restricting the right to arms is an infringement of the right to bear arms"

>>33509386
He is right.

>>33512408
>state is de facto
I agree, and that is the only thing that matters on the international stage unless there is a world government.

>smoke drugs
>run guns
>nail sluts and fuck the law

>All citizens, both as part of a militia and as individuals, shall have the right to keep and bear arms.
>The previous emendment does not apply to weapons of a biological, chemical or nuclear nature, as well as landmines

Inb4 recreational nuke fags

"Anyone that shows unusual obsession with ants of any kind and owns unusual amounts of ants and shows no interest in removing ants from their own domain shall be kept away from any firearms of any kind"

Other than that really.

>>33512887
Now why in the fuck would ants have to do with the second amendment?

Seriously why?

>>33512109
The only difference between your ideal system and the current system is, as you put it, charisma.

Current system, the wealthy sociopath has to convince us to let him be our leader.

Your system, the wealthy sociopath tells us he's our leader and kills or subordinates anybody who says otherwise. Slavery, in other words. And you think that's superior, somehow?

>>33503287
"The right to bear arms and armament, of any form, and the right to defend life and liberty; neither shall be infringed."

>>33512969
Hello newfriend. Antman.

>>33512969
I'm almost as much of a newfag as you are, but I think there was a tripfag on here named antman. He had a host of mental illnesses and the poster you are referring to would like to disenfranchise him for it.

>>33503287
The right to Bear arms.

>>33513089
poetic faggot.

>>33511893
>Popular support does matter.

No shit, Sherlock. There's also a world of difference between governing with the consent of the governed, and running a bloody reign of terror. Tyrants don't like for their subjects to be armed.

>because you were taught by progressives

Actually, junior, the vast majority of my teachers through high school were WW2 vets. When I was in school, education was still considered to be an honorable profession. Now it's thought of as a guaranteed sinecure for those sad, drab little people who come out of college with a degree in gender studies and no idea of how to proceed in the world.

File: 17349858_238215109977296_8606960424050625361_o.jpg (73KB, 1024x717px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 1024x717px

>>33503287
mandatory provisions for people provided by the government if they are unable to purchase it themselves

File: f950b4180caedca72667f7e8733ef4334b878d9389f5a6642b0971f1329e7d68.png (256KB, 552x277px) Image search: [Google]

256KB, 552x277px

>>33513064
The only difference! I don't even.

How about this? If you are going to be the leader of a country for 4-8 years, you have an incentive to loot it as much as you can, give favors, etc., because everything you don't loot is something you can't loot after you're gone. Not only that, but when is the last time any former official was ever held responsible for the poor decisions made in office?

How about a sovereign ruler? What do you think his incentive is if he is essentially the owner of the land? If he is anything like most people, he will want to grow the capital value and maximize his resources so that his land is strong and he has something to pass onto his heirs. Additionally, if the people of the land are too unhappy, he risks losing it all. Not smart.

Here's the thing: you think every sovereign ruler in history was bad because that is what you have been taught in your little world.

Serfs in medieval times were taxed approximately 30%. How well are you doing, citizen?

>>33503287
I'm rather fond of what New Hampshire wanted it to be.
"Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion."

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/SOURCES.HTM#TOC2

>>33513205
>I'm proud to be part of the generation that gave everything away
>Now shut up and pay my social security, too bad you're not getting it, eh junior?

>>33514293
>I'm proud to be part of the generation that gave everything away

Not particularly. I had absolutely no control over when I was born. Are you proud to be a millenial? Why or why not?

>Now shut up and pay my social security, too bad you're not getting it, eh junior?

Why so salty? That issue can be fixed legislatively. Or did that not occur to you? Btw, social security was implemented by the generation before mine. All you have to do is wait until my generation is demographically irrelevant and then sunset social security. It was the precursor to the welfare state social engineering that came out of the 60s. I'm no fan either, because I'll probably be facing adjustments and COLA freezes if I do opt to draw SS when I hit retirement age.

If you're too stupid to change the legacy systems to suit the reality of your generation, then you deserve whatever pile of shit you inherit when the boomers are all gone. Learn from our mistakes, shitposter.

The biggest fucking problem with the 2nd amendment, not helped by its militia part, is that it doesn't specify what it means by what it means by 'the people'.

The two big schools of thought are its about individual rights of citizens, the other is its about the people as collectives. ie the people of Maryland have the right to their own state military and the Feds can't say no.

I really do think that's what it was meant to be, to be sadly honest. At this point the supreme have essentially just settled on a compromise, states can have their own militias, and citizens as individuals can bear arms, but states can regulate that. It could have been worse, the supreme court once ruled that the individuals don't have the right to bear arms according to the 2nd, even though they reversed that decision soon afterwards.

The states at the time of the founding could have official churches and other such things, the feds at the time had no business telling states what citizens could be armed or not as the bill of rights applied only to the Feds (until the 14th amendment) and not to the states, so its weird to say the founders gave the 2nd amendment to individual citizens, because individual citizens would not have been effected by federal policy.

It wasn't the founders who gave individual citizens the right to bear arms so much as it was Abraham Lincoln who did.

>this entire thread
>all the /pol/acks infringing

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

>>33514824
>Learn from our mistakes,
I have, if only you could too, you worthless crusty old fuck. I see nothing but poz after WWII US hegemony: free money for all the third world dictators plus globalism. I sure am glad we killed those Nazis though, look how great Europe is now!
We will change it, and your shit opinion will have no bearing on it. Have fun being remembered as the only generation that is leaving less to their children than they had. Please end your worthless, burdensome life anytime. How do you even know how to internet? Somebody fucked up.

>>33514238
>If you are going to be the leader of a country for 4-8 years, you have an incentive to loot it as much as you can

Bad presidents get 4 years, tops. That alone limits the amount of damage they can do. We learned our lesson from FDR. For all presidents, the first term is mostly about laying the groundwork for getting reelected.

It's apparent that you don't understand our system of government at all. Congress is where all of the corruption and dealmaking goes on. Senators and representatives face the same reelection issues as the president. They're also under the microscope of a scandal-hungry press.

>How about a sovereign ruler? What do you think his incentive is if he is essentially the owner of the land?

Let's ask Marcos. Or Idi Amin. Or Edward II. Or Noriega. Or Chavez. Don't forget Castro. Or Henry III, and his great grandson, Edward III. Sure, there have been good sovereigns. Usually sandwiched between a pair of bad ones. Did Saddam really have the best interests of his people at heart? How long was he in power before his date with the rope? Gadhaffi ruled for decades before being dragged down. And then there's North Korea. Yeah, tell me how good and enlightened all sovereigns are. Some of the worst ones are in office for the better part of a generation.

>you think every sovereign ruler in history was bad because that is what you have been taught in your little world.

Yes. Because sovereigns have the ability and the propensity to ban or restrict private ownership of weapons. That alone makes sovereigns bad. It also makes it difficult for the populace to successfully revolt.

>Serfs in medieval times were taxed approximately 30%. How well are you doing, citizen?

I'm at about 24%, all in. I'm also armed, literate, and not tied to any one piece of land by custom and common law. I seem to recall reading that the serfs were heavily taxed during the reign of Longshanks. That would have been right around the end of the Medieval Warm Period.

>>33503287
"No man shall be denied the right to possess and carry on his person a weapon for the purposes of recreation, hunting, self-defense or defense of his religion, country, and/or family.

Any restrictions imparted upon the purchasing, transfer, carry, and possession of weapons shall apply wholly to all civilian members of the populace equally; including, but not limited to any and all law enforcement officials, those holding public office, and any being otherwise possessing or carrying weapons for utilization on US soil or for use against any being residing withing the United States.

Any restrictions placed on the purchase, sale, or possession of weaponry shall not apply to members of the military, nor shall the military or it's members be permitted to utilize any weaponry restricted from civilian possession against any United States citizen nor any entity located within the United States"

The last part is just to defeat the autistic "recreational nukes" idea. Otherwise, if the Secret Service get machine guns, everybody gets machine guns. If the local SWAT team gets flashbangs, we get flashbangs, etc etc.

>>33511793
>the most ruthless and corrupt bastards with the most resources. Wealthy sociopaths.

You're delusional as fuck if you think that's not the type of politician democracy produces.

>>33515594
>How do you even know how to internet?

Boomers invented the internet, you whiny little bitch.

We will change it, and your shit opinion will have no bearing on it

Which is what I said to do, you ignorant cum dribble.

>Have fun being remembered as the only generation that is leaving less to their children than they had.

Are you pissed off because you have to work for a living? Cry me a river. Get off your ass and do something worthwhile with your life. What do you want, a participation award? Go earn it.

>>33503287
No armament of any form, being usable for both personal and national defense, shall ever under any and all circumstances be restricted in any form.
No form of specialized tax, registry, licensing, or other requirement shall be imposed, enforced, or be decreed to exist regarding an armament.
No accessories for said weapon shall be restricted, including devices for the protection of hearing, the improvement of accuracy, the rapidity of fire, the use of explosive munitions, or other devices.
No expendable munitions, nor expendable items in relation to said armaments are to be restricted.
Ammunition, grenades, rockets, shells, and of course gunpowder shall under no circumstances be subjected to a specialized tax, restriction, or license.

Be it a tiny blade or pistol to a large scale nuclear device or a fleet of armed ships, it shall always be available with no licensing, extra taxes, or other method of trestriction.

>>33503287
like so many have stated already, i'd probably keep it as is or shorten it to "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" while removing the nominative absolute

i'd also consider adding some clause along the lines of "no laws may be enacted, federally or at the state or local level, that restrict or ban firearms by make/model, caliber, features, barrel/overall length, or magazine capacity"

>>33515881
*regardless of recreational purpose.

>>33515811
Dunno about democracy, never tried it. I live in the US. We're a republic. But yes, our politicians tend toward the ruthless, corrupt, amoral, sociopath end of the spectrum. But they cover it up with a thin veneer of charisma. Except Hillary. She just depended of scaring and bullying people into doing what she wanted. Like a sovereign would do.

>>33507102
The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Nothing is allowed to supersede the Constitution. By your logic the state or feds could pass a law saying "well, niggers are property again, LMAO" and it would be fine since it's newer than the 13th amendment.

>>33515149
>The biggest fucking problem with the 2nd amendment, not helped by its militia part, is that it doesn't specify what it means by what it means by 'the people'.

Here is the wording of the 10th Amendment:
"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."

It makes a clear distinction between "the States" and "the people." I think you'd agree that the men who wrote this weren't idiots and kept the language uniform throughout the Constitution and Bill of Rights. To use "people" to refer to the state in one amendment and use it to mean individuals in another is an amateur mistake, and unlike the people arguing the 2nd Amendment is a collective rights, I don't believe these men were morons.

>>33516227
> I don't believe these men were morons.
but they're old, from history! Everyone knows old people from the past are dumber than rocks!

>>33516227

However, that does clash with the first part of the amendment, which does talk about a subset of people in 17th century talk and not individuals. Its awkwardly written and it confuses me why it is so.

Also, it doesn't specify ownership of guns or using guns for self defense, just for militia purposes for 'preserving a free state'.

>lawyer talk.

>>33516360
*18th century talk, I mean.

>>33515732
>Bad presidents get 4 years, tops
Only four years, thank goodnness!
>scandal-hungry press.
Lol
>Sure, there have been good sovereigns. Usually sandwiched between a pair of bad ones.
Name one president who even held the line.
>Because sovereigns have the ability and the propensity to ban or restrict private ownership of weapons
More shortsightedness, as if prodressives won't try to ban firearms. Better for a single man to bear responsibility, instead of this gradual unaccountable backsliding.
>I'm at about 24%, all in. I'm also armed, literate, and not tied to any one piece of land by custom and common law.
Congratulations, you're barely on par with peasants from hundreds of years ago.

>>33515594
>"globalism"

Congratulations! You fell for the meme being pushed by the Kremlin and Beijing!

Globalism in this context is just synonymous with the American superpower pushing it's influcrncet on the world. They don't want to end globalism, they want to be in charge of it.

Being that you portrayed yourself as American, Xi, you should have no problem with America being the sole superpower as the benefits outweigh the negatives, for America. If I have to explain why, then you sir are clinically retarded.

>>33516449
I also want to point out that every cent spent on forwign puppet regime give-aways is another cent spent unsustainably and more of our wealth wasted because we've bought into our own propaganda that colonies should be a liability rather than an asset.

>>33516544
This tbqh, unironic hard-right authoritarian here. I selectively support globalization so long as the United States benefits, even if it causes other countries to lose touch with their own culture.

>>33516546
>muh sustainability

Wew lad. Those investments into regimes prevent the total takeover of said governments by actors other than the us.

>b...but sometimes they do choose something other than the US.

No, nothing is perfect, but the US makes sure that's a bad choice.

>>33516559
Fuck, Im not even hard right, but look at China and Russia. Both are complete shitholes, one already failed at being a super power.

America is by and far the least bad choice.

>>33516544
>American superpower
Translation: multinational corporations, not the American people
>they want to be in charge of it.
See >>33516546
We're in charge as long as taxpayers feed them money.
>then you sir are clinically retarded.
Funny that you accuse me of being Chinese. They oppress Africa much more than we ever did, and more than we seem to allow ourselves to. Self-interest implies someone else is disenfranchised. We are ruling--insanely--by giving our money away. Who is stupid?k

>>33516563
Well, then we better take out China. They don't play by our rules and our rules are bankrupting us.

>>33516603
Speak for yourself poorfag, I'm employed at one of those multinational corporations and they treat me very well.

>>33516603
>Self-interest implies someone else is disenfranchised. We are ruling--insanely--by giving our money away. Who is stupid?k
You act as if giving away money to countries that don't deserve it is integral to globalism, not only that; you act as if throwing poor countries a few scraps can't work in our favor in the long run. Imagine if there was an incredibly valuable resource found in some shithole African country that we wanted access to.

We could
>use our friendly relations to negotiate a fair price for the resource
>blackmail the country out of their US aid in exchange for a more than fair price for the resource
>put on a show where we pretend do one of the above (or both of the above) to bruise the ego of whatever moronic dictator happens to "run" the country and incite a chimpout so that we have an excuse to invade the country for "human rights violations" (ie. take the fucking resource for free as recompense for our peacekeeping efforts)

Go ahead and decry these things as immoral or "jewish", I guarantee you reap the benefits of these sorts of relationships without even realizing it.

File: 080c162300bba3a8d6f91fc39036af5920583d57d2be9440757156087842b36b.jpg (208KB, 1395x1512px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 1395x1512px

>>33516671
I'm not arguing that we're not currently dominating the world or that is good for those currently in power, I am arguing that it's unsustainable and that future generations of Americans will pay the price. That is what's wrong with globalism.

>>33516603
>muh multinationals

Hilarious tinfoil tier bullshit, but even aassumeing it's true, being that they live here it's in their best interest to keep the American populist pacified and comfortable, unlike the shitholes they export the nigger tier jobs to.

>china went into Africa, so smart!

I mean, I'm surprised you even went there, Chang.

>keeping proxy states in power via funding is insane.

Lol, yes, the Chinese way of pissing everyone off they touch is clearly superior.

>>33516638
>let's defuse China's ticking population bomb by getting into a war

How about no?

By the way, I called you Chinese because you are. You will spend the rest of the thread defending Chinese decisions and comparing them favorably to the US.

>>33503287
being the lord has blessed all people with the rights to life liberty and property from birth, no government be it federal state or local shall take the means of the people to defend these god given rights from threats both foreign and domestic by means of any arm or implement that propels projectiles by chemical or other means, or any accessory to such arms be it aesthetic or functional. Bladed arms shall also be protected under this amendment. Furthermore no entity private or governmental has the right to curtail people of these rights at any time in either public or private venue. The only exception are individuals in custody of authorities detained for trial legal charges or incarcerated individuals. Rights must be immediately restored upon release from custody, detention, or incarceration.

>>33516708
It's completly sustainable. What's NOT sustainable is having Chinese and Russian interests run roughshod over the world.

File: 1112.png (82KB, 660x330px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 660x330px

>>33516708
It only needs to be sustainable until space travel (and thus resource mining) becomes more economically viable.

>>33516722
>It's completely sustainable.
Let's see
>Amerishart SUPA POWA
>possibly taxing companies extracting resources by funding warlords
>payoff = less than zero

>Jews from orient
>exploiting agentless Negroes for resources
>payoff = ???

>>33516763
>allowing company's to invest in a country, having the country to the lifting of regulation under the guise of self ownership.

Vs

>oppressing said country to have company's invest, spending your own money and capital to defend said investments with your own troops. Furthermore the populace is well aware they are being exploited by said group and revolution is much higher, this needing more men and capital to pacify and take it back.


Hmmmmmmm, really gets the noggin joggin

>>33516806
> to the lifting of regulation

Do the lifting of self regulation*

I.e, self funded police, government, etc.

File: f0a372c6b50fad08170639dcad462bddef3ef3015e234c091c4265b36d0d0dac.jpg (48KB, 500x532px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x532px

>>33516806
You do not care about Americans. We all understand this is for YOUR benefit, not ours. We could take out China and have this all be over with. All you care about is your models and paycheck.

>>33503467
Ehhh guns yes but "anything" is a bad idea.

Weapons capable of mass indiscriminate destruction of loss of life doesn't allow citizens to defend themselves, merely kill as many people as possible.

Shit like nerve gas or high grade explosives that can demolish an entire skyscaper.

>>33516832
>playing into China's hand by having a conflict thus solving their pesky population bomb.

letting the Chinese go on for about 15 more years will kill more Chinese via unrest than blowing them the fuck out militarily short of nukes (which is a non starter because an American city is not worth a billion rats)

>>33503287
Get in the helicopter

>>33508676
But then it doesn't protect people's right to form militias anymore

>>33510942
That's why the 2A is so important. It's the only law that protects the people's right to mold the other laws even if the gubment doesn't want the change

>>33509003
This sounds great, but do you have a source? I can't find anything in google.

>>33517953
That's not the idea behind the 2nd really. The Militia Act and 10 USC Sec. 311 already establishes that there are two militias in the US- the organized (Nat'l Guard) and the unorganized (citizens) so that is still covered.

>>33503287
I'd get rid of the "shall not be infringed" part so people wouldn't waste thread space saying.
>SHALL
>NOT
>BE
>INFRINGED
with 4 posts because it's god damn annoying

>>33516449
If you don't have a rebuttal, just don't post. Your arguments are getting progressively weaker and more diffuse every time you post. Trying to prop up your failed point with cherry picking, straw manning, and vague ad hom isn't really effective, either.

>Congratulations, you're barely on par with peasants from hundreds of years ago.

Tell me, what's your tax rate? You imply that you're some sort of unencumbered free spirit. Are you even allowed to own weapons?

>>33516546
>every cent spent on forwign puppet regime give-aways

Is cheaper than putting boots on the ground when said regime crawls into bed with interests not our own. Money is always cheaper than blood.

>>33503287
Re writing it to suit your needs makes you no better than antigunners

>>33516638
China is a self-resolving issue. It'll implode in another generation or so. They're running out of resources to patch over the fundamental flaws in their system. This spasm of militaristic build up they're going through is just a point on the continuum, as is their expansionism.

They're rapidly approaching the point where they trigger a disastrous war. It will not end well for them.

>>33503287
>No restrictions on guns except for felons convicted of violent crimes and people who have mental health problems.
>All kids in 7th and 8th grade get gun safety classes teaching handling of guns and the simple things about them.
>Highschool has 2 classes, both basic gun handling, advanced gun handling and operating.
>shooting competitively becomes a national sport run by the government. It sees both a high-school, college and professional level. All funds go directly back into the sport and the fish and game commission.
>No taxes on guns.
>Soldiers are allowed to claim war trophies and keep their service rifles.
>Unwanted service rifles are to be auctioned off or sold as surplus and all funds go to veteran associations.
>the selective service act either no longer exists or women are affected by it too.
>Women are to be put into women only units so that people don't bitch about 'muh strength requirements' and if they have infighting they get court-martialed over their pettiness.

All weapons legal.

Anyone who wants to impose stricter control has to remove their clothing, shove a buttplug the size of a baseball into the rectum and cluck like a chicken while interjecting randomly with racist slurs towards Jew, Blacks, and Hispanics.

Equal application clause:
>Being that the government of the United States derives it's power from it's citizens, all members of government must be citizens.
>No law can be made that does not apply equally to all citizens.
Right to arms enumeration:
>The militia is henceforth defined as all citizens of the United States.
>Effective defense being necessary to maintain a free state, no law may be made that limits the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
>Being that the future evolution of arms is hard to predict, this document should not be misconstrued to only apply to modern arms.

File: 1489713137474.png (273KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

273KB, 480x480px

>>33518537
Alinsky tactics, accuse your enemy of what you're doing. You never refuted a single one of my original arguments. Go back and try again, nigger. If you really think you refuted anything, you're mistaken. What you did was you made excuses, that's all. Sorry what you did wasn't deserving of an argument, only ridicule. Nigger.

File: zardoz.jpg (244KB, 1200x918px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1200x918px

>>33503287

THE GUN IS GOOD!

THE PENIS IS EVIL!

File: 1451855965229.png (89KB, 632x492px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 632x492px

"the rights of the common person and/or individual, to carry any and all arms, shall under no circumstance be infringed"

Would this be appropriate legalese for the gungrabbing politician of today and tomorrow?

>>33518646
>implying we aren't headed for disaster too
We could have defeated the Soviet Union after WWII as well. Just admit the real reason we can't take them: we lack the will. A defensive posture marks the end of empire.

>the only weapon you cannot have is nukes....Jk you can have those too.

File: oper82hard.png (577KB, 610x406px) Image search: [Google]

577KB, 610x406px

>>33503287
No person, except one who has been found guilty by a jury of their peers to be beyond a reasonable doubt guilty of committing deadly violence against an innocent person shall be restricted in any way by any government entity from acquiring, keeping, bearing, or using any object, tool, instrument, or weapon, the use of which can reasonably be targeted against a single individual, to defend their person, property, curtilage, and or in-born rights from deadly violence, forcible restriction, or forcible occupation.

>>33503287
I just remove the first six words.

There, perfection.

File: chrome_2017-02-23_19-58-50.png (635KB, 585x506px) Image search: [Google]

635KB, 585x506px

>>33507102
That's not how our legal system works, bucko.

The constitution was the first law of the republic and it defined what legal priority would be.

>Any law which violates the natural rights including but not limited to those enumerated in the constitution of a person is invalid
>The current constitution takes priority over all other laws except amendments
>Laws passed at a higher level of government take priority over those passed at any lower level.
>Laws which are passed more recently at the same level of government take priority over older laws passed at that same level

>>33521258
>We could have defeated the Soviet Union after WWII as well.

Absolutely. However, our leaders at the time saw no reason to accept the kind of losses that the USSR had taken during the war to do so. The return wouldn't have been worth the investment. And wouldn't you know it, less than half a century later the Soviet Union self destructs. As will China.

A totalitarian regime doesn't have the flexibility to deal with our chaotic style of self government. We're not headed toward an implosion any time soon, we still have a lot of resilience built into our system.

>>33503287
AK47s for everyone!

>>33503287
die in a ditch communist scum

>>33520889
>You never refuted a single one of my original arguments

To begin with, that lukewarm agitprop hardly qualifies as original. But yes, I did refute your arguments. I ignored most of the strawmanning, except the post I'm currently responding to, and answered the ad hom/namecalling in kind as the mood struck me.

Anyhow, I'll repeat my question; what's your tax rate, buttercup?

I answered when you asked, I even overlooked your specious comparison to medieval serfs. Why are you afraid to answer?

>>33503287
"Except for niggers."