I have to write a 200 words pro-gun paper for thursday. Can you

>>34167698
"Shall not be infringed"

>>34167698
>200 words

Middle school is a bitch, amirite?

Federalist papers, Warsaw ghetto, insanity of the 20 th century- Stalin pol pot Hitler etc

Learn to find your own information. It'll be really helpful later on.

Post what you come up with. I'll edit

>>34167727
Yes thank you but, who said that? I need a quote from some US Presidents or Founding Father or someone like this, but everytime I find one some other sites tell me that it's probably fake. I don't want to misquote someone.

>>34167736
The "200 words" is a meme my good friend.

>>34167736
lol 200 words.

Tha'ts a half hearted rant on why government profile barrels are shit. That's not enough words to barely scratch the surface of pro gun discussion. Look, I've already done like a 1/4 of your paper in just this post alone. Please stop this assault on my sensibilities.

>>34167748
The thing is, If I want to make a point, I need a quote from someone really famous and who has influence. And he has to be American. But like as said in my previous post

>everytime I find one some other sites tell me that it's probably fake

That's why I need experts on this matter. I don't need a lot, just one or two quotes to make a point.

maybe you should write a paper on how the second amendment actually has nothing to do with the right to bear arms generally, and that being accepted is the result of arbitrary culture reasons, not law

"Weresoever an arm devised with capacity to fire not less than thirty balls in but one moment without refreshment of powder nor shot, it would be wholly within the rights of man to own such an arm" - George Washington, State of the Union Address 1793

"It is most well that the secessionists have not designed some manner of rapid-firing rifle capable of recieving a large-capacity powder horn. The Union Army would surely be unable to defeat a citizenry thus armed." - Abraham Lincoln, letter to General Grant, 1864

"We can definitely invade the United States. High-capacity clips don't exist yet." - Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto, 1940

>>34167803
You shut your whore mouth.

If it's only 200 words you better be ranting about how Gun Related Deaths are mostly suicides and do not forget to mention Waco and Ruby ridge for that back of the brain thought that the government is also no responsible enough to be the only ones with weapons.

>>34167803
Shut your fucking flaccid hole

>>34167698
>"Guns are fucking rad, don't ban them" -George Washington

>>34167779
"Don't believe everything you read on the Internet".

-Abraham Lincoln

>>34167698
"The Declaration of Independence says all men are created equal, but Samuel Colt made it so."

Libshits love equality, ergo they should love guns.

>>34167698
This sounds like a challenge if you're trying to say as little as possible. I suppose ask them at what point they value their own life over someone elses that they'd fight for it, and throw in some bullshit while leaving it open ended but alluding to it being fucking stupid not to have the agency to protect your well being against people obviously willing to harm you to improve themselves. You can't really use any statistics in 200 words since citing references would take like 5 minutes while trying to tie in relevant stuff.

>>34167803
THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IS SO THAT PEOPLE CAN WIELD MILITARY ASSAULT WEAPONS. It's not for fucking sporting purposes, it's not for target practice, it's to STOP other ARMED MEN INTENT ON RAPING AND PILLAGING you and everything you hold dear. Only champagne liberals that can find lifes so fucking cheap they can use another life as a meat shield to preserve themselves don't seem to understand this.

>>34167815
These are too long, and the two last ones are off topic.

>>34167698
>200 words
>"paper"

>>34167884

"Oh, if only had exercised my right to carry a concealed pistol!" - William Mckinley, dying of gunshot wounds, Sept. 12, 1914

File: arms.jpg (32KB, 227x236px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 227x236px

>>34167818
>>34167829
Can you prove me wrong?

Why does the 2nd Amendment have a prefatory clause while other Amendments in the Bill of Rights do not?

I'm pro gun ownership too, but being "pro-second amendment" is completely backwards and baseless (not that the supreme court needs a base. it's completely arbitrary like I said)

>>34167868
Also if you need a talking point as filler, I think the most reasonable thing would be taxation of weaponry to fund the enforcement of rules around it as that's generally what gets expensive. There are tons of places in life where it's restricted you can't have those things, people only attack Americas stance on it because they want a weaker America.

Here's a real one.

Benjamin Franklin once said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

>>34167977
Was he talking about guns?

>>34167993
I don't know. It's still in the proper context though. It can be applied to losing the second amendment.

>>34168023
>can be applied to losing the second amendment
or buying guns

>>34167769
Quality post friend

>>34167841
The internet wasn't even around when Lincoln was alive idiot

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state." - Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

>>34168043
Joke
--------------
Your head

File: fp.jpg (17KB, 500x307px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 500x307px

>>34168187

>>34167815
Kek

I love watching these guys get triggered. I like guns and im all for the right to self defense and so on but most kommandos are retards who think that the second amendment not only allows for no regulation whatsoever, but somehow magically makes it so guns will always improve society no matter what and suggesting otherwise is ridiculous.

>muh "shall not be infringed"
Lol that doesnt mean anything, what matters is the idea of what your "right to bear arms" actually is. We could honestly and fairly decide it only applies to muskets based on some kind of historical standard the supreme court made up on the spot like they often do (doesnt say what kind of arms now does it, we're letting you have arms kid) and not 'infringe' on your right.

>>34167884
>clearly addresses two major arguments regarding citizens owning assault weapons
>"off topic"

>>34167803
I don't think he can write the paper in Hebrew, rabbi.

>>34168305
It can be objectively deduced that your rights only exist at the absolute ability to defend them. Therefore, citing the right to self preservation, you also have the extended right to adequate means of defense and appropriate levels of force. This is the case for gun ownership period, outside of the specific arguments behind the second amendment (Federalist Papers 28 & 29). But because the threats to your rights evolve with each passing decade, so to must the militia (Citizenry) evolve.

>>34168305

I seriously don't get how people can argue that the 2nd prohibits the state from merely tracking arms transfers and similar.

>>34167938
Im glad about the heller case but yeah the second amendment was written so autistically (seemingly on purpose) that i will secretly admit that liberals have a point about it maybe not covering a private right to own guns.

>>34167977
I think rape is an essential liberty

>>34168335
I agree, maybe there could be some kind of 5th amendment thing there though.

>>34168335
do you honestly ,trust the FED to not abuse the power to regulate a constitutional right in such a way? Because, given their history of rights abuses, I dont want the FED anywhere near private guns. But the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 prevents it anyhow so.... yeah. But given that we've pretty much won the gun control battle logistically (600 million individual firearms, billions of rounds of ammo, defiant and versatile gun industry), the only real option for the gun control folks is to go for broke with registration, confiscation, ammunition control, and features ban. the latter two can be easily subverted mind you

>>34168390
Fucking retard, he wasnt saying it was good or bad, just that the 2nd amendment does not directly cover it. Not everyone is incapable of putting aside personal opinion to interpret laws.

>>34168335
Should the government keep a database on your religion or political views?

>>34168408
They already do. And again, feeling that the government shouldnt do something does not make it unconstitutional. You sound like a libtard who wants to cry to the supreme court instead of actually participating in the legislative process like an adult.

Oh look, a bunch of shills pretending to have law degrees protesting freedom, how refreshing.

>>34168402
then how absolute is the right to keep and bear arms and where is that line drawn as tracking can be used to deny that right.. wheres the red line?

File: how-taylor-swift-became-a-nazi-icon-body-image-1463775383.png (494KB, 749x534px) Image search: [Google]

494KB, 749x534px

>>34167779
Our girl has been known for some enlightening commentary on the value of being properly armed in defense of home and country

>>34168428
>And again, feeling that the government shouldnt do something does not make it unconstitutional
implying that the existence of the state is not an inherent threat to liberty

>>34168435
Its a complicated question, exactly. Thats why "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is just as retarded to say as "BAN ALL GUNS".

Even freedom of speech has restrictions in our country, no reasonable person could say all gun-related laws are unconstitutional.

>>34168430
>mildly disagree with your extremist view of the second amendment
>shill

Youre lucky we havent enacted psychological evaluations yet because youd fail in a second.

>>34168460
Show me the part of the constitution that says threats to liberty are unconstitutional pls

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
there
that's like half your paper now shut up and get to work

>>34168488
>advocates psychological testing for firearm ownership
>y-you're the extremist!

>>34168468
true though a good majority of them could be successfully argued as such. the 86 machine gun ban, ban on rifle features, ammo restrictions, etc. those laws intended to hinder access to or limit the fighting capacity of such firearms are arguably unconstitutional by the reasoning spelled out in federalist papers 28 & 29 (the preliminary reasoning behind the 2nd amendment) which detail the need for the milita to be as capable as possible.

>>34168526
No i dont support that, just wanted to trigger you

>>34168497
>Show me the part of the constitution that says threats to liberty are unconstitutional pls
you show me the moral argument saying that the state is not a threat to individual sovereignty that does not need to be put in check

>quoting assholes who died 200 years ago

yeah thats going to convince everybody

>>34168533
I think the AWB is probably unconstitutional, but the NFA doesnt really "infringe" on your ability to protect yourself in any unreasonable way (that machinegun is not a good idea, cleetus).

>>34168538
Lol thats not what we're talking about, we're talking about laws themselves, go back to reading ayn rand.

>>34168567
not necessarily the nfa.. actually if i had my way the NFA would be strictly for machine guns only and SBRs, SBS' supressors would be off the list and available with NICS. the ban on new manufacturing ought to go

>>34168497
It's in the declaration of Independence.

>>34168600
Which has no legal power, its just an old document we talk about

>>34168597
Id support all that but im not 100% sure its honestly protected by the 2nd amendment, id say just write your congressman and dont waste your money on a lawyer.

>>34167698
>200 words is a paper

I miss the 5th grade too. Halo had just come out and i could barely get my hands around that fat fucking controller. Smash Bros Melee was great too.

>>34168623
I'm aware of this. However it embodies the spirit of what America was to be.

>Not legal

Please. Like they don't already wipe their ass with the Constitution.

>>34168657
I just think youd all do a lot better if you at least admitted to yourselves that most of your moral, logical, or legal arguments in favor of guns are pretty much bullshit and you really just want guns to be allowed because you like them and maybe a little bit for self defense but even thats mostly bullshit. Its fine to think that, really, just vote and act in self interest. You dont need to tell libtards you want guns for fun but be honest with yourself and other kommandos and stop the "natural right" hogwash.

>>34168390

It's not a matter of slippery slopes, retard. I don't care if federal oversight makes you """feel""" like your rights are threatened.

>>34168408

Are my opinions a physical object that can be transferred across state lines?

>>34168023
>>34167993
>>34167977
Pretty sure he was mostly talking about the idea of an overbearing central government. Become less free, making your govt stronger.


He didn't like that

>>34168771
Someone post the cake.

>>34168202
It was funny Fuck off

>>34168305
Under the same concept, we can restrict your freedom of speech to just yes/no
You're free to say yes all you want

Checkmate.

>>34168839
Exactly. One purpose of the 2nd is so people can protect from an overbearing Government. So it all ties together.

>>34168032
How is buying a gun giving up a liberty?

>>34167698
>200 words.
After a year in college I can't even write a thesis and intro very well under 200 words anymore.
You make me miss high school OP

http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/second-amendment
Your Google-fu is weak If you cannot research anything yourself you are doomed

I like "“I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters.”
― Frank Lloyd Wright

“The constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
― Alexander Hamilton

“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.”
― James Madison, The Constitution of the United States of America

“Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a public safety hazard, don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like.”
― Alan M. Dershowitz

“The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation.”
― Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
>>Makes all those keep kids safe anti-gun monologues kinda scary...

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”
― James Madison

>>34169074
>including a hitler quote in your counter argument
Damn anon that's some sweet manipulation you're working with

File: The Illustrated guide to gun control.jpg (272KB, 600x2560px) Image search: [Google]

272KB, 600x2560px

>>34168305
Fine, I'll take the bait.
The founders clearly meant for the people to be armed with the same weaponry the modern military is equipped with. That was how the militia of THEIR DAY was armed - with the exact same weapons that the British regulars were. The personal weapons used by militia did include grenades, btw, (albeit ones not as powerful as the ones of today) as well as privately owned cannons and warships.

The fact that the continental army and the local militias were armed with the SAME WEAPONS as the British regulars was part of why they actually stood a chance. Think they would have succeeded long term with longbows and blunderbusses against Brown Bess's hand grenades and cannons?

In this context that would mean modern Americans should have M203's, field mortars, Full Auto M4's, belt fed LMGs and technicals.

Regardless, you're historically and legally illiterate to the point that you accept complete fabrications and lies without question. You are a moron and I hope to god you're one of the first against the wall when the revolution comes.

>>34168468
Yeah, no I'm going to disagree on this one. "Reasonable regulation" is the camels nose into the tent and a way for Regressive retards to eliminate anything they don't like. Or do you like that calling someone by a non-preferred pronoun is considered harmful hatespeech? If you think that shit isn't going to snowball and get worse, you are wrong. Pic related.

>>34168497
>>Show me the part of the constitution that says threats to liberty are unconstitutional pls

>>>>The founders fought a revolution in the name of liberty, lol, why would they have thought tyranny is a bad thing?

KYS.

"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."

I guarantee you're typing from some leftwing urban/suburban hellhole.

>>34169106
Law School was good for something...

File: Screenshot_20170605-142050.png (184KB, 480x854px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 480x854px

>>34167727

>>34169283
I'd need to see the sauce material on that to believe it.

"If guns cause crime, all of mine are defective."
Ted fucking Nugent

Just type 'Shall not be infringed' forty times.

>>34168865
>checkmate atheists
Im just pointing out that "shall not be infringed" is not the important part of the statement and people who spew it clearly dont know what theyre talking about. Also the 1st amendment is much more clearly worded,

>>34169178
You seem to be a lot smarter than most of these retards but you're still confusing your own arguments and the arguments of people you agree with law. The "a well regulated militia being neccesary" part can be interpreted like 80 different ways, and there isnt any writing about who can have what kind of weapon so the courts are stuck with the complicated job of deciding what it means. Until 2008 their answer was "nothing, lol" but they've since decided to stop being so lazy and stupid and have started to experiment with a more meaningful interpretation of the 2nd amendment. However, legal rulings involve a whole world of obscure issues and pieces of information that arent automatically thrown out because "shall not be infringed" and I believe there are legitimate cases to be made that things like full retard and sawn offs are not protected by the second amendment.

To be clear on my position, I'm not saying we should ban all guns except for useless california-tier garbage and say "but u have ur guns it counts", im just saying there are many factors and if you cant hold a legitimate discussion about the possibility of some regulation (whether its old or new) youre retarded.

>>34169368
Lies, he got fined tens of thousands of dollars for killing a bear.

File: OP tells us how well he can count.jpg (35KB, 600x597px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 600x597px

>>34169486
The entire amendment is the important part. If the fucking shadow of a penumbra can create an entirely unmentioned constitutional "right" for a woman to abort her baby/fetus then how the fuck do you come to the conclusion that "well we can ignore that part of the text of the constitution, it's not important"?

Shall not be infringed, was the entire POINT of the amendment.

Here, let me break it down for you.

(1) SUBJECT: A well regulated Militia,

(2) JUSTIFICATION: being necessary to the security of a free State,

(3) ENUMERATED RIGHT THAT THE FOUNDERS EXPLICITLY SET ON PAPER TO AVOID GOVERNMENT TYRANNY: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

ACTION: shall not be infringed.

Pic related, it's OP

>>34167698
Use the Gun Facts PDF, they have a decent setup that debunks a lot of common anti-gun arguments with sources to their claims on the same page.

https://www.gunowners.org/pdf/2014gunfacts.pdf

>>34168488
When you say "we" you mean jews right?

>>34168536
Wrong anon
Btw:
>You're mentally unfit
>I try to trigger strangers on the internet while shilling for government regulations
KYS faggot

>>34168581
Ayn is an angel compared to the shill jewery going on in this thread. If her sweet words grace your unworthy eyes count yourself lucky before returning to the void that is your proletariat life.

>>34169676
gun nut detected

>>34169632
>(((experiment with more meaningful legislation)))
Explain how politicians (((experimenting))) with constitutional rights is constitutionally legal.
Explain what you mean by (((meaningful))) in this context.

>>34169632
>>The "a well regulated militia being neccesary" part can be interpreted like 80 different ways
1/2

Not really. There are only numerous interpretations because some people (Ruth Bader Ginsburg springs to mind) find the idea of ordinary citizens actually being armed abhorrent. No reasonable historian who actually looks at facts would come to the conclusion that the founders intended there to be reasonable regulation of any of the rights laid out in the constitution. The reason they mentioned those rights with the Amendments was because those were supposed to be EXPLICITLY PROTECTED - not regulated. As I mentioned earlier, how would "reasonable regulation" square with the private ownership of cannons and warships - something that was both common and accepted at the time. No licensing. No permits. Can you imagine the conniption fits that your average liberal would have if I had a Abrams or a Howitzer parked on my lawn?

>>34170106
Judges arent politicians you fucking retard, and if you had any basic reading comprehension you'd know I meant ruling that the second amendment actually protects stuff. Prior to 2008 the supreme court never overturned any gun control laws on the basis of the 2nd amendment.

>>34169632
>>and there isnt any writing about who can have what kind of weapon so the courts are stuck with the complicated job of deciding what it means.

2/2

No, the writing is right there. The founders wrote that amendment in common and easily understood terms for a reason.
Militia: At the time of it's writing, there was no national guard or permanent standing army. The "Militia" was literally you and your neighbors. You were expected to get together every few weeks and drill so that if something bad happened (Indian attack, disaster, bandits, etc) you would already have a unit that knew how to work together. Those militia could then be called up by your State, and would then form part of the continental army. There were no weapon restrictions, because why would you restrict the weapons of your armed forces? You had whatever you could afford. That meant rich fuckers like Ben Franklin could own their own warships and cannon.

The founders feared a permanent standing army. With good reason. Most coups in history have been strong men who seized control of the military. Hard to do that when the "army" are local militia who are not interested in power plays.

All of which to say, the second amendment is not worded poorly or in an imprecise manner. It means exactly what it says it means, and historical context only adds to the preponderance of evidence that points to the fact that as unsophisticated as the "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" argument is, it is correct.


>>34169997
Unapologetically.

I'm also a free speech extremist.

Regressive tards have proved that allowing "regulation" of rights leads to their elimination, so I'm against regulation of any constitutionally enumerated rights.

>>34170156
Even conservatives disagree on the meaning of that part, some say it means "we need militias but theyre bad so you have guns to stop them" some say "its so you can join a militia" some say "we're all part of some greater militia and we all have the right".

"200 words is not enough to even touch the in depth explanations necessary to fully flesh out a pro gun argument. While anti-gun arguments can be simplified down to this, mostly due to an unnecessary fear of a tool and misunderstanding of critical statistics, the pro-gun argument needs a lot more to be able to successfully convince people. However, at the end of the day, the best way I can describe the pro-gun argument is through a few key points.

Murders and suicides will still be committed, despite what the laws say, because criminals do not follow the law. A massive gun ban won't remove guns from the equation.

There is no statistical correlation between gun ownership and the murder rates of countries.

Lastly, as the great Thomas Jefferson once said, justifying the 2nd amendment as a necessary tool for a potential and necessary rebellion like they had just fought, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." I encourage you all to read the full quote Jefferson said towards William Smith as he was able to put it much more eloquently than any of us ever could."

There you go OP, 201 words.

>>34169997
Where do you think you are? Seriously? Do you really come to a gun board to call people gun nuts?

>>34170230
>>Even conservatives disagree on the meaning of that part

I'm aware that a significant percentage of those who comment on/hold political views are morons

>>some say it means "we need militias but theyre bad so you have guns to stop them"

I have not heard this argument in conservative circles, and I was one for almost 20 years

some say "its so you can join a militia" some say "we're all part of some greater militia and we all have the right"

Please see my other post on what "militia" actually means/consists of. Regardless, neither of those arguments is wrong. You can join a formal organized militia. Or you can just accept that we are all part of the "greater militia" (which, incidentally, was the justification for the draft, that we're all "militia men" and can be called up at the country's need.)

>>34170175
Appointed judges are politicians in robes, the highest judicial court in the country is appointed by the winner of a federal popularity contest, for fucks sake.

And what I'm getting at, and what your avoiding, is the word (((meaningful))) in the context you used it is double speak for fucking with a cut and dry constitutional right.

File: 6qlrBya.gif (210KB, 280x199px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 280x199px

>>34170246
>Says 200 words is not enough
>Brings up key points of the argument within those 200 words that summarize the pro-gun stance well enough
Sure did activate my almonds there anon.

>>34170302
Oh okay so any interpretation is right so long as it supports your policy goals

>>34170427
No literally the opposite.

Until 2008 all gun control (what you dont like) was allowed by the supreme court, since then they have enacted what i called a more "meaningful" view of it and started to repeal gun control laws through the 2nd amendment (which is good 4u)

>>34170596
No, the arguments that you mention are not contradictory or exclusionary. The equivalent of tomayto-tomahto. They come back to the same principle and do not disagree with a factual, historical or textual analysis of what the founders intended the 2A to mean.


https://youtu.be/MW_noXjj6w8

https://youtu.be/51clP7JRqv8

https://youtu.be/CquUBWHU2_s

/thread