The 2nd amendment has pretty bad syntax. They really should have

>>34940011
The 2nd, along with the rest of The Bill of Rights, was written to be timeless. And it is.

>>34940011
yeah the well regulated militia sounds like the national guard alright. but then the people to keep and bear arms really doesn't sound like a well regulated militia.

the entire fucking thing doesn't make much sense today.

>>34940104
Maybe you just need to read the context of the piece instead of being a millennial that cant comprehend that word usage evolves over time.

>>34940092
There is a big difference between timeless writing and poorly written.

File: 1450291071379.jpg (96KB, 599x573px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 599x573px

>>34940011
I dunno, seems pretty fucking clear.

A military is necessary to prevent other militarizes from ruining our peace.

Because a military is necessary we run the risk of overbearing government. If such a time exists the people need guns to stop that.

>>34940118
that's my entire point it doesn't make sense today. so much changed. if you only take the first or the last part it's pretty obvious and easy to understand but together with the evolution of war and life altogether it sounds confusing or even a bit insane in the current context.

>>34940162
I'm fairly certain there's documentation outside of the second amendment stating their intentions with the document that they used to claim power over our land?

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

44KB, 827x628px

>>34940104
>>34940128
i don't even understand why people would have a hard time understanding the text, all it takes is a basic understanding of grammar and knowing what the word 'militia' means in historical context.

it basically means able bodied men in an organized militia or as in an unorganized militia. the people, as in the citizenry, have the right to bear arms and this right should not be infringed because of the necessity of the citizenry being well armed, so that they can form a well regulated militia.

>>34940160
no it's more like this:
a) a well balanced breakfast being necessary to start of a healthy day,
b) the right of the people to keep and eat bacon shall not be infringed.

but is bacon healthy? i mean it's usually full of carcinogens and saturated fats it contains too much sodium and well it's just up for debate. and then is bacon has to be part off a breakfast? does it actually make sense to equate bacon with breakfast? i mean once or twice in my life i ate bacon for breakfast so i know it can happen but not sure if it's an equivalence relation there. more like bacon may or may not be part off a breakfast and may or may not be healthy depending on how the pig was raised slaughtered cured stored cooked, etc... about a thousand pages of regulation on that entire process and still harmful shit can end up in your bacon and then you go ahead and roast it to bring out the flavor so it ends up being carcinogen anyhow.

>>34940104
ah summer

>>34940200
But it's not. Bacon applies to one specific part, but fuck you, I can have spaghetti and cauliflower for breakfast if I want, fuckface.

>>34940011
The Supreme Court should be abolished and those whom participated in it given a life sentence for disputing the United States constitution. The Constitution is not incorrect: they are.

>>34940194
but armed militias formed from citizenry are no longer a deciding factor in a war. not to mention they pose more danger to the state than to any hostile nation especially in the political climate today when armed citizenry takes a stand pretty much solely against the state. so letting them in protection of the state is kinda ridiculous don't you think so?

in case of a war where these people are needed to defend it's lands the us would simply go for conscription and arm and clothe the men they conscripted. they don't rely on them bringing their own gear bobs and guns and thousands of .22lrs... so even in that regard it just sounds stupid.

>>34940200
>>34940200
this is a complete non sequitur, what are you even talking about

if you mean to contest the idea of the people's right to bear arms existing/being 'necessary' because you feel it isn't essential to having a 'well regulated militia' why don't you just say so? and if so, it makes as much sense as criticizing the first amendment because you don't believe in free speech. believe what you want but how is it relevant to the grammar if you're arguing about the legitimacy of the rights described?

>>34940219
yeah but in the context of war bacon is guns and spaghetti is machine guns and cauliflower is grenades or mortars or claymore mines whatever. you want all that too? i mean i would, but the point is handguns are arbitrarily over-inflated in this debate as importance. they are of limited use in war. you need all the other crap no 2nd amendment fag seems to be drooling over wanting to keep aa cannons in his backyard or rpg tubes under his bed.

>>34940232
>but armed militias formed from citizenry are no longer a deciding factor in a war
says who? the idea is that the people can defend their sovereignity, it's not really relevant that you don't see that happening in a 1000 years because it's just the principle, the decreased likelihood of the right to bearing arms being exercised for "its intended purpose" hasn't made it obsolete, just like your right to privacy isn't voided when you have nothing to hide.

>>34940194
if you need a diagram to explain your sentence structure, your sentence structure is bad

if you defend the need for a diagram to explain your sentence structure, you have missed the point of spoken/written language in the first place

>>34940232
are you this stupid or just trolling? The whole point of the 2nd amendment is to ensure the citizenry has a "last resort" against its own government. Guerilla warfare is absolutely devastating to modern militaries, especially on the guerilla fighters' home turf.

homeland defense from internal enemies. External enemies are barely considered.

>>34940234
no i just meant to ridicule that pic as misleading and inaccurate if you want to compare that sentence to the 2nd amendment.

i full support peoples right to bear arms assuming they are physically and mentally fit do do so you know kinda like driving and shit.

but the second amendment always sounded like a retarded argument in itself and how it is interpreted also.

people should have a right to bear arms because everybody has the right to self defense and effective self defense is really hard without guns only a handful of people are capable of it out of thousands and even that requires a bit of luck. so if you don't want to discriminate against the small weak and especially women you have to support their right to carry gun. it's a great equalizer.

>>34940232
Also, an armed citizenry poses 0 danger to the state you fucking asshole, it is NECESSARY FOR THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE.

File: c4a.jpg (23KB, 600x484px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 600x484px

>>34940270
ever considered that the sentence needs to be explained because some people have a worse understanding of grammar than others and not everything is designed with retards and little kids in mind

>>34940290
The right to self defense from robbers and rapists is secondary to the right of self defense from the government.

>>34940305
>some people have a worse understanding of grammar
yeah like the founding fathers, apparently

>>34940316
ive never understood this concept that peasant revolt has to be legalized

it's a revolt. you are revolting. you are opposed to the government. why do you give a shit whether they allow you to have guns or revolt or w/e or not? why not just kinda do it like every other country has at some point?

>>34940296
this, wasnt the point of 2a to provide security by way of having a bigass militia, i.e. it's hard to invade a country when ~Theres A Rifle Behind Every Blade Of Le Grass~

>>34940277
that's it. historical context of the second amendment does not support your reasoning at all. they had trouble to train and equip the vast amount of soldiers needed in an armed conflict at moments notice back then. today it's all totally different like i said a few times.

>>34940327
>yeah like the founding fathers
Grammar changes over time. There is a reason Shakespearean literature is the way it is, and not the same as modern stuff.

File: 1503407510817.png (22KB, 804x743px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 804x743px

>>34940327
>>34940327
are you REALLY trying to argue that grammar in the english language is wrong and that they should change it to accomodate your poor grasp of language?

File: are your parents related you retard.jpg (41KB, 448x635px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 448x635px

>>34940232
>armed militia are no longer the deciding factors in war
>in the era of conventional militaries being endlessly harassed by non-conventional fighters
Pic related, because you somehow forgot the last 50 years of history. The fact that an armed people can even bleed a military means they can push them out.

>they're a threat to the state!
Not when it remains in the hands of the people, since those people are the militia.

>>34940316
and that is the way of thinking exactly that's the problem. it's not realistic a bunch of rednecks with a few m4s to defeat the federal army or the government. you won't even be winning against swat teams let alone soldiers.

it is on the other hand very much realistic to keep the weapons for personal defense.

and in that context the 2nd amendment is impossible to interpret correctly so being anal about it doesn't help one bit.

>>34940397
>the 2nd amendment is impossible to interpret correctly
if only prepositions existed and they could have used some.

>>34940384
>in the era of conventional militaries being endlessly harassed by non-conventional fighters

non conventional fighters don't use small arms to harass armies. they use ieds drones machine guns and mortars and technicals but mostly explosives because they would lose any firefight they get into pretty routinely. so if you want to fight a tyrannical government and it's army you need to stack up on fertilizers and detonators instead of guns. because that shit is annoying to them. they can still do whatever they want to do but at least they will lose lives and be miserable.

File: canadashitpostingwwii.png (554KB, 533x841px) Image search: [Google]

554KB, 533x841px

>>34940011
honestly it should have been written as


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

the meaning would have been exactly the same.

seriously why is there even a comma at all bewtween "arms" and "shall"? literally what convention of english made them do that. that shit looks retarded. this is canada tier unnecessary and uncalled for historical document pwnage

>>34940384
>people are the militia
currently people pretending to be the "PEOPLE" and playing militia and touting the 2nd amendment in their fantasy about fighting the tyrannical gubment are not even 1% of the population. they are seen as a fringe extremist group for a reason. and that's because there is so few of them faggots.

>>34940417
are you retarded dude? non conventional fighters engage coalition forces in afghanistan with AKs, PKMs and other firearms all the time and if they didn't win firefights they wouldn't capture positions to capture from the enemy equipment like you just mentioned. do you really not know what guerilla warfare is?

>>34940446
are you trying to imply any group ever had any success by using assault riffles only or even as a main contributing factor? because you are retarded then.

heavy arms and improvised are used to achieve any tactical goal they actually achieve. the guns are just part off the costume and play a role in keeping the area they hold secure from small groups of infiltrators.

you can't even take a single city block with small arms only let alone an entire city.

>>34940466
>improvised
* explosives

>>34940104
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MW_noXjj6w8

>>34940466
>>34940446
i dont think you understand how warfare works, and that while it is violent, doing violence is not the only point of it

if all you had to do to make the world better was shoot enough people, the middle east would be peaceful and nice and not exporting rapefugees everywhere

>>34940466
when you have a lack of armaments and resources you use guerrilla tactics to capture more weapons to turn asymmetrical warfare in your favor, slowly making it more symmetrical

so yes?...

why would combatants attempt to 'capture a city block' when guerrilla tactics such as sabotage, covert operations and ambushes are a precursor to full scale military operations?

>>34940490
>i dont think you understand how warfare works
i could say the same, small arms are mostly used to secure area taken by the real weapons of war and control or police if you like the civilian population. that's the main purpose. you can not achieve military objectives against a modern army with small arms.

that's because the small cost of fielding a bunch of people with small arms shaped the modern armies in a way that they are largely immune to that zerg rush tactics by a bunch of half naked peasants with ak47s.

you can use small arms to commit genocide on unarmed citizenry sure but you won't be defeating or even scratch a modern military force.

>>34940494
>why would combatants attempt to 'capture a city block'
because there is stuff on that city block?

because nations aren't build solely on violence?

>hurr durr we sabotaged all the planes so we win!!
too bad the water's still off, the power's still out, the food reserves have run dry, and there's no means of production available to create any jobs (let alone food, drink, luxuries, etc)

>>34940524
again,
>if all you had to do to make the world better was shoot enough people, the middle east would be peaceful and nice and not exporting rapefugees everywhere
you're missing the point that there is more to war than just violence

>>34940270
>having to think is bad

American education.

>>34940528
>because there is stuff on that city block?
i meant why would you conduct warfare in the wrong order, before an irregular military would have armed themselves well using guerrilla tactics etcetera LIKE IVE BEEN SAYING THE ENTIRE TIME? would hitler have invaded russia before rebuilding his military just because that was the ultimate objective?

>>34940538
no you are missing the point that altho you need small arms for war you can not win war with small arms.

and having small arms to win a war is profoundly retarded because it is just a tiny tiny component of what successful war requires.

you think the russian rebels in ukrain would stand a farts chance in a hurricane against the ukrainian army if they did not get serious heavy weapon handouts and some pretty sketchy illegal fire support from the russians? if yes you are delusional beyond all scales and measures.

File: 1343329356317.png (18KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 429x410px

>mfw this thread

I mean, the way it was written was originally clear and concise. Why we have to debate "what it means" is pretty fucking stupid.

>>34940576
how mad are you at >>34940424

>>34940128
If ,by poorly writen, you mean that you cant twist the words into the meaning what you are looking for, you're right.

>>34940270
Diagramming is to show how dumb the people are who think the 2nd amendment only applies to militia. They choose to come to that conclusion not because it is right but because they want to and people.like that need it spelled out for them.

>>34940571
>and having small arms to win a war is profoundly retarded because it is just a tiny tiny component of what successful war requires.
holy shit have you not been reading anything or have a basic sense of logic? having small arms is not only a requirement for an irregular military to capture light, heavy weapons and vehicles but even in conducting warfare your foot soldiers will be armed with small arms and they are essential to capturing objectives because a mortar round can't

>capture a city block

but combined arms warfare can

>>34940576
>the way it was written was originally clear and concise
now that is also up for debate and they did debate the fuck out if it because it was neither precise nor clear or concise and it was also not what most people wanted but something most of them could imagine his stance incorporated into. many wanted state military forces to counter balance federal forces. many wanted the right to keep arms in self defense. so many ideas and expectation at the time, and almost none of them were met in a clear and concise manner by the 2a. yet it was something with a little creative splaining could satisfy many.

and yeah is still sounds retarded in modern context.

File: 1502311441812.jpg (59KB, 655x527px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 655x527px

>>34940576
The reason we have debates is because liberal douchebags will try anything to subvert its obvious meaning. Clarity or not, they will try to define "Black" and "White" and "Day" as "Night" just like they do with everything.

>>34940589
no the commas are just in stupid spots, there's two too many, and the sentence would make better use of prepositions instead of the aforementioned superfluous and clause-breaking commas

>>34940607
it's obviously not clear if a debate on it is even possible

>>34940600
>but combined arms warfare can
yes but if you only have small arms you don't have combined arms warfare. you have a big fat nothing. except the capability to terrorize your fellow citizens and make soldiers jumpy.

but you can't seriously think without outside donations of anti-tank weapons and stuff that well exceed said light arm category we are talking about here anyone could capture shit from a standing army right? and even then in a significant enough quantity to get on equal footing it's ridiculous. no you can't do that. unless you get help from the chinks or the russians. and if you get help from the chinks or russians to fight your own government you are a fucking traitor and not a freedom fighter you imagine yourself to be. not to mention there will be a time they call in the favor in the unimaginable scenario of your successful revolt.

>>34940232
The Bill of Rights wasnt writen for war. It was writen to insure the rights of the people from the government infringing upon those rights.

>>34940580
If you can understand how an interjection and clauses work, the two sentences (anon's and the 2a) mean the exact same, like anon said. I'm not mad at him, but at the fact that the general public needs to be coddled to understand (or at least be shown, as you can lead a horse to water and all that shit).

>>34940602
>they debated the fuck out of the original wording
I don't doubt that. The original congress sessions were known for shenaniganry and pedantry.
>it still sounds retarded in modern context
That's because you're taking the original wording *out of context*, by your own admission.

>>34940628
To supplement this, read the small script at the bottom of this pic >>34940194
(Or the preamble to the bill of rights, which you should know anyways)

>>34940644
>the general public needs to be coddled to understand
it's because the syntax of the sentence is broken

from context, it's clear what it's trying to say, but it would never pass a 3rd grade english class, which is why DA GUN GRABBERZ can twist the meaning so much

it's not so much unclear as just a broken sentence, and it's very easy to twist a broken sentence to mean literally anything about any of the items in the sentence

>>34940628
well it that's the case it's fucking stupid in today's context. it has little to no impact on the ability to fight an army.

in ukrain the revolts involved larping implements and burning tires and some petrol and they managed to chase away their corrupt asshole pm. only to replace it with an other arguably. but still not much gunplay there.

if however the ukrainian military would have played too they could have squashed any armed revolt of that scale that used small arms. but the army is also the people so they usually don't like to shoot on their fellow citizens.

that's the other reason this entire argument about the guns against the state is retarded. you can defeat the state with outrage and determination much better than with whatever small arms you have.

>>34940623
Wrong again. The 2nd, as written, includes many points that support the overall concept. They need to be included in one sentence the insure that the idea isnt broken into several parts that csn be attacked one by one to erode the meaning of the whole.
As i said... timeless writting.

>>34940664
>As i said... timeless writting.
it is anything but timeless and yes like i said:
>>34940602
>it was also not what most people wanted but something most of them could imagine his stance incorporated into.
it was deception they tried to make amendment to people that opposed the federal privileged of fielding an army and the power that came with that. they got a big fucking nothing they could convince themselves was something. it was a fucking lie. and it makes absolutely less sense today then back then. it was pretty well worded to serve that purpose of luring the opposition into a false sense of security that can be easily torn down with the qualifiers any time if needed. but to call it timeless... moronic. the words literally don't mean the same thing now than to the people back then.

>>34940652
Your fourth reinforces the whole idea if the 2nd. The army is of the people and will/should side with the militia.
You have been talking in circles and people with more knowledge have tried to help you. Maybe listen and learn instead if arguing with every thought.

>>34940715
if you acknowledge the fact that the army is the people and they are the well regulated militia protecting you from the tyrannical state than what the fuck is all the fuss about civilian gun ownership? you are saying we could ban civilian gun ownership without contradicting the 2a here? cause it sounds like you are saying that.

>>34940652
>and they managed to chase away their corrupt asshole pm.
probably because it became clear that the pm would be ruling over a failure of a country if he stayed, because the people of the country are unwilling to work for him or his

the same cannot be said of a revolt in the US because the groups likely to revolt are not literally all of the economic power in the area, it's just fudds in trailer parks and city-dwelling alt righters

the US is simply too large to have that kind of full-scale revolt; the wants and needs of even individual neighboring states are just too different to allow for that level of cooperation to form easily.

soverignty movements would be possible but even then unlikely since states receive so much money from the fed and have so much to gain from being part of the US, on top of believing that they are the Real America with other states just being along for the ride, rather than identifying as part of a whole

>>34940664
it's apparently not timeless if everyone argues about its basic sentence structure, let alone intent

File: t7xylZL.jpg (65KB, 634x567px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 634x567px

>>34940011

Why do you have trouble understanding the 2NA? I'm Norwegian and it made perfect sense to me since the first time I read it.

>>34940761
everywhere where a tyrant rules over the people with the use of military power the soldiers are basically a caste. smaller in number than the rest of the citizenry but higher in status. kinda like in medieval times the nobility. they protect their own privileges by protecting the rules.

i just don't see how this system could evolve in the us. but sure as hell takes time to build up a warrior aristocracy. seems to me soldiers in us society are kinda belong to the lowest acceptable social class right above the homeless and the welfare negroes. also culturally being loyal to the country looks more important than being loyal to the government or the president personally at least to me an outsider.

the components are just not there. and that's an other nail in the rhetoric about the need for armed citizens to defend against government tyranny by extension of the federal army. the us is not fucking pre-war irak or north korea.

>>34940761
It is timeless unless you want to remove it from the constitution. You can try to twist meaning, say its no longer relevant, and argue against it.
But, as written, it stands the test of time

>>34940889
>it stands the test of time
clearly not

california and new york exist

>>34940898
Those are the ones that twisted the meaning and argued against it by saying it was no longer relevant.

>>34940926
it's apparently not clear and timeless then; someone has managed to, despite an otherwise good grasp of english, take the wrong meaning from the sentence and even document that wrong meaning without incident.

>>34940194
>that mess of a syntax tree
Give me X'

>>34940935
OR, as the three parts of government were designed, the resultant legislation from the documented and wrongly taken meaning (mixed with the 10th amendment) hasn't been brought up to the supreme court where THEY can determine the legality of the enacted laws.

File: 1503407193995.png (247KB, 891x924px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 891x924px

Do people have a right to guns?

The RIGHT of the PEOPLE

Pretty fuckin black and white.

>>34940011
It's almost as if languages change over time. The founding fathers feared a tyrannical govt.

>>34940427
The supreme court ruled that they are the militia. It also says that because theirs a need for a militia, the people have the right to bear arms. It doesn't mean you have to give a fuck about ideas of revolution, it just means you can have a gun and know how to use it and plenty of people do that.

The point is that no outside group, government from outside or within, can fuck with them. They don't have to be a huge percent of the population who take up arms to be a threat and a deterrent. It wasn't a majority of people who fought in the revolution in the first place.

We should just scrap it and rewrite it because let's face it, the founding fathers didn't expect humanity to manufacture assault rifles with high capacity clips.
Think of the children and let's make America more like NY and CA.

>>34940466
>>34940446

>what is the Vietnam war?

>>34940104
The constitution (specifically the bill of rights), outlines what rights can not be taken away from citizens. Why would the gov't need to specifically outline it's own right in that context? At worst, I could see that the right to bear to be arms only being the right of a citizen who is part of a militia. But that part would be moot because anyone could form a militia. And linguistics experts have torn the thing to shreds and come to the conclusion that the right to bear arms is the people's right, not the militia's.

>>34941102
where the use used it's militia calling upon the good citizens to grab their weapons from under the bed and march into war in their own garment to defend the united states vietnam or the other one?

>>34941133
or the people have right to "bear arms"

>>34940327
>why do you give a shit whether they allow you to have guns or revolt or w/e or not?
Not trying to revolt or anything, but probably because of the availability of guns beforehand

>>34940397
>this argument.
Again you guys? Fucking really? Goat fuckers and rice packers with garbage weaponry have foiled our military for decades. Stop being stupid.
>hurr language
Enough. It's different now than it was then, but you may as well ignore the first part entirely - it's a statement of their belief in the necessity of a militia, the second part is stand alone and immutable.

>>34940327
>yeah like the founding fathers, apparently
yeah fuck those guys leading a nation in the 1700s for not thinking of catering to your retarded ass

>>34942277
>Goat fuckers and rice packers with garbage weaponry have foiled our military for decades.
not really they were an annoyance at best. they could never stop the us military from going anywhere or doing anything. probably only a world coalition excluding uncle sam could.

File: SocJus.jpg (41KB, 600x524px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x524px

>>34940607
>liberal douchebags will try anything to subvert its obvious meaning. Clarity or not, they will try to define "Black" and "White" and "Day" as "Night" just like they do with everything.

can be said enough

>>34942277
>the second part is stand alone and immutable
it would be without the first part
it would also mean restricting destructive devices or even artillery pieces from civilian ownership and use would be unconstitutional.

File: ALLOFTHEM.jpg (106KB, 500x628px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 500x628px

>>34942744
>it would also mean restricting destructive devices or even artillery pieces from civilian ownership and use would be unconstitutional.
it is

debate time is over no avenue of subversion will work on me, there can be no compromise

>>34940761
>everyone argues about its basic sentence structure, let alone intent

Those arguments were resolved a long time ago. The only people who try to argue it are not up to date with 2nd amendment rulings or trying to set their own narrative.

>>34942836
>it is
well interestingly almost nobody agrees with you on that one. maybe a few other fanatics on this board and a few veterans that would like to bring home their favorite toys but that's it.

>>34942867
>you're just an isolated fringe type
>the nra is a massive lobby with >5million members that wants everyone to own tanks and bazookas

your liberal double-talk will get you no where here

the AR15 is the most popular rifle in America
there are >350million guns in the US
there are >80million gun owners, who can see everyday the assault on our rights getting stronger

you are losing

>>34940011
>the english language evolves over time
imagine that

>>34940232
>but armed militias formed from citizenry are no longer a deciding factor in a war.
irrelevant. If you want to change the Constitution, there's a process for that. You can't just declare provisions obsolete, you need to amend the constitution.

>>34942867
>well interestingly almost nobody agrees with you on that one
Except, you know, the Founding Fucking Fathers. One of them (I think Jefferson) was sent a letter asking if the 2A protected a right to arm a civilian ship with cannon. His reply was abundantly clear that it did.

File: 1357023798960.jpg (29KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 800x600px

They're all written like that but people only care about the way the 2nd one is worded. True, the powers that be straight up ignore some of the rest of them and nobody seems to be able to do anything about it because the technology advances so much faster than legal precedent does, but that doesn't change much about 2A discussions. That technology changes slowly and not all that much in the first place.

>>34940200
>well it's just up for debate
Meaningless debate.

>bacon has to be part off a breakfast?
Your argument is shit because your analogy doesn't hold up to the source.
Bacon would be a subset of meat and a subset of food. It would be analogous to something like subguns. Arms means weapons, so it should be substituted by something equally inclusive like food.
(tl;dr fuck off you obfuscating moran)

>equate bacon with breakfast
No, see above.

>Breakfast can exist without bacon.
Yeah, see above. Breakfast can't properly exist without food. Water is a poor substitute for food.
(read: people with fists and sticks can not form a properly functioning militia in a post 1,000,000bc world)


>tl;dr
You're doing what idiots do. You've done the second amendment equivalent of believing the freedom of the press refers to the media rather than the freedom of the printing press, it is an individual right protecting the written word. Imagine if the freedom of the press clause was written as: A means of distributing information being necessary to the existence of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read the written word shall not be infringed. One would be hard pressed to try to twist that into meaning that only government sanctioned means of distribution were legitimate, and that the right of the people was subject to approval from the government.

>tl;dr tl;dr
You are a communist.

>>34943109
racist idiots like the founding fathers don't get to have opinions and all their works need to be burned

>>34943164
1/10 you tried

>>34940232
Militias are relevant, and always will be the most basic military unit. The only state that a militia poses a threat to, in the context of the second amendment, is an unjust government that literally needs to be overthrown. The militia is not the state. I'm not a Nazi, I don't care what color or creed you are, but you're literally a statist, non-constitutionalist piece of flith and deserve to be scrubbed from the face of the earth and our human gene-pool.

>>34943210
You. I like you.

>>34942720
Vietnam. The argument is moot anyway. Restricting guns via the 'you can't effectively fight off the govt with that' is useless. A well armed populace stands a better chance and that's the whole point. The right is explicit and no amount of word play will change that.
>>34942744
Like I said, the first part in no way places a limit on the second. They're separate points. A militia is necessary. A citizens right shall not etc. You can be a cunt about language and try to redefine terms, play syntax games, and reductio ad absurdum all you like but ultimately that's the fact of the matter.

File: 1498281858485.jpg (8KB, 184x288px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 184x288px

>>34943164
>baiteroo

>>34942744
>intent/justification matters as much as or more than the word of the law
Fuck off leftist.

>it would also mean restricting destructive devices or even artillery pieces from civilian ownership and use would be unconstitutional.
It does mean that.

>>34942744
>it would also mean restricting destructive devices or even artillery pieces from civilian ownership and use would be unconstitutional.
but it is you retard.

The NFA is a "transfer tax" for a reason: they wanted to ban the things on the NFA but couldn't since it would be unconstitutional. So they did something that WAS allowed under the constitution: a tax. They just made the tax so ridiculously exorbitant ($200 in 1935 is about $3,600 today) that nobody would want to pay it.

File: IMG_3462.gif (814KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

814KB, 300x225px

>>34940011
It has bad syntax if you're fucking stupid and/or paid by the Bilderberg Group to say it's meaning is "unclear"

>>34940092
If the Bill of Rights is so timeless, why do liberals want to alter it?

Clearly, messing with the Constitution isn't as sacrilege as a lot of people wish it was.

File: 1489463593808.jpg (162KB, 819x783px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 819x783px

>>34940011

>>34942744
>>34943164
This is all it ever comes down to in arguments about the second. Antis going full reductio ad absurdum, slippery slope, and ad hominem. In virtually no time it becomes 'but my feelings get rid of it, racists'. It's pathetic.

>>34943152
>Arms means weapons, so it should be substituted by something equally inclusive like food.
exactly!
weapons of war include handguns and a hell of a lot more. glad you see it now.

>>34940232
>but armed militias formed from citizenry are no longer a deciding factor in a war

Dude. It's time to put the pipe down. Look at all of the wars going on right now. Now count the number of militias involved per war, on all sides. Then look at the effect those militias have on the overall course of the war. Then just stop posting.

>>34943856
>implying this is even an issue

>>34943438
you don't understand my point. my point is it's ridiculously badly phrased. that's what this thread is all about. and there is a reason behind that, like i explained a few times. it was meant for people to shut the fuck up not really give any rights to anyone that they didn't had before.

i don't really give a fuck about us civilian gun ownership altho i would support it if it was any of my business.

my point is the second amendment is retarded, people who try to justify anything about handgun ownership by it are retarded people who imagine they can fight the us army or even the police forces with handguns are the biggest retards and the entire fucking thing is impossible to interpret correctly today as it is put on paper and it was probably impossible even when it was put on paper and by purpose.

that's all.

>>34943943
yeah they have zero effect on the outcomes of wars. show me a single example to the contrary. vietnam is retarded the russians and chinks armed the vietkong trained the vietkong and supported the vietkong. it was a proxy war the us would have easily won but it had almost zero real incentives to do so and it started to get costly. the isis is not a militia, but at it's roots it all started by the us arming the hajis, then they got arms from the russians too. they are not just some random dudes firing off the family heirloom they are a state and an army.

what militias have an affect on is the proportions of war crimes on a side. you can bet your ass if militias are involved the civilians will suffer more there will be more chaos and blood.

>>34943670
statists like the state and dislike freedom.

>>34943976
No I do understand your points. The first is a stupid point. What's to stop you from making the same claim about every other part of the constitution? About human rights declarations? About laws? Nothing. Your feelings about how they're written are irrelavent - you are not meant to try and interpret 1000 meanings into it. It is as written. Unless you have an argument against what's there you've got nothing - if you do, fine, get about drafting an revision. The second point is even worse. A citizen that's armed will undoubtedly be better off in ANY defensive situation (personal or against a government) than an unarmed one. That's the whole point. It's not an argument to say they couldn't succeed because it doesn't matter if they could or not - the right is regardless.

Why doesn't anyone ever look at state constitutions? Anti-gunfags always look at 2A like "WHAT DID THEY MEAN BY THIS" but if they were to look at state constitutions it's even more clear than 2A.

>Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

This literally says you have no right to even consider gun control. Pretty clear.

>>34943713
don't equate me with that retard at >>34943164 please he doesn't even have an argument he is just parroting his marxist seminars.

but my mistake, i actually thought some things were restricted to military use and ownership in the us like in all sane country. turns out you can just buy a tank online with functional gun if you pay your nfa taxes all is well. in certain states at least. "the fuck is wrong with murricans?" was the first thing that came to mind. it's okay to own a main battle tank but you got issues with how many rounds fit a magazine or if a stock is collapsible or not? the fuck? and let's not get me started on the whole sbr thing!

>Muh Small Arms can't win wars

Then the logical result is that the American people should be permitted ownership of tanks, armored vehicles, destructive devices, guided weaponry, ect in parity with the current military progression. You used to be able to purchase machine guns by mail-order catalogue if you could fork over the cash.

>>34944098
Depends on the state. Paying your NFA taxes also involves a background check (like all firearms purchases but more intense). Most states give no white about magazine size or folding/collapsing stocks. As long as overall length is above sbr limit you're good.

>>34940424

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8

>>34940232
If the 2nd Amendment is outdated, pass an Amendment that repeals it.

What's so hard about that?

>>34944125
i really just meant you are all insane cunts. but i guess you are having fun with it so it's all good.

i meant about the sbr thing how a weapon can become an sbr by magic which is a retarded category in itself and how you can commit felony by putting a glock in a roni or take one stamped out of a roni and cc it. the entire business is retarded.

>>34940327
The 2nd Amendment allows you to possess guns *before* you need them for a revolt; otherwise, you'd have a really hard time getting some once you made the decision to revolt.

>>34944182
The hard part is getting large enough Democrat control of Washington.

Once that's accomplished, I expect Democrats to push for the 2nd Amendment's repeal. It's what their voters expect.

>>34940232
>armed militias formed from citizenry are no longer a deciding factor in a war
What is every war we've fought sine fucking Korea.

>>34940162
Why the fuck are you reading something written 250 years ago with todays context? Are you actually stupid or are you just being obtuse?

>>34944284
because that's the context we would have to apply it to?

>>34944098
I'm equating you with him because you're both equally not supplying arguments and instead leaning on fallacy to push your position. He is ad hominem, you are the others.

>>34940011

The Second Amendment is fine. It's the brains of gun grabbers that need to be fixed. With lead.

>>34943976
>my point is the second amendment is retarded
the truth comes out

you're just a liberal trying to subvert it by attacking the wording and removing the context

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

513KB, 1517x1496px

I'll just leave this here.

File: index.jpg (6KB, 247x204px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 247x204px

>>34944565
But I thought they already were eating lead paint.

>>34940258
>spaghetti is machine guns and cauliflower is grenades or mortars or claymore mines whatever
>you want all that too?
Do you know where you are? I absolutely want that shit

File: 1475394628250.jpg (60KB, 561x552px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 561x552px

>tfw the constitution itself gives congress the power to train, organize, and discipline the militia. And then a law later on defined everyone fit to serve who is at least 16 years old as 'the militia'.

What does this mean?

>>34940092
The Constitution was written specifically to allow alteration there's a whole process outlined and everything

File: DHxpkZuXkAEJo6f.jpg (68KB, 600x920px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 600x920px

>>34940011
Why has no one challenge the NFA?

Imagine if their were regulations on the 1st amendment

>>34945988
There are. Hate speech and its bullshit too.

>>34945998
who gets to define hate speech?

File: 1496197236985.gif (2MB, 450x247px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 450x247px

>>34940011
"Right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Yes, this is surely confusing, definitely leaves wiggle room. What did they mean by this? Really makes me think

>>34946021
>Yes, this is surely confusing, definitely leaves wiggle room. What did they mean by this? Really makes me think
Do you understand how much it undermines your argument when you blatantly omit half of the sentence? Even if you are right, it makes you look like an idiot. If someone did that in support of a position you disagree with, that would be all the evidence you would need to reject everything they have to say.

File: 1475795554756.jpg (348KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

348KB, 1366x768px

The 2nd Amendment translated to today;
"We just got done fighting our own military. A military is necessary to protect our state so we'll keep one around, but since we just literally got done fighting our own military the regular person is allowed without government interference to be as well armed as our military should our people have to fight their own military again."

>>34946054
Militia's not important, what's important is that you cannot stop us from owning, keeping and open carrying firearms period.
I only mentioned the important bits. When people quote Dirty Harry they don't waste 2 minutes doing finger guns and making the sound effects of the scene prior to, "I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE THINKING.."

>>34943670
Liberals don't use logical arguments and absolutely love re-defining words for their own ends. It's moot to try holding any law to them.

>>34944018
>show me a single example to the contrary.

Syria
Chechnya
Ukraine
Afghanistan
Iraq
Probably a few in Africa
Mexico

Militias are very relevant in current year. Nice try with the war crime strawman, though

File: 1484394026612.jpg (50KB, 425x363px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 425x363px

>>34946160
You forgot to mention Ireland

>>34944238
>Once that's accomplished,

They decided to vote in Obamacare, instead. You should also brush up on how amendments get repealed or ratified. It has nothing to do with having a supermajority in Congress. It's up to the states.

>>34946219
>They decided to vote in Obamacare, instead
Which, it must be noted, was based on Romneycare, is a market-based system that maintains the power of insurance and privatized health care, and is given shit because it's the Republican plan but they weren't the ones to put it in place.

>>34946292
>Romneycare, is a market-based system
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

>>34946020
Exactly the issue m8. But it's there, give it a google.

>>34946054
We already covered that the first bit isn't a limit on the second bit. Get your head out of the state's ass

>>34946219
>It's up to the states.

Which will only get more blue, thanks to Trump exposing the GOP and their voters for what they are.

>>34946312
>I don't actually understand how either works!

File: freespeech.jpg (59KB, 495x422px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 495x422px

>>34946331
yet somehow the left is managing to make themselves look even worse

>>34946365
No, they really aren't. There isn't worse than "Marching as actual Nazis."

>>34946349
>implying it works

>>34946375
The nigger in that picture is literally burning a free speech sign you troglodyte. Even the Nazis here aren't attacking free speech

>>34946365
Charlottesville belies your argument.

File: 1502914252679.jpg (123KB, 500x719px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 500x719px

>>34946375
sure faggot, how about being a fucking communist group that advocates for and partakes in violence against political opponents (mainly anyone right of fucking lenin) what about the leftists who recently smashed the oldest monument to columbus in the us, or the man who shot a republican commiteeman twice in the head infront of his wife, what about the leftist media that ignores or calls these people patriots despite wanting to destroy everything the United states has stood for since it's creation

TL:DR
Fuck you faggot

>>34946375
>There isn't worse than "Marching as actual Nazis."

i know you'll find a way,

you get one good week out of a seemingly never ending stream of bad optics and you count that as a victory

you had to be compared against actual nazis to look like the better of the two ffs

>>34946395
Works better than what we had, or anything the GOP has proposed so far.

>>34946398
No, they're just attacking everyone they don't like.
>>34946470
>>34946497
>Hurr Nazees fine

>>34940011
>since armed rebellion is the only answer for a state which has become a tyranny, everyone is allowed to prepare themselves for such an eventuality.


It wouldn't hold up in court, but since you're baiting anyway that doesn't really matter.

>>34944829
You know what, Phil, you're not so bad.

>>34946533
A stopped clock is right twice a day, don't encourage him.

>>34946510
>Works better than what we had
not according to the people that were already insured and watched their premiums skyrocket by double digit percentage points every quarter. The Same people lost coverage and doctors watch their plans go to absolute shit

not to the people who can't afford subsidized insurance and have to pay a fine for not having it.

who is it working for exactly?

>>34940277
>Guerilla warfare is absolutely devastating to modern militaries, especially on the guerilla fighters' home turf.
How is it possible to be this stupid? Some morons in hick country with a rifle can't do shit against the United States military whether he knows the land or not.

File: 1495141837315.png (126KB, 774x510px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 774x510px

>>34946517
know what your getting in bed with

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY7a1RXMbHI

>>34946517
let me restate
you had to be compared against actual nazis to look like the better of the two

other options >>>>>>>>>>>>>> you > nazis

Anonymous ## Mod 2017-08-23 02:26:28 Post No.34946589
[Report]

Anonymous ## Mod 2017-08-23 02:26:28 Post No.34946589 [Report]

This thread was moved to >>>/pol/138677203