Thread replies: 49
Thread images: 14
Thread images: 14
Come on, smart anons. I want to learn something. Poke a hole in my argument.
The Second Amendment (Hereafter simply "2A") States: "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."
"Well Regulated", as a phrase, meant at the time something more like "properly self-functioning" than "ordained in legislature." Per http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm, " Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected." Further, http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm presents an excellent, in-depth discussion on the phrase.
Gun Control is not only counter-intuitive to creating a well-regulated militia, by the above definition, but is a clear form of infringement on the ABILITY of the people to keep and bear arms. Regardless of whether or not the RIGHT to bear such arms is extended to individual citizens ("the people") or only those involved in a state- or federal-government-sanctioned Militia (which is unlikely, I think), the very concept of these laws is a limiting factor in the goal of keeping and bearing arms. This is by definition; Gun Control is meant to decrease a set group or groups' ability to buy, keep, and bear firearms.
The Militia Act of 1792 and related legislation carry the definition of Unorganized Militia to modern law. The most recent Act I've encountered in my short research would be the National Defense Act of 1920, which reinforced (as opposed to repealing) the definition of an Unorganized Militia indicating that all male citizens of the prescribed ages (18 to 45) are members of the unorganized militia as a federally-recognized concept and are, thereby, undeniably protected by the 2nd Amendment's definition.
Conclusion. Whether 2A applies to Militias or to Individuals, IE "The People," is irrelevant for Male Citizens. Their rights cannot legally be infringed in the form of Gun Control legislation without disregarding 2A.
>>
>>131286695
You're right, though.
>>
>>131286695
Militias a lagging behind they should have tanks, choppers, missiles, subs, drones etc. there is no way the people of the U.S would be able to defend itself from a tyrannical government.
>>
>>131287404
>there is no way the people of the U.S would be able to defend itself from a tyrannical government.
There are two screen caps with more than 10 reasons (pretty overlapping) each refuting this to the ground. I hope someone posts them instead of me typing a butchered version.
>>
>>131287404
Yeah because all that has helped the US military in recent wars against poorly armed populations right? You still need to send in the infantry to secure the population and disarm them, send them into urban areas where the close quarters fighting negates any technological advantage the military might have.
And the moment the government starts using tanks, choppers, missiles, drones etc on their own people they've lost anyway, they're destroying their own workforce, their own cities, their own economy
>>
>>131287404
>>131287404
You're assuming that the goal of a tyrant would be war with its people. In reality, the goal must be control of its people - murdering off even ten percent of your population can cripple your economy. Every time you shoot your own citizens, you're shooting yourself.
Just the possibility of armed resistance, however effective or ineffective, can be enough to make any government think twice.
>>
>>131287930
The conflicts abroad were all theater. It was all for profit(((MIC))) .
>>
>>131288065
>You're assuming that the goal of a tyrant would be war with its people.
False, the goal of a tyrannical government is to simply wage war against those who dare oppose it.
>Just the possibility of armed resistance, however effective or ineffective, can be enough to make any government think twice.
U.S militias are a joke.
>>
>>131288645
Then why don't you get involved and fix up the Militia organizations we have? Clearly you're the smartest person in the thread- no, in all of /pol/! The entire nation would be indebted to you, oh wise and mighty anon.
>>
>>131287598
You don't need to take out the tank. You just need to kill the guy who brings it fuel.
The American gun owner is the largest army in the world. If you don't think we could put up twice the fight of those Afghan sand niggers (who've successfully fought off the Russians and the Americans) you're a fool.
>>
File: 1498087238452.jpg (22KB, 500x410px) Image search:
[Google]
22KB, 500x410px
>>131289097
That's the best argument you got
>Prove me wrong, pro tip you can't
>>
>>131289299
I wasn't arguing, I just wanted you to know you're a dick.
Speaking seriously, though, you're not wrong. Our Militia organizations are barely even organizations. The National Guard was meant to be an independent military organization which was recognized and funded by the state and federal governments, but which was co-opted into the US military later on. The number one Militia for the defense of the People of the United States has been turned into another arm of the Military. What we have left are a bunch of small groups of preppers who read conspiracy theories all day. They're disorganized, splintered off, and generally useless.
Instead of being able to rely on any given Militia, we're forced to rely on every gun-owner in the US. However, because they're not subject to any group, the average gun owner may have no sense of loyalty or commitment to keeping the United States free. So as one anon put it up above, the American gun owner is the largest army in the world - and the least organized.
But if you think you can fix that, then please do. We need a better militia.
Still, the point of my OP still stands. IF it is still law that the Unorganized Militia is a federally-recognized concept, then gun control against those included individuals is an unconstitutional concept at its very core.
>>
File: nebula.jpg (51KB, 363x374px) Image search:
[Google]
51KB, 363x374px
>>131290375
>I wasn't arguing, I just wanted you to know you're a dick.
You were mocking me. I'm a dick for being realistic?
>But if you think you can fix that, then please do. We need a better militia.
That all I need to hear from you to deduct you are probably a fucking fed.
>>
File: 1493225847545.png (220KB, 872x886px) Image search:
[Google]
220KB, 872x886px
>>131287404
ok
>>
File: 1484722799837.png (203KB, 1802x905px) Image search:
[Google]
203KB, 1802x905px
>>131290981
more
>>
File: 1497301254692.png (137KB, 1158x1393px) Image search:
[Google]
137KB, 1158x1393px
>>131291019
even more stuff
>>
File: 1495896048061.png (784KB, 1802x2428px) Image search:
[Google]
784KB, 1802x2428px
>>131291077
also this
>>
>>131290822
We're both dicks.
I'm a dick sitting naked in my bedroom after masturbating to loli, twice, arguing against gun control. I'm pretty sure I belong here.
>>131290981
Hawt.
>>
File: 1498250772807.gif (2MB, 444x250px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 444x250px
>>131286695
Blah blah guns are evil 600 million babies dead by fully-semi automatic murder machines with 500-bullet clips hurr hurr
>>
>>131287404
>there is no way the people of the U.S would be able to defend itself from a tyrannical government
If the US is having such an impossible task of defeating low IQ sandniggers with soviet-era weapons and technology, how do you think the government would be able to control vast populations of people who have years of firearm training and logistical capabilities to defend itself?
It would not be in the best interest for the US government to control it's populations with force. It would be an economic disaster for the country and would ultimately destroy the rule of law in a civilized society.
>>
>>131286695
>Conclusion. Whether 2A applies to Militias or to Individuals, IE "The People," is irrelevant for Male Citizens. Their rights cannot legally be infringed in the form of Gun Control legislation without disregarding 2A.
You should really read the Supreme Court decision that decided this.
>>
>>131290981
You post what the nip had to say but not the dozens of replies he received, hmmmmm I wonder why btw this is not the first time I've seen this.
>>
>>131291332
>>131291111
>>131291077
>>131291019
Read these aswell.
>>
>>131291194
>Fully semi-automatic
I see you watch Steven Crowder as well. I too am a man of refinement.
>>
>>131291019
You believe what a deep state gimp says? He tells you only what you want to hear."Yeah goys you totally have this lol".
>>
>>131291289
I skimmed over it.
Side note, "I know a place where the Constitution doesn't mean crap! The Supreme Court!"
>>
>>131291194
>What an insufferable cunt.
>>
>>131291603
Not bothering to refute the points. kek
>>
File: 2nd+Amendment.gif (24KB, 827x435px) Image search:
[Google]
24KB, 827x435px
>>131286695
Here you go, learn English
>>
File: 1481694296908.jpg (42KB, 460x464px) Image search:
[Google]
42KB, 460x464px
>>131286695
>Well Regulated
means well-trained
Anyway, the 2nd should be seen as a pair with the prohibition on a permanent standing army, creating a legal precedent and preference for a militia system. I.e., the point isn't to protect the people from government force, the point is to make the people the government force themselves.
Anyway anyway, the constitution is not a suicide pact etc, there is plenty of space for various kinds of gun control laws while respecting the 2nd amendment, as much as you want to pretend otherwise. It's both common sense and the established case law.
>>
>>131291997
Well-Regulated means Well-Functioning, not Well-Trained. Well-Functioning would, I imagine, include Well-Trained under an umbrella of other well-things.
>>
>>131287404
>defend itself from a tyrannical government.
This is a post-60's countercultural disinterpretation of the constitution. The point isn't for people to defend themselves from the government, the point is to make the people the government themselves.
It's pathetic how so many rightwingers have fallen for this cultural marxist "protect muhself from the man" bullshit meme, desu
>>131292317
no, it doesn't. Think "regular army" not "regular bowel movement".
>>
>>131291705
why is the government creating a police state?
why is the government obsessed with creating massive databases holding information on it's civilians?
why does the government sill want to impose stricter gun laws?
Why are they so bold and brazen when it comes to passing unconstitutional laws? Shouldn't the be afraid of mass outrage and backlash. Who's gonna stop them?
>>
>>131292535
KYS nigger.
>>
>>131287404
Absolutely this.
The militia is no longer 'well-regulated' and must be restored to proper function.
>>
>>131289108
This
>>
>>131292954
>just looks at the flag
>doesn't actually look at what I'm saying
good job cleetus, keep buying those water filters
>>
>>131293651
Negrophile.
>>
>>131290981
and This. Glad someone posted it
>>
>>131293980
Now will you listen you fucking tard?
>>
>>131294127
Traitor.
>>
>>131291019
>>131291077
>>131291111
>>131291705
ROFL your copypastas explain why the government is hell bent in creating a fucking SURVEILLANCE STATE it would allow them to detect MOLES (True Patriots) EASY
>G.T.F.O YOU FUCKING BOOTLICKER
>>
>>131294310
Happy now?
>>
>>131294696
Cuck.
>>
File: F7xm7bF.jpg (134KB, 720x1008px) Image search:
[Google]
134KB, 720x1008px
>>131294696
Choke on a fucking nigger sausage faggot!
>>
>>131286695
>shall not be infringed
>>
File: 1467930508655.gif (2MB, 280x175px) Image search:
[Google]
2MB, 280x175px
>>131294870
>I don't like anyone who isn't just like me
>>131294993
Someone needs to shop dylan roof's head onto that whiteboi
you know dylan roof gonna be havin a gay ol time once he get broken in
bitch whiteboi find is true calling as a niggerdick cocksleeve, you best believe it
>>
>>
File: hippo_bump.jpg (28KB, 370x240px) Image search:
[Google]
28KB, 370x240px
Bump.
Thread posts: 49
Thread images: 14
Thread images: 14