Why do you need the second amendment? If you intend on scaring

File: don-t-tread-on-me-confederate-flag-3-x-5-1.jpg (788KB, 1602x1001px) Image search: [Google]

788KB, 1602x1001px

>>138720760
in case you lose.

File: say-what-again-detail_29193_cached_thumb_-50ac5a62e8cecdbaefbf9be229c742d8-640x640.jpg (119KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 640x640px

>>138720760
I think the law is there to be adhered to, by the government, before any revolution takes place. Basically so that they don't take our guns THEN take over. They have to take over then grab guns.

If the government chooses to take our guns, we have it on paper that they are operating out of bounds and can justify a resistance, be it verbal or violent.

>>138720762
/thread

its not about protecting the right to revolt, but rather, the right to hold the tools to revolt.

>>138720760

Why are you conflating people owning guns and holding a revolution? You realize those are two separate things, right? If the government isn't acting despotically or unconstitutionally there's no need for a revolution, but people should still be allowed to own guns. That's why it should be legal. Am I confused as to what you're asking, or is your question as stupid as it sounds?

>>138720760
You're conflating two ideas. Nothing makes revolution legal. The Constitution protects the means by which revolution can be possible. Why not throw out all the first amendment, or the fourth, or any of the other bill of rights, by exercising them, you can be acting against the interests of the government.

File: you-just-went-full-potato-man-never-go-full-potato (1).jpg (68KB, 554x376px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 554x376px

>>138720760
Sir, I have to say without a doubt that you're a poster child in dodging coat hangers.
>why do need access to guns?
Primarily for for the security of a Free State, for self-defence, hunting, and fuck you that's why.
>Revolution to be legalized
Hey dumbass, if people are in revolt then that means we dont recognize the State's laws anymore. The reason it exists is a MAD doctrine for dictators, if they tread on me, I bite the motherfucker.

File: 974bdf3783fa9a147806f4253cf95140.png (340KB, 517x327px) Image search: [Google]

340KB, 517x327px

>>138720766
This. OP is a semen guzzling gains demon.

>>138720766
to be fair the first and second amendment are very outdated and need to be either kept up with the times or removed so that we wont have another civil war, adolf hitler or pinochet

>>138720760
The Bill of Rights is not a list of laws for the people. It is a list of "you, the government, don't get to fuck with this". The 2nd is a warning about nullify in the 1st.

>>138720760
>If you intend on scaring the government by keeping and bearing arms with the intent to be able to overthrow the government, why do you need it to be legal to do so?
To prevent them from fucking with things before we need to do this, so that by the time we need to do this it isn't impossible.

>>138720769
>the first and second amendment are very outdated
>The first amendment is outdated
Oh no, someone disagreed with you and you want to make it illegal for them to talk? You're a fascist, in the literal dictionary sense, for thinking that's even remotely conscionable.

File: 1499141627353.jpg (70KB, 500x590px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 500x590px

>>138720769
>pinochet
PINOCHET DID NOTHING WRONG REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

>>138720760
"I don't understand cause and effect": The Post

>>138720769
Would you care to propose how they are to be updated, so a whole horde of people don't go putting words in your mouth?

Like I'd love to sit here and guess about how you think that because things are different today and we have greater understanding, speech is violence

But you might be one of those wonderful unicorns who has an actual coherent position, and in any rate we're clearly very interested in the specifics of your trolling here.

I mean, you should be on /pol/ asking these questions