Average Canuck here, can someone explain the second amendment to me?

Average Canuck here, can someone explain the second amendment to me?

What exactly is meant by "shall not be infringed"?

SHALL

NOT

BE

INFRINGED

That the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, by the federal government, or the state government

okay i understand the words

but what do they mean exactly in the context of the second amendment

are they allowed to take away your guns if you're still armed with a knife? or is it unconstitutional to forcibly remove Arms from a person if they already possess them

This thread is now property of the United States.

Go rake yourself leaf.

actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"

then why is chicago a gun-free zone

It mean they can't make laws saying you can't have guns. Like a state cannot make it illegal to posses a gun if you're not a felon, underaged or have history of mental illness.

Because liberals either have never read the constitution and the bill of rights, don't understand what they mean, or they simply just don't give a shit and still do whatever they """feel""" is right. Also, ironically, Chicago has one of the high crimes committed by guns in the us, despite being a "gun free" city.

Read up on the battle of Concord and Lexington. English wanted to "remove the fangs" or disarm our drunk ancestors so they wouldn't be that scary while protesting the bullshit we were getting from the king. So when we set our own shit up we made the 2nd amendment so if we were being tools to the commonfolk, they could at least have the decency to shoot us.

It's very liberal, no one to challenge the law. I believe it's not gun free, just very hard to get one

Do they fucking have dictionaries in Leaf Land? If they do, use it to beat yourself in the face.

>just very hard to get one
then why are there so many shootings

Because those guns are obtained illegally

but they're just exercising their rights so wouldn't it be legal?

where are you seeing the right to murder someone shall not be infringed?

Because various laws regarding restrictions imposed via licensing requirements have been shown to be constitutional in some cases, and some go unchallenged due to fear of them setting a national precedent. You should ask /k/ about this, this is their forte. A couple years ago there was a successful challenge to Illinois law that allowed the state to become a "Constitutional Carry" state

i mean to own the guns

Fair enough....I suppose the line is drawn somewhere on ownership, and that has been batted around by our Supreme Court throughout the years. Convicted felons can't own guns, neither can the mentally ill, etc. I don't hear many gun people having a problem with those.

That's a good point, but these guns are either stolen or bought off the black market, plus most of these people who use them in Chicago are criminals and felons, which are prevented from owning such weapons (since we do have some limitations on the rights), but that's because there was a justifiable reason to bar them from owning weapons. The state nor federal government will ever have a justifiable reason to ban all weapons from the ordinary, law abiding citizen because of the shall not be infringed clause.

No, there are restrictions that prevent people from owning firearms (convicted of a felony, dishonorable discharge from the military, etc) that prevent people from owning firearms. Being convicted of a crime through a "fair a speedy trial" allows the state to deny you some of your rights. In the case of Chicago, there are licensing restrictions that often require one to obtain certain credentials before being legally allowed to own a firearm under municipal law, since this is not an outright prohibition on the ownership, legalistic gymnastics have been done to allow the person's right to own firearms technically be considered "infringed"

isn't that unconstitutional though?

Be more specific. Are you asking if restricting someone's rights once they have been proven to be irresponsible and dangerous with them unconstitutional? The answer to that one is 'no'.

well it specifically says "shall not be infringed" but it can be infringed

if you were to break your leg, witch side will you choose?

right, and everyone shall be entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness....until you do a double murder because then your crazy ass isn't allowed to be part of society anymore

The idea of the constitution is to prevent the federal, state, and municipal governments from enacting tyrannical control over the populace. Specifically, the 2nd Amendment is to prevent the population at large from being disarmed so that, in the event the above mentioned governments becomes tyrannical and starts denying other basic rights, the populace can fight back. It is not designed to give people carte blanche to do what they will with the freedoms it enshrines. Infrigement of a right may be necessary in certain circumstances, and that has always been understood. Whether or not you consider an infringement of an individual's rights as a reaction to their bad behavior as "unconstitutional" is up to you, but I do not, and neither do the courts.

ALL LEAF FAGGOTS GET KEKED

those are unalienable rights though

I'm starting to think you're just shitposting. The Constitution doesn't exist in a vacuum of the explicit text, it exists as a guideline for an actual society with actual people leading actual lives. A "right" is something that is personal, you have the right to do this and that, but once you start denying others those rights, how does a free society get you to stop?

well they have the right to keep and bear arms too

try to deny someone's right and they can defend themselves

same...we got ripped on brandy and squirrel meat and fought, you fuckers gave up. Reap what you sow, etc. Murrica out.

NO
STEP
ON
SNEK

upsnek'd

Ideally, yes, but we do not live in an ideal world.

Holy shit, the Canadians stole the border fence!

america should give everyone a gun at highschool graduation

LEAF STATUS:RAKED

>well-regulated militia
>well-regulated

...

see

That addresses "militia," not "well-regulated."

Item 5.

It means you get a gun to your back.

Ahh, got it, so it must mean that terrorists and convicted felons get to own guns too.

GET BLOWN LEAVES

sure why not

everyone should as soon as they try something someone will shoot them

It simply means that the people (synonymous with "militia") should be armed with weapons that are REASONABLY comparable to those of any potential threat to their liberty. Of course that doesn't give individuals the right to nuclear weapons. Reasonableness is a difficult concept to codify due to constant changes in social, civic, and technological progress, but there are NO rights that aren't subject to reasonable limitations including speech and religion. It's the role of the courts to figure out where the line is.

Everyone having the right to own them does not mean everyone will. The victims to guns could only increase by allowing everyone to have them. You'd have to make ownership mandatory to get what you want.