GUNFAGS ETERNALLY BTFO

BASED KEITH OLBERMANN

>NOWHERE IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT DOES IT SAY PRIVATE CITIZENS CAN "OWN" GUNS

>THE 2ND AMENDMENT WAS WRITTEN SO CITIZENS CAN BEAR AN ARM =====AS PART OF A WELL REGULATED STATE MILITIA======

youtube.com/watch?v=kIIIi9yOFJw

Other urls found in this thread:

abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/passing-driver-kills-man-shot-arizona-officer-ambush-44739139
m.youtube.com/watch?v=ECxDvwObwZk
webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Qp8i3qgQO28J:www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/university-of-texas-carry-dildos-instead-of-guns_us_57bf0342e4b085c1ff27fa3b &cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
youtube.com/watch?v=dgpEuCUm6SE
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Nowhere in the 1st Amendment does it say that religions have the freedom to crash planes into buildings.

Checkmate, Christianfags

Oh, gee OP, you sure got them. Better get started on taking everybody's guns away then. Cmon, hop to it.

What's the official consensus on background checks? Is it really an attack on US rights to make sure the mentally unsound can't bear arms?

Wait, wasn't he leading "the resistance"?
Wasn't he convincing the Electoral College to not vote for Trump?
Wasn't he the one getting Trump convicted of Treason?

Why is he talking guns now?

>the resistance

what are they going to resist with - harsh words and buttplugs?

Depends on who gets to define mentally unsound.

>youtube video uncovers the magical interpretation that everyone debated for the last 200 years
Whoa. What have we all been doing all this time? The answer was so obvious and took a smug guy with glasses on youtube to break it all down so succinctly even a fucking supreme court judge with 40+ years of law experience CAN UNDERSTAND.

THANK YOU, YOUTUBE VIDEO FOR SETTLING THE DEBATE.

This has been posted three or four times today and the video gets completely shredded each time.

Go home.

>KEEP
>AND
>BEAR
>ARMS

>KEEP

(((OLBERMAN)))


Neurotic kikes at it again

Here in Washington, it's now defined as 'anyone who calls the police and says so'.

Be careful with these laws. They're playing chess here, and all it takes is one seemingly benign move and they've set a trap you can't get out of.

Luckily they're fucking retarded and incapable of understanding the constitution. That'll be their downfall when push comes to shove. Well, that and the 80 million armed Americans who don't feel like giving up their rights.

The simple mind of a liberal. Meanwhile, back in reality:

abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/passing-driver-kills-man-shot-arizona-officer-ambush-44739139

who determines who is mentally unsound?

it would be nice if being registered democrat would automatically fail the background check. we'd have way lower crime rates for sure

WE ARE THE (((BERG))). LOWER YOUR AMENDMENTS AND SURRENDER YOUR GUNS. WE WILL ADD YOUR RACIAL DISTINCTIVENESS TO OUR OWN. YOUR CULTURE WILL ADAPT TO SERVE US. RESISTANCE IS FUTILE

>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
shall not be infringed
>shall not be infringed

Huh, would you look at that.

>listening to a mentally unbalanced sportscaster

Go fuck yourself.

I respond to your video with one of my own.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=ECxDvwObwZk

>OLBERMANN
>BASED

SHALL

>right of the people to keep and bear arms somehow means something other than people owning guns

NOT

BE

we need more Keith memes

INFRINGED

nowhere in the first amendment does it say private citizens can push bullshit propaganda on their youtube channel

prove me wrong. find the clause where it says the first amendment applies to youtube. protip: you cant. shut it down.

>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

what did they mean by this?

S H A L L

H

A

L

L

FUCK THIS FAGGOT!!!

This guy is a Shillory shill

>We are not trying to take your guns away
>But you shouldn't have them and it says no where that you can have and we are talking them away now thanks bye

kek

>NOWHERE IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT DOES IT SAY PRIVATE CITIZENS CAN "OWN" GUNS


So walking around with a gun is fine as long as it isn't your property. Is that right? I guess those chicago niggers are the true patriots.

>WRITTEN SO CITIZENS CAN BEAR AN ARM AS PART OF A WELL REGULATED STATE MILITIA.

Yes, that's why we were given the rights to have guns.

WE. WILL. NOT. RELINQUISH. THEM.

FROM. MY. COLD. DEAD. HANDS.

PASS WHATEVER EDICTS AND INTERPRETATIONS YOU WANT.

WE. WILL. NOT. RELINQUISH. THE. ARMS.

translated:

>Because a well-armed militia is needed to maintain a free and secure state, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be taken away. That way, they can form their own well-armed militia.

KEEP and bear arms

Based Texas

I know in virginia, when it was a british colony, every able bodied man was legally required to own a musket and a pound pf black powder. This country had a whole network of laws allowing officers of the law to conscript men into a posse and laws forcing men into privately equipped militias. There is no historical basis for his claim.

webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Qp8i3qgQO28J:www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/university-of-texas-carry-dildos-instead-of-guns_us_57bf0342e4b085c1ff27fa3b &cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Pretty much

>too smart for atheism

>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.


Can this guy read? Militia and right to bear are separate, however militia may depend on arms it doesn't necessarily have to be firearms.

>Constitution is all about property rights, nothing else
>Ignores literally half the amendments that mention nothing about property

militia was the volunteer peacekeeping and war force of a town formed by all able bodied men age 18-55 as per english common law. able bodied men were responsible for owning and supplying their own guns or arms, since the militia received no funding and was purely a voluntary force.

the militia could be called up at times of unrest or threat in order to rapidly respond to threats such as invasion by indians or to stop riots, to keep the general peace and secure law and order.

>what did they mean by this?
It means that all kinds of fucking arabs and shit are going to try to steal your freedom. and 'Muricans have to be ready and able to blow their fucking faces off when they try it.

...

We already -have- background checks. Country wide. When you go to buy a gun they check the databases for felony convictions, if you've been in an asylum, stalking, abusive, etc, etc.

The thing is, the check is supposed to be a yes/no, instant, no log kept. Just pass or fail. Liberals want to not only log everything but then use it to persecute people. That is the crux of the problem.

t. Someone who actually buys guns.

It's been used EXACTLY in the same way the Poll tax and poll tests have been used. To make sure whoever the government doesn't like doesn't have guns.

Most famous usage was Jim Crow.

The only reason the amendment is interpreted the way it is is because people voted for representative who promised that they'd push to have it interpreted that way. it obviously had nothing to do with individual rights, you can stop pretending it did and admit that the interpretation was changed for political purposes

RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE

>lose election
>push retarded opinions harder
>claim the opposite of what the SCOTUS has already ruled

makes me ponder

Keep and bear arms?

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

>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.

what part of " THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE " THIS faggot doesn t get

I'm fine with background checks. But nothing short of due process should remove your right to a gun. As in, you must be charged and convicted of a violent crime or intent to commit a violent crime by a jury of your peers. Nothing short of that should bar you ownership of a weapon. I'm also fine with a short waiting period between purchasing the weapon and possessing it. And by short I mean no more than a month.

Finally, if your gun is used to commit a crime, the legal owner of the gun as well as the perpetrator will be sentenced equally. To absolutely discourage people from lending, losing, or sharing weapons. As for guns that are stolen, there must be a well documented loss and police report that accounts for all weapons lost. At which point, the last known legal owner of the weapon will need to appear in court in person and recount the details of the theft of the weapon. Failure to correctly redescribe the theft/loss at this later time, or in person, will result in a fine proportionate to the sentence handed down to the perpetrator. Gun owners should be anal and viciously protective of their armories. If their negligence leads to a murder, they should bear that guilt.

I'm probably to the left of most gun owners for these stances. I want everyone but violent criminals to be armed. But I also want them to be legally obligated to account for their weapons at all times. Not that they need to disclose the weapon, they just need the bill of sale and proof of ownership. And if they sell the firearm, should have documentation of the sale for up to 10 years following the sale.

I'm baffled at how selective some people receive information
I just got running water and even I can see how fucking obvious the meaning of the 2A is

The first legislation on the subject was The Militia Act of 1792 which provided, in part:

That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, ... every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock.

The problem with the whole "universal background check" thing is that 99.9999% of Americans think the government regulates firearm *sales*. They don't. What is regulated are firearm *transfers*. As in, any change in possession.

When the background check law was originally being written people realized what a clusterfuck it would be to have to find an FFL and fill out a form 4473 every time they loaned a .22 rifle to a sibling so they could shoot the rabbits trying to get into their garden, or other situations like that.

So they set up a system with two categories: "public transfers", which is any purchase from an FFL or transfer of a handgun across state lines (which must go through an FFL), and "private transfers" which is a situation like giving your aunt a pistol because her ex-husband is stalking her. You have to fill out a 4473 for the former, but not the latter.

It was NOT a "loophole", no matter how hard the liberals try to keep pushing that buzzword. The law was written that way very intentionally, and everyone knew the score when it went to vote.

Most people who push universal background checks are doing so on the mistaken belief that background checks are applied to sales, without understanding what the actual effect of such legislation would be.

>I'm fine with background checks
NOT ONE INCH
UBCs are fucking stupid

OIlbermann is an embarrassment. He has been fired from job after job because he is a childish wreck of a man. Outbursts against staff, ill-fitting suits, emotional breakdowns. Sad!

Now he does youtube videos for a gay men's magazine. Where will he go next when he is fired from GQ? Needs serious help!

I didn't watch the video, so I'm guessing you're criticizing something olberman said.

This is the same logic as those people who say I'M NOT DRIVING, I'M TRAVELING

Sigh this tired as fuck argument.

Leftists just need to fuck off and die.

>he thinks "well regulated" means under government regulation

FUCK YOU 1305 times.

If you want to think like a eunich statist limpwristed hoplophobe libtard all you have to do is when you are confronted with facts and logic just stick your fingers in your ears and say "lalala I can't hear you lalalala"

I am part of a well regulated militia. I signed with the selective service upon turning 18

Right of the people, shitbird

I am so fucking disappointed with him. Fuck off with your liberal bullshit until we are a stable country. We aren't going to resist fascists by thinking happy thoughts Jesus Christ NEXT

>HURR DURR 2ND AMENDMENT MEANS BEAR'S ARMS (GET IT LIKE THE ANIMAL), HEHE

You've got to be kidding. Oberman is a nothing.

>Meme Olberman

Why do liberals actively despise freedom?

...

Wasn't it Ann Coulter or someone else that said he was a thumbdick who couldn't keep it up and busted after 30 seconds?

tfw Russians across the entire world understand bullshit strawman logic better than they do. about their own fucking law. fuck liberals

What part of comma don't you understand? The well regulated Militia won't be infringed. I don't even know what the right to bear arms is referring to in this sentence because the grammar is atrocious.

That argument has always sucked ass.
>Dude 1: Hey guys lets grant a right to the government on a piece of paper specifically written to limit government and their ability to write laws that infringe on these ideas
>Dude 2: Makes sense my dude
This is what leftists think when they hear this

see

N O T

O

T

As a young attorney, it really pisses me off when non-lawyers think that they understand Constitutional analysis.

He's a loud idiot with a soap box.

Whatever happened to Carnik Con?

>wanting Trump to take away our guns

He may call himself a liberal, but deep down he's just fascist scum. How are we supposed to resist the MAGAcaust now?

Then how come it says the people's right to bear arms and not the militias right?

In this day and age an american citizen = militia. We are the end power of this country. Liberal faggots can get the fuck out if they wouldn't die for this land.

too bad nothing he says matters
to anyone
at all

I think he was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis and stopped making videos because of that

Shit sux mang

lol this fucking comment

Apparently he is making a come back and will be at the upcoming shotshow

>

I'll support your gun registry when you support a Muzlim one.

Daily reminder literally all gun laws are unconstitutional.

Also, 'Arms' includes everything from a broadsword to a goddamn aircraft carrier.

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.

What's being said here is that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of the free state. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear, shall not be infringed. Because the people ARE the militia, you cannot take away guns from the people. The Supreme Court throughout the centuries have defined the people as being the militia. If not, who gets to decide who is the militia, who can start a militia and so forth. If it is the state, then that undermines the first part of the amendment, because if it's the state who decides who can and cannot be a militia, it's not longer a free state.

Thank you for this poast.

>The (((Berg)))
This needs to become a real meme

>As a young attorney, it really pisses me off when non-lawyers think that they understand Constitutional analysis.

Do you really need to be an attorney to parse this plain sentence? It's so obvious, there's nothing difficult about it.

The militia is important to keeping the states secure, so the government isn't allowed to disarm the citizens.

SCUM

RUSSIAN SCUM

Sup, Trump?

>all gun laws are unconstitutional.

yep, they've been slowly making it worse too.

here in CA its fucking ridiculous, a pistol is fine but you can't have any mags over 10 rounds, if you have 1 in the chamber thats a felony. Starting this year they're gonna make it so if you have REGULAR MAGS that can hold more than 10 instead of the modified 10 round mags its illegal.

Fucking shit, I hate this state.

Some carnik kino for you

youtube.com/watch?v=dgpEuCUm6SE

>Minuteman
If you did the same today without a lengthy licenseing process in Mass they'd send you right to prison

They really are sissified. Any socialist worth his salt knows in order to be free you must be able to ensure it.