Guns in all countries

Is America the only country that actually allows people to defend themselves or do any other countries have anything similar to a second amendment?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=2nfYCg5qKPc
twitter.com/AnonBabble

USA is the only country that guarantees it as a right currently, everyone else is a cuck with no guarantees, with maybe the exception of Czech Republic which I believe just passed a constitutional edit to include this

I donno, mang. My interpretation of that amendment is that the people within a well regulated militia have the right to keep and bear arms.
>starts my mentioning militias
>therefore everything afterwards falls within the scope of militias

A FUCKING

why do Canadians try so hard to be like Australians? unfunny faggot

What? Why would they even include the "regulated militias" part if it wasn't meant to be taken into account?

Some states don't give you the right to own a gun. Sure they say you can apply for a permit, but it's just a meme that you have any real right. Their laws are incompatible with the second amendment and yet the courts packed with fear mongering "guns are baby killers!" STILL manage to pervert the right to defend oneself. Hell having a gun is dangerous because if you defend yourself from a dindu you're likely to get charged with a hate crime.

TL;DR The system is beyond fucked in some states, stay away from them if you value your freedom.

A militia is a citizen army who organize themselves when the second amendment says militia it means all of the citizens.

Guns are all but banned. We have a right to self defense though.

Militia: all able-bodied American civilians. Not the military.
Well regulated: well equipped and in working order.

It's also pretty funny how you liberals always forget the part where it says "the right of THE PEOPLE".

The 2nd Amendment is an equalizer. If the government has assault rifles with baby-killing clips, then the citizens must be allowed to as well.

Bullshit... A militia is a group of concerned local citizens who kill tax collectors and other Jew messengers

Switzerland i think does

Strictly speaking, all gun laws are anticonstitutional. All of them. Anti-gunners constantly say that it's a "living document", but then they don't actually try to amend it. It's fucking stupid.

Canada is kinda fucky about gun laws. Theoretically, we have a right to it, though it's not recognized by the government at the moment.

Here's a documentary on the subject if you're interested:
youtube.com/watch?v=2nfYCg5qKPc

Well regulated militia... regulated... REGULATED... Who is usually in charge of regulating shit? Da Gubmint das who!
The boy scout are considered a paramilitary organization, same with cadets, reserve units, and such. Why wouldn't a militia receive the same label?

"Every citizen has the right to own weapons at home and use them, either for common defense, his own defense, against any illegal agression which would put in jeopardy the life, members or freedom of one or several citizens"

-Article X of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789.

That article was discarded in the final draft for the following reasons :

"The right declared in discarded article X was obvious in its nature, and one of the main guarantors of political and civil freedom, that no other institution can replace."

The writers of the declaration outlined that owning weapons was a natural right, existing everywhere since the dawn of time, making it "a superior and unyielding principle, which forces itself not only upon the authority of a determined state, but to the authorities of all states."

Didn't prevent leftist politicians from pretending all of that never existed and fucking our shit up with their gun control laws though.

"Regulated", as used when it was written, meant "in good working order".

Id est: Well equipped and trained.

I'm pretty sure Uruguay has a right to self-defense. It does have based gun laws for a Latin American country.
Czechia does as well. They can even carry.

Ok now you're just trolling. Fuck off leaf.

Regulated as in self regulated by the citizens itself such as making sure all the guns are on par with the military, cleaned and stored properly

The boy scouts were made to train young boys survival skills during the cold war.
The constitution was made to protect people from their government.

It can honestly be pretty difficult to tell when someone is trolling or just that fucking stupid and/or crazy.

If you want a good laugh, google "Ron Charach". He's a psychiatrist in Canada who foams at the mouth regarding guns. He has written more letters to newspapers than most would consider normal or healthy. It's definitely a "Doctor heal thyself" situation. He also writes poetry about buttholes.

Many thanks leafbro.

No problem, man. I hope to see you guys pass the HPA and repeal the NFA in general!

>t. illiterate frenchie

Also, for my fellow leafbros, I hope you guys have purchased a CPC membership to vote for Maxime Bernier if you're interested in guns (or, indeed, freedom in general). You have to be a member prior to the 28th of this month in order to be eligible to vote.

His platform would make any rifle/shotgun with an overall length of over 26" non-restricted.

You can regulate the militia. You can't infringe on the right to bear arms while doing it, you retarded fucking leaf.

I have no idea what the Americucks accept all the fucking about with this right which they appear to have lost.

It process to acquire armaments should be exactly the same as they were when this document was drafted.

I understand that in some places in the USA, you cannot evenly openly carry Assault Rifles!

How the fuck is that in compliance with "Shall not be infringed"?

Your Creator gives you the right to defend yourself but America is one of the few countries that recognizes that.

>self regulated by the citizens
It doesn't say anything about citizens. It says people, and it says it within the scope of regulated militias (seeing as it starts the amendment by mentioning militias). Meaning that the members of a well regulated militia have the right to keep and bear arms.

A regulated militia isn't something specific controlled by government agency, but would required to conduct itself properly.

I hope your gun laws loosen.

There is no other country that grants guns as a constitutional right. In all other countries that allow civilian ownership of firearms, having them is a privilege.

With that said, I can't really understand why some states in the USA can actually restrict that right and get away with it. Liberal hellholes like Commiefornia have a gun legislation that is actually worse than some European countries.

Switzerland has the highest gun number in europe

Why would it say "Right of the people" if it wasnt the right of the people?

Nice pic

For reference, this is 26" OAL.

Currently, only manually-operated firearms (bolt, lever, pump and break-action) are non-restricted based on OAL. Semi's require an 18.5" barrel and are limited to either 5 (most), 8 (M1 Garand) or 10 rounds (firearms that can use pistol magazines). His platform would also get rid of all magazine capacity laws. So you'll be able to own an AR-15 with short barrel and normal capacity mags with just a PAL.

We need Maxime Bernier for it (if we get O'Leary, we're fucked) and it needs to be a majority government, otherwise the bills just won't pass.

It was normal in any country, world wide, that man can carry weapons
There´s no need to have laws for or against it

No other country even comes close except middle eastern tribes with AKs and lawless African Warlord nations

Here you go, jesus christ why hasn't anyone posted this yet?

Because it is the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" as a member of "a well regulated militia" seeing as militias are "necessary to the security of a free state." Furthermore, this right "shall not be infringed."

Again, why would they mention militias if they weren't meant to be taken into account?

The militia was a preface.

>In order for peeps to be able to organize a suitable defense for the country, people are allowed to own and use any weapons

The 'well regulated militia' is simply a consequence of the unencumbered right of the people to keep and bear armaments.

Read this for god sake, it's perfectly clear what they meant by it.
Read any fucking thing of the founding fathers and you will see they clearly meant the individual person.

Have you ever read something of Jefferson? He made this a clear point.

I identify as a one-person militia, shitlord!

Russia?

>since a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of the state (and all people are militia) the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

Is it that hard to understand? Does liberalism really make people that dense?

Well, looks like I am voting Bernier next time

Last time I voted Bloc Québécois

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Va. Constitution with (his note) added, 1776.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to J. Cartwright, 1824.

That or mentally retarded people are more likely to become liberals.

Can you see that comma

I wish we had Stand your ground laws here; it's illegal to defend yourself from invaders until muslim dick is literally inside our asshole, and even then it's a sensitive issue.

Emotion obsessed people can be retarded or not

They ban guns because the way they feel then fill in the blanks with gibberish

Yes, and there is also no emphasis on the separate ideas within the amendment. Meaning that the entirety of it falls within the scope of militias.

If they had said something like "militias are important to the security of a free state; therefore, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." then you'd have a leg to stand on.

However, they didn't separate it. The are talking about the people within a militia, and not the people within the state/country.

Being in a militia implies some level of organization. I'm basically trying to argue that you can keep you AR-15 as long as you sign up for the boy scouts, show up to their potluck dinner once a month and talk about gun safety.

> allows

Government doesn't allow me shit britbong.

God allows me to defend myself. Our government recognizes our natural right to self defense.

I think what you lack is a strong base in logic (I mean you should go take a logic course) and English (at least the vernacular of the late 18th century).

This is deductive argument. In an argument, there are premises and a conclusion.

Let's start with the wording.

>A well regulated militia
>well regulated == well armed, not restricted
>security of a free state == for the state to continue to be free once free

also have an obligatory people == people, =/= militia. I fully agree that militia and the citizenry are not synonyms. But the vernacular of the day was that a militia was comprised of the citizenry, at such citizenry's discretion (i.e. "minutemen").

So, let's really analyze the premises.

>The united states is a free state (nation)
>A well armed militia is necessary for it to continue to be free
>A militia is derived from the citizenry("the people), at said citizenry's discretion

>therefore, the right of the citizenry to keep and bear weaponry(which includes guns, there are older unconventional at the time weaponry), shall not be violated in any way, no matter how slight.

Your mistake is in believing that every sentence follows through like subject-predicate. This is very much so untrue. However, "within the scope of militias," which are in fact just citizens who decide to militarily gather under their definition, this would still hold true as the people are not always a militia, but a militia is always by of and for "the people."

>then again, I wouldn't expect a redcoat loyalist to understand the bill of rights, or even magna carta :^)

>emphasis on the "separating" ideas

forgot to add that the conclusion was the therefore... shall not be [infringed], but it's pretty obvious from the spacing

Being a leaf. Not once
Read the federalist papers and the intent is clear

You are literally retarded.

I'm glad the gun control movement in the US suicided in the 90s.

It is. Period.

>implying the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to self-defense.

>implying it doesn't

the US is the only country that truly accepts human rights because it is the only country that recognizes the basic human right of self-defense

According to the US Federal code the militia consists of any able-bodied males between the ages of 17-45. The amendment does say "the people" though, so that's different.

>Also

Go buy yourself a gun and train with it. It's your responsibility if you're an American male.

All of those examples of "well-regulated" imply there is a standard to be held up to when comparing the object (i.e. does this clock hold time as well as an "ideal clock"). Meaning that a "well regulated militia" would differ from just "a militia" in that it would have to resemble the ideal militia.

Now obviously an ideal militia is a subjective term, but it would imply more then just everyone gets a gun and can shoot the bad guys if they want.

This doesn't refute my argument. If they just wanted people to have guns then they would have said something like "protecting ones self and property is integral to our way of life; therefore, the right..."

They specifically brought up militias, and they did so in a manner that would imply it's significant on the rest of the amendment (its literally the first thing and isn't separated by any significant punctuation). They were speaking within a specific scope throughout the amendment.

Yes, militias are of, by and for the citizens of a nation. So the citizens should be allowed to decide if you are fit to have a gun. As in you join your local militia, and if the members of said militia decide that you are fit to keep and bear arms you get the right to have a gun. You get that gun as a member of that militia.

The narrative gun control push is that the second amendment was drafted during a time when they only had muskets.

Their argument is flawed. That was the standard weapon of infantry. What is the standard weapon for modern day infantry. Assault Rifles.

Gun Culture is so ingrained in American Culture. I'm not too worried about guns going away, especially with all the vacant supreme court seats will go to conservatives

Who needs the first amendment when you have friends?

Federalist and antifederalist papers. It means that the class and quality of arms that are protected are specifically those suitable for a milittia, as opposed to personal hunting weapons.

Earlier drafts specified a right to bows and shotguns, self defense weapons and hunting on your own property.

So, weapons that are NOT used by militias anywhere, and not considered suitable are not covered by the second amendment. For example, bottles of anthrax, nukes, ect.

And weapons that ARE used by them, most importantly, civilian government militias like the police are covered.

The ideal is that the government and the people as a whole should be one and the same, therefore the government shouldn't be reserving special privileges for it's own militias and denying them to the rest of the people in this regard.

Join the party and help make sure he actually becomes leader.

The cannons used in the revolution were mostly privately owned.

When you compare an AR-15 to a howitzer, it's pretty clear which is more powerful.

>So the citizens should be allowed to decide if you are fit to have a gun.
For once in this conversation, you're ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

Thing is, the standard for denying someone a gun is EXACTLY the same as denying someone's voting rights.

You need to be convicted of a felony by a jury of your peers in a court of law. If THAT happens, you lose a lot of your rights as a citizen.

Earlier drafts specified the right to self defense, but that was specifically rejected as not strong enough language.

> “The right of the citizens to bear arms for
the defence of themselves and the state shall not be questioned.”

You can actually find this exact language in some of the state constitutions.


Not just cannons. Full on warships covered in cannons acting as privateeers. That's state of the art tech for that era. And it's like that all they way until about WW1, when industrial revolution machinery puts tanks and shit out of the price tag of the general citizen population.

Ah, my British friend, you found a photo with an error. You see, in our second amendment, the words "Militia" and "State" are capitalized.

This leads to the understanding that the amendment was written to allow the people to defend themselves against a State run Militia in case it got out of control.

A check and balance system if you will. Well armed citizens are the check to the State if they overreach.

So, "a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (we need a state Militia to ensure our freedom from foreign invaders), the right of the people to keep and bear arms (to check the State in case they get cray), shall not be infringed."

I know some people may interpret it another way, but as our republic was designed to have check and balances in place to avoid a totalitarian govt, it's easy to see what they meant and why exactly they capitalized the words that they did.

What if the Dems had tried a power grab when Hillary won; said "fuck it, the country's election rules don't matter"? The people need a way to fight back, otherwise the government will demand the people play by the rules but won't do it themselves. There'd be no check on the government then. As long as the government obeys their own rules they'll have nothing to worry about.

When Hillary lost* I mean. The point is, we had a lot of people here who didn't give a fuck that Trump won legitimately. They still wanted the loser to be president regardless of the law. That's why we need guns, to prevent the supplantation of the law.

Interestingly, a lot of democrats started buying guns after Trump won because they finally realized that maybe people talking about defending themselves from the government might not be so crazy.

... And then we had a ton of them on /k/ bitching about the laws they once supported being stupid and arbitrary.

>Yeah, no shit? Too bad nobody told you that a million fucking times already, eh?

In Brazil, the only chances of you owning a gun are if you are a federal worker (like a judge or something), or live in a farm (but then you need to go through a mountain-load of paperwork and government bureaucracy).

...or you could just be a criminal.

What is Switzerland,

The only country in the world that can make an American jealous of gun rights

I've stood on that spot, the church in St Petersburg where the Tsar was assassinated

Sure.

And all fighting aged men count as being part of the militia.

Therefore all fighting aged men can have all the guns they want.

Fuck you.

I swear to God leafs are literally fucking autistic.

It literally says "The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Malitias don't require a fucking right to bear arms. No one was like, "oh shit we better give our militias the right to bear arms or else how they gunna fight?"

Like I said, autistic, this fucking faggot thinks "well regulated" means government regulations. fucking hell.