>muh Constitution
is literally the only argument I hear from the defendants when gun control is brought up as an issue. Can someone people give me a cogent reasonable argument for upholding a 250 year old document? This is coming from someone who is against gun control btw.
Other urls found in this thread:
2A is literally the only argument that needs to be made faggot.
Who can enforce gun laws when there are more guns then people in the US? Not to mention, who is going to collect the guns because it's our Constitutional right to shoot whoever is trying to steal our freedom away
It's definitely a problem that stupid people invoke the constitution without understanding why the 2nd amendment is in the constitution. Makes it easier for anti-gun advocates to attack and feel as though they've won the debate.
One of the founding principles of the United States was a belief in individual liberty. People deserve the self agency to defend themselves and their families from people who want to hurt them. My basic premise is that people who wish to commit crimes and violence will have access to guns through illegal means. Therefore, lawful citizens should also be allowed access to guns through legal means in order to defend themselves.
People also deserve the right to defend themselves from the state, though that is a messier topic. It makes sense that a country that was founded on overthrowing an oppressive government wants to keep their weapons. When I make this point, people tend to think I'm a nut who thinks the government is already or currently in danger of turning into a tyranical monstrosity. But even if it is not right now, who is to say in 50 years from now social change will not create a situation where a western state becomes oppressive towards it's own people. Once you relinquish a state-granted right back to the state, you will almost certainly never have it given back.
inb4 "duh so should everyone have nukes, how you gonna defend yourself vs the army, etc".
...
People make literally hundreds of different sound arguments in favor of the right to bear arms, so if the only one you're hearing is an appeal to the Constitution, then you are just not listening. There's no need to rehash any of the long list of arguments here, just do a damn Google search.
Here's your fucking answer
Bet you'll wish you had gun
Because power doesnt corrupt, power attracks the allready corrupted. Politics are a dirty game and only the most ruthless folks will get to the top... people without ethics or morals; psychopaths. This is why governments have the tendency to go bad as time progresses.
And that is why the people must have the right to defend themselves from said governments. The founding fathers understood this. The right to bear arms is a vital fail safe that keeps psychopaths from usurping everything.
Now they are calling for a semi ban, and some dude just got pulled over in TN with a 308 & 556 ar 80% that is auto capable idk how they know that with out test firing it which I doubt they did
>Muh Constitution
is literally the only argument I hear for allowing sodomite marriage [even though it’s not in the text and guns are]. Can someone give me one good reason besides this why sodomites need to get married? Most normal people are attracted to women and can start families. But with sodomites, all they do is mess up the butts of other men and spread diseases. Why should we call that a marriage? Can someone give me a cogent, reasonable argument why sodomites should be allowed to call what they do marriage? This is coming from someone who wants sodomites to be allowed to marry, by the way.
To defend one's life and one's property.
Most of the US is still wildland. Across most of America, we have coyotes coming into people's yards and eating their pets. This is particular upsetting to the people that have taken up keeping chickens to get their own eggs daily. Don't ask why, but its a popular thing with Millennials.
Then there's feral dog packs (where there isn't coyotes) that go through not just rural areas, not just suburban areas, but actually invade cities. These feral packs are dangers to not just pets (like dogs and cats and chickens), but to children as well.
Then there's the problem with mountain loins (cougars) now openly hunting in the suburbs. This is particularly well documented in the western US.
And of course, throughout almost all the US, bears are now openly hunting and scrounging in suburbs from the east coast to the west coast.
And thanks to the reintroduction of wolves to the US Midwest, we now have wolf packs spreading through the US. They like to hunt the coyotes that are in the suburbs, meaning you get two kinds of pack hunters going around in your backyard, and both happy to eat your little pup, cat, or chicken.
The US citizen doesn't need to reach to "protecting myself from a tyrannical government". It just needs to point out the daily need to protect himself and his property from the wildlife that is ever spreading into the American civilization. Who wants to let their pup or chicken get mauled by wildlife and have to wait 90 minutes for animal control to show up cause the local law enforcement won't deal with it.
I guess arguing a point you strongly believe in hard to do
People forget that this was back when politics was far more elitist than it is now. Theses fuckers knew what they were talking about. The constitution is a document outlining the basic rights of man, and how it's essential that a government respect those rights. The only purpose of the bill of rights is for stupid fucks who can't read in between the lines. And thank God they did.
Freedom is more important than security. The country was founded on that.
A lot of gay men never have anal sex. They just do mutual masturbation and frotage. Or so my gay friends tell me.
Apparently, anal isn't that popular even among gay men.
Reid hendrichs made a good video about this
youtube.com
by not upholding a 250 page document, you fall into lawlessness
might makes right
there is no longer a sense of "fair play"
society degenerates into Lord of the Flies
Simple reason is that the citizens are supreme. The citizens created the government as a servant. The citizens, in fact, have an unquestioned right to remove the government, and replace it with one they like better. As a servant, the government does not decide what the masters may or may not own.
>argument for upholding a 250 year old document?
Because that document is the treaty that turns a bunch of states into one larger entity.
If we abandon the constitution there is no more united states, we regress back to a bunch of independent states.
Of course, you can modify the constitution. It is designed to be changeable. It, including its amendments, have been amended by new amendments before. You can try to change the 2nd if you really want. It will require a 3/4th state majority.
Untill you can get that there is nothing you can do. You can whine about guns all you want but they are a guarantee by the absolute highest authority unless you get a full 3/4ths to decide it should be different.
>america with muh anti-tyranny failsafe
>literally the BIGGEST puppet of tyrants in the world right now, even led around to stir up trouble worldwide to fatten the tyrants bank accounts
Worked real fucking well didn't it?
Because it is the foundation of our society, governance, and nation. From the underlying philosophy to the real-world law, the constitution remains the best foundation for human government in the world. It provides the most individual liberty, and greatest opportunity to all citizens (by rights).
While I would die for my constitution, and my country, I would rather live with it as well.
...
also realize, that the 2nd amendment is just that, an amendment, it can be re-amended
should the government so wish it
they do not so wish it, because then the citizens would be signaled, that a world of shit is about to come get them, and turn on their masters.
That is why they go for gun rights in a soft approach, so the frogs dont know that they are in a slow boil.
Considering we are still around and everyone else totally collapses by this point and has a revolution or a complete government overhaul, id say its doing a pretty good job.
More importantly the tools to fix it with out violence still exist, the mechanisms of the constitution still exist. Its not too late to fix it with out having to resort to violence.
The founders gave us the best possible chance.
Kill Incorporation
I strongly believe in the value of the American constitution, it's served us extremely well compared to the failures of the constitutions in other countries which didn't extend enough explicit protections to individual citizens and as a result most of Europe, Canada, Central and South America are by-and-large authoritarian countries, given time any one of your governments could strip you of enough rights to install themselves as dictators over you. Ours on the other hand has managed to preserve some of the personal liberties absolutely necessary to the survival of free individuals, in spite of authoritarians in our government structure (Mainly neocons and neolibs) constantly fighting tooth and nail to erode what civil liberties we have left.
I think it's easy to see what civil liberties are the most vital, you need only look at what all the scumbags try to destroy, there's a good chance that's something extremely important and necessary for a free society. Authoritarian scum have been trying to destroy our gun rights for decades now, so by my estimation those rights are of astronomical importance.
your question is actually pretty stupid
ITT: > why should civilized people uphold law and order
dont get me wrong, I think Burgers are slimy pieces of shit, but your question really doesnt not relate to their document, but logic in general
...
The Second Ad guarantees the rest of the constitution because the people have the means to overthrow tyrannical government.
SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.
I know it's bad, which proves my point. It would be much, much worse without the american people exercising what little rights they have left. An armed american population is one of the few things left keeping them from absolute power and firmly establishing their precious New World Order.
Thank god there has also been a geopolitical shift spearheaded by Russia.
Their window of oppertunity is closing, so expect much more of such shootings and a much larger scale. A psychopath lacks the ability to feel remorse, shame or empathy. They will do anything.
You discarded two decent answers in that scrum. One of them pointed out that the second amendment helps to uphold the rest of the constitution. The other one pointed out that there are a great diversity of arguments being made constantly, even on this forum. It isn't hard to find more whenever you want them.
This is one of the big ones, too. Autonomy is vital. Firearms help uphold individual autonomy. It's hard to coerce an armed population. The government must put more effort into manufacturing "consent" because it is working with an armed population. Everything that pushes society away from a coercive model and towards a model of voluntary interaction is to be cherished.
Protect your founding conditions. Protect diversity of thought. Don't just sludge it all together at the whims of wannabe planners. That 250 year old document has mechanisms for achieving changes - use them. If you can't use them, consider that it means your changes aren't achieving the consent of the governed, and work on changing something else.
This is also true but most people lack the ability to understand the context and just imagine some redneck trying to shoot a tank with his .308 unsuccessfully.
It would make sense to foreigners if they just accepted that a US state is, in fact, like a european country, and we are not one absolutely unified body but a bunch of entities that traditionally mistrust each other, and to this day hold their own state-basd military capabilities (of varying degree based on states)
Also, the constitution is controlled by the states. People fall into bickering over 'federal law' vs 'state law', not realizing that all federal law is subject to the states aproval, the constitution can only be changed by 3/4th state aproval, and 3/4ths of the state can legally get together circumventing the entirety of the federal government and declare a new amendment all on their own which the federal government is then subject to.
In the end the states as a collective still hold all the chips, the constitution and, by extension, the federal government it outlines is just an instrument of the states will.
And so states have and need to have their own martial power to keep the balance. So you have state national guards (distinct from federal national guard, which can nationalize them but of course of the federal government had gone rogue this would be ignored), as well as 'state defense forces' many states maintain which act as an intermediary wing of militia between their guard and the reserve militia.
So basically, the idea is to keep states well armed so that they can keep the fed under control if required, to ensure they dont get some idea to launch a coup and take over the reigns by themselves with the standing army they have amassed (the constitution only really authorizes a navy).
At first I laughed at the "day of the rake" memes. With each passing day, however, I find myself thinking of it less as a joke and more of a necessity.
You are either lying or ignoring all the other good arguments that get made.
If you dont understand why a people with no access to use of force always get steam rolled by people with access to use of force, then nothing can help you.
...
>2 posts by this ID
>literally the only argument
Not the only argument, senpai.
Also, nice use of the word "defendants" to subtly criminalize us.
...
Then throw out all laws, they're just as old if not older. Your argument is uhh it's old lel. Shit bait leaf sage
Works wonders if you're American
>Why did the founders include that stanza?
>Why aren't you aware of their arguments on the subject?
>Does it concern you that no one knows what should be common knowledge?
Please excerxise your constitutional right to bear arms to KYS.
>geopolitical shift spearheaded by Russia
mah nigga wat
(you)
>a fucking leaf