Sup Forums BTFO BY FOUNDING FATHER!!! It's time to revaluate the 2nd Amendment

Sup Forums BTFO BY FOUNDING FATHER!!! It's time to revaluate the 2nd Amendment

>I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

>Thomas Jefferson

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=qO6WcyMVxwo
youtu.be/FOwy9OWfnAM
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

SHALL

Alright lets rewrite the whole thing and if it can't be agreed upon the states go there separate ways. I say non whites shouldn't be able to vote

You fucking retard, there was also multiple letters and correspondence between the founders. This was a *Huge* issue to them as they wanted the original Amendments to work together effectively

The overall Idea was that the 2nd Amendment is an insurance policy; If our rights start to be taken away or Government Tyranny starts to become a real thing we should look towards Revolution.
The Founders knew this was integral to keeping the peace and giving the Citizens (the majority) power to keep the Gov in check.
>We needed a Civil War a hell of a lot sooner than now.

Do a bit more research
>>>>>leftyPol is that way cunt

Man that argument would really hold water if Jefferson worked on the Constitution or even signed it.

NOT

BE

INFRINGED

INFRINGED

Slave owner. Opinion discarded.

The 2nd amendment is not the right to bear arms, it is that our right to bear arms is protected by the second amendment in such a fashion that it SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

This was a debate among the founding fathers. Jefferson’s side lost.
>implying Jefferson isn’t rolling over in his grave at what his country has become due to all these new laws

TJ was a faggot to be honest

This is literally an argument that "assault rifles" and other advances in small arms technology are indeed protected under the 2nd amendment

>It's time to revaluate the 2nd Amendment
Go ahead. Jefferson and the other founders gave you two legitimate ways to go about it.

PROTIP: Throwing tantrums in the street or on the Internet is not one of them. Nor is just ignore what the law says.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINDGED

Little did he know that there is no such thing as progress of the human mind.

Also
>Thinking Jefferson ever wanted an overreaching federal government and cucked state government that barely have the right to dictate their own fucking zoning laws.
>Thinking Jefferson ever wanted entire government departments to be bureaucracies represented by unelected officials
>Thinking Jefferson would at all approve of the state of California.
>BUT THIS ONE TIME JEFFERSON LOST A DEBATE IN WHICH HE SAID THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD EVOLVE AND CHANGE AND IM GOING TO MISCONSTRUE THAT INTO MEANING HE THOUGHT THE ENTIRE CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE SHREDDED AND REWRITTEN BY TRANNIES

THE GUNS TO BEAR RIGHTS SHALL NOT BE INTERFRINGED

>We're just going to revise this ONE thing and ONE thing only. Don't worry.
>Goy, in order to further protect you we need to change the Fourth Amendment, the government needs more power over you
>Goy! Hate speech is idiotic and wrong. The First Amendment is not something anyone should have.
>Goy... This Tenth Amendment is useless, you wouldn't mind if we changed it, do you?

The Bill of Rights is a list of Inalienable Rights.
Not here or there, maybe this or that.
Those Rights are exclusive and necessary to a Free State.
You can't have the latter laws without the former rights.

It's an amendment. It was given as a privilege and can be taken away as easily

if you could 100 percent guarantee that any said government was honest, transparent and was utterly impossible to subvert and corrupt then you would have no need for an armed populace, or even a constitution for that matter

And can be reinstated whenever to. How do you want to play it you boring leaf faggot? At the end of the day it's a piece of paper, if you want lawlessness we can always find you and kill you?

Yep, and the government IS capable of change, I don't think things should be changed willy nilly. Jefferson once put forward the idea that laws should be up for reexamination pending a repeal every twenty years. This never became a thing because mostly everyone agreed this would not maintain a stable government.

People are fickle and fashionable, what seems correct politically is never sure. Government needs to be above us rationally, as it has power over us, it should always be moving at a snails pace.

I don't think Jefferson kept that stance his entire life anyway.

So what are we supposed to do when fellow citizens use this right to enforce Tyranny on other citizens?

>I'm such a fashion

What the fuck does that mean?

We have a process for that called a Constitutional Convention.

You'd need 75% of the states to ratify a new constitutional amendment to nullify or modify the 2nd amendment, then you'd be able to start passing laws.

Good luck.

can we just range ban leafs already? it's not a privilege. it's a right

This. Thank you sir. Can you elaborate on california?

>The overall Idea was that the 2nd Amendment is an insurance policy; If our rights start to be taken away or Government Tyranny starts to become a real thing we should look towards Revolution.
>The Founders knew this was integral to keeping the peace and giving the Citizens (the majority) power to keep the Gov in check.
No, the armed populace is supposed to protect the government from insurrection, not instigate it! That's what the armed militia bit is about.

So are the 13th and 14th

>PROTIP: Throwing tantrums in the street or on the Internet is not one of them. Nor is just ignore what the law says.

Literally the first amendment.

By learning to read
The second amendment does not give you the right to bear arms. The second amendment implies that the citizenry already has that right, and the second amendment states that the government can't infringe on this right you already has.

The amendment is a restriction against the government, not a granting of a right.

Sure, I don't want to say California is the polar opposite to what the founders wanted, it's the best at a lot of things for the worst reasons. California has the most control over the whole country which is terrible. California has the most control over itself which should be good, but many of it's laws go directly against the Constitution. So states should have their own laws and rights that are protected against a big federal government that way you don't get stupid catch all rules that work for California but don't work for small states like Alaska, and California excels at making its own rules, the issue is that they make rules that they aren't allowed to make, legislators try to make laws that take away federally protected constitutional rights like free speech and freedom to own a gun as well as legislators trying to make rules about how if you visit a state that is too "hateful" they can turn you away, but then lobby their own power to turn their shitty state laws that are unconstitutional into federal law. It's a very fucked up state that is so corrupted and rotten that the legislators and people don't even seem to care that half of their laws don't technically need to be followed but good luck telling the police that

rekt

Filthy leaf. It's in the bill of RIGHTS

Wrong, the founding fathers were very paranoid about tyranny "better a chain of sand than a chain of iron!" Why do to think we have a federalist system in the first place? The same reason they created a seperation of powers, and the same reason the bill of rights was included in the first place: to prevent tyranny.

Agreed, reminder to everyone in this thread that the Constitution was declines multiple times because people didn't feel it represented the rights of the people. The Constitution didn't get put through until the bill of rights was constructed

Already illegal isn't that what you want?

or women also end the fed and eliminate the income tax while you're at it.

I've re-evaluated it, and found it's not clear enough. It should be updated to ensure that
the National Firearms Act be rescinded, and a replacement never be written.

Thanks for the redpill, op. You're definitely not a homosexual.

It legitimately means 'gun free zones' on public property are illegal.

>>I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions.
Me neither.
>But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind.
Has the human mind past the point to where Governments will no longer go beyond legal means in order to pursue the interests of a few elite members of society over every one else?
Yes?
Than by all means, let's revisit that 2nd amendment.
They haven't progressed that far?
Than my cold dead hands, nigger.

youtube.com/watch?v=qO6WcyMVxwo

"well regulated" refers to the desire for the population to be regularly training with arms to be ready to protect the republic from tyrants. not as government types seek to define it which is as state control and, limitation such as regulations.

also if the Warren Burger interpretation were correct why include the phrase ; the right of the people to keep and bear arms..." if the intent was to strictly limit firearms to a state body such as an army is could have made that clear by saying it.. there is no basis in the constitution to conclude "the people" refers to anyone other than the citizenry.

What new, Enlightened, discovered truths have the technocrats and leftists made that justifies abandoning the Constitution? Jefferson is right here, but if the “progress” of civilization is advancing communist, socialist, technocratic, and post-modernist societal systems that are wrong and don’t work, may as well go back to the drawing board.

If anything, the Constitution is probably the best starting place after we deal with Western collapse in the next few years.

What Jefferson was saying is that as technology and government progress, the people should as well. Meaning we should arm ourselves even more, not less.

The nonsense about "protecting the people against tyranny" is another part of the neo-Yankee national mythology. They don't realize that America had no standing army then, and that the 2nd amendment was made as a provision against a standing army---namely it called for having militias instead. Militias which were then used to crush the Whiskey rebellion in 1794---an ill omen of the same treatment the Southern States were to receive 100 years later for trying to do only what the Yanks had done in the first instance in their Rebellion against us. The whole country is formed on a heap of contradictions.

They always talk as if their "Founding Fathers" (whose every word they pretend to hang on) were some sort of monolithic entity with a unified vision. Whereas they were, upon the whole, a pack of slave-driving radical Whig scoundrels who whipped up the dregs of the population into a frenzy over a 2% taxation rate and were willing to cause a bloody war which cost 150,000 lives simply to promote their own interests.

non-whites, including jews, should not be allowed to live on the same continent as whites.

Yeah, nowadays it would be just foolish to assume that the govt could abuse its power, enroach on its own citizens' rights

Wouldn't it be illegal on private property too?

> actually believes the first amendment declares a right to street riots and demanding the govt simply ignore the constitution
> doesnt realize that when the govt agrees, and they simply ignore the constitution, the first amendment is the first part they will ignore
> doesnt really believe in free speech anyhow, only speech he agrees with, otherwise, TRIGGERED
> probably siigned the petition to abolish free speech because "muh reasons"
> pink and purple dreds detected
> wears ladies undergarments surreptitiously purchased from Lane Bryant
> problem glasses probability: 140%
> starts every discussion with "i identify as..." and " muh pronouns"
> thinks professor giraffe is a "genius"
> current diaper condition: critical mass

i would tell you to go fuck yourself, but even YOUR standards are too high to fuck the degenerate maggot infested pile of filth and decay that your physical form has devolved into.

Protip: Papa Nurgle should not be your "thinspiration"

Did he died?

Except the military is controlled by the government. A militia of the people is still required
>Founding fathers had slaves
Who manufactured your cell phone?

Nah, he's fine

Hey everybody, the Muslim """brit""" is trying to shit talk the founding fathers from his prison island. Hilarious! Enjoying your binned knives, opinions, poverty, and taxes?

>>We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

>Goy, you're ancestors were all idiots, you should not respect them!

Well, (((Thomas Jefferson))) was a (((free thinker))), so...

Just like Soros and pals are trying to force a new constitution

>>We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

>Goy, you're ancestors were all idiots, you should not respect them!

Well, Thomas Jefferson was a (((free thinker))), so...

The Founding Fathers sacrificed everything for one chance at freedom. You have no idea how hard it was for them to achieve this. If you denounce them and what they achieved for white people and their future generations, then you are an idiot.

He also advocated the occasional rebellion against the government and slaughter of politicians. And fucking slaves. You really wanna go there?

Your demagogue ancestors did not want to have a standing army of any kind. By having a standing army, as you do---the most enormous one in the history of the world, the most effective agent for tyranny that was ever seen---you have already subverted their intended wishes. And yet you "conservatives" are the greatest supporters of your overgrown military.

Why aren't libshits quoting this left and right?

Oh, because they hate him for owning slaves.

Fucking slaves was a lie.

The Founders clearly never intended for high speed, automatic printing presses, internet, radio, TV, telephones, etc., when they said "Freedom Of Speech". None of those existed when the Bill Of Rights was drafted. So...when are you going to cancel your phone/internet/cable subscription and take to writing your asinine drivel with a quill pen, India ink and parchment paper, in keeping with the Founders true intentions

Ha ha ha. It was a war fought over a 2% taxation by a nation of slave-drivers against what was then the freest country in the world, over a supposed question of "liberty." It led to 150,000 deaths, and the principles upon which it was supposedly fought were promptly violated with the adoption of the central federalized government by means of the Constitution, the crushing of the Whiskey Rebellion in '74 and the Civil War in 1861.

Rights aren't privileges you retarded leaf.

You don't know my opinions, I don't support having a bloated military, however, I don't think after attempting poorly to play world police for the last 60 years that we can afford to shrink the military thanks to neocons and Dems trying to conquer the world. The government isn't currently in the founders heads, it is already corrupted and fucked. But you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. All you are doing is further proving that our bill of rights needs to remain intact by showing how fucked just about everything else is.
>LOL GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY IS FUCKED JUST HAND OVER YOUR RUGHTS

...

No, but it's worth a discussion on the limits and power of free speech. Same for guns.

Yes, I'm sure he was envisioning disarming the populace amd making them completely vulnerable to the tyranny of the government.

Stop trying to twist data to suit your conclusion. Fucking leftists...can't history, can't science, can't philosophy.

Who said anything about disarming the public?

At least put some effort into your bait

If he was alive today he would want to overthrow this goverment far too large and oppressive.

Hate speech != free speech
amirite

This
>Start revolution because your sleepy time early grey is 13 cents more expensive
>But Jefferson would have wanted us to get rid of our guns!

Do you know how the Bill of Rights came to be? It was a compromise made with the Anti-Federalists, a set of men who have been erased from your history textbooks. Most of your "Founders," the ones you really worship, would never have thought to adopt it in the first instance. America could have been a truly interesting and glorious experiment had it been permitted to become a country of many countries, as the Anti-Federalists wanted---imagine if New Hampshire (for example) could secede, and simply start its own new libertarian nation with strict immigration laws at a whim. But the majority of your "Founding Fathers" wanted to usurp power and wealth and prestige for themselves, hence they insisted on having a centralized federal government. The Constitution was a mistake. The Bill of Rights was merely a saving grace.

At any rate. If you are going to build up this mythology of "The Founding Fathers" and their "unified" vision then it seems pretty hypocritical to disregard one of the only things they actually were unified about (opposition to Standing Armies) on the one hand, and on the other misinterpret the Amendment which was intended to combat them to mean that every citizen in the land should be able to purchase weapons that can slaughter massive crowds of people at a moment's notice.

>I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions.
he wanted the constitution to be re-written every 20 years--essentially every generation. rights don't change. that's why he didn't advocate the declaration be re-written every 20 years, and self-defense is built into the declaration.

"Existence, faculties, assimilation—in other words,
personality, liberty, property—this is man.
It is of these three things that it may be said, apart
from all demagogic subtlety, that they are anterior and
superior to all human legislation.
It is not because men have made laws, that personal-
ity, liberty, and property exist. On the contrary, it is
because personality, liberty, and property exist before-
hand, that men make laws. What, then, is law? As I have
said elsewhere, it is the collective organization of the indi-
vidual right to lawful defense.

Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one
of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his
property, since these are the three constituent or preserv-
ing elements of life; elements, each of which is rendered
complete by the others, and that cannot be understood
without them. For what are our faculties, but the exten-
sion of our personality? and what is property, but an
extension of our faculties?

If every man has the right of defending, even by force,
his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men
have the right to combine together to extend, to organize
a common force to provide regularly for this defense."

-Bastiat

listen I am descended from him and he would shoot you in the face for using his quote that way

fuck off

>is supposed to protect the government from insurrection, not instigate it!
eh, sort of, sounds like they just knew this shit was coming so they should make room for it in the language used

Just going to park this right here....

>-imagine if New Hampshire (for example) could secede,
any state that feels any of the 10 items in the bill of rights has been violated in within their rights of the trust to withdraw from it

It isn't about a unified vision Muhammad, it is what a bunch of brilliant men crafted together. I'm not saying Jefferson, Adams, and Washington came together and said LETS AGREE ON THINGS. They had to make lots of compromises. You are the one planting motive and somehow telepathy into the situation. And again the second amendment is not the right to bear arms, it is protection of the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms is written as a given, the amendment itself protects that already given right from the government infringing upon it. It doesn't say UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE or UNTIL SOMETHING COMES OUT THAT CAN KILL MULTIPLE PEOPLE. Civilians had makeshift cannons during the revolutionary war, do you really think they didn't understand that killing efficiency would go up? Even lefties don't trust the government to do the right thing, but are somehow willing to jump through a hoop and say "people shouldn't have guns, our incompetent government and racist police force whom I don't trust should have all the guns" Why fuck am I even arguing with you, a fucking libby redcoat of all people?

It's the bill of rights not the bill of privileges. Fucking retarded leaf posters.

FUCK OFF SHILL

SAGE

But is it "liberty" to exist in a country where you fear other citizens more than the government?

Temporary safety = readily available firearms
Liberty = going to a music festival without getting shot

You and I both know that they never could in practice. The Federal government is too powerful now. If you do so much as sell raw milk the men in black will come and kick your doors down and there is nothing you can do about it. What America might have been died in 1787 and the dream of independence perished for good in 1861.

Observe the wording of the amendment:

"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."

The first clause is a conditional one. "AS it is necessary for there to be a well-regulated militia for the security of a free state" (by implication: as opposed to a standing army), "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." In other words it promotes the existence of well-trained militias, not the right of the average citizen to own a weapon capable of killing 59 people in mere moments. It is not the unambiguous statement devoid of context which the neo-conservative Yankee ideology would make it.

If you are so afraid of the Federal Government you should not have given them so much power in the first place. But of course your "Founders" are the ones ultimately responsible for that, so that the ideology as I say of men like you is a mere heap of contradictions.

Nah kill yourself m8
youtu.be/FOwy9OWfnAM

I thank you for being gracious enough to concede defeat, even if in a roundabout way.

>ahah look at me act superior as my Nation burns

Kill yourself you fucking loser.

It's not liberty to say "I don't feel safe, so I want you to sacrifice a little bit of your rights so that I can feel better." You're merely attempting to impose your will on other people who have done nothing wrong.

Do conservatards honestly believe that every left leaning individual is indistinguishable from a fat, Tumblr browsing, sjw?

Lol guys, they're called "Amendments", not even part of the original document, who cares.

I'm what way? OP is using the quote as intended.

>with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times
Know what never changes?
War

Know what starts war?
Tyranny

Know what tyranny is afraid of?
Armed Populations

Get with the times faggot, with the advent of advanced civilization there is no excuse for you to be this stupid anymore.

Do leftypol have some troll army base in Britannia?

*does

But what happens when you or someone else excerises those rights to enact tyranny?
By giving everyone access to military-grade firearms, you're still sacrificing your right to live unoppressed (frequent gun violence) for a little safety(owning a gun).
I'm not anti-gun, but these muh rights line if argumentation are missing a deeper philosophical question.

Are you a fat, tumblr browsing, sjw user?

brits like you are just ignorant to american ideas of liberty.