>The right to bear arms shall not be infringed
I get ignoring all the other stuff the founding fathers wrote. I can even kind of get ignoring the other 9 amendments.
I don't get how you can spend your entire life obsessing about one single sentence written 300 years ago and ignore more than half of it.
>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.
It's not even that long a sentence.
SHALL
>I don't get how you can spend your entire life obsessing about one single sentence written 300 years ago and ignore more than half of it.
you mean libtards flipping out because they choose to take a modern lens on the definitions and context of words that were written 200 years ago
Fuck, that looks bomb.
The context of it was having military styled assault rifles. Not for sporting application, weapons intended for battle. Plain and simple.
Sounds like you're a retard for getting why anyone is ignoring ANY of the amendments.
Sage
If you read the second amendment (the way the founding fathers wrote it, not the shortened version for retards) literally the first thing you mention is regulation
let get rid of freedom of speech while we're at it, at the time of the founding fathers they only had archaic printing presses. It shouldn't apply to these new high capacity semi-auto printing machines - much less the internet
OP said literally nothing about interpretation
the fourteenth amendment supports the second
Regulation in that time just meant "organized" They used the term regulated a lot to describe structured systems that were established in some way.
Except he implies that "we ignore the first part" as if we're ignorant of what it means which is the opposite of the truth
kek
that image is genius
Based Napolitano on 2A:
foxnews.com
it IS a well-regulated militia. we even had to pass background checks.
I think gun nuts are coming to the realization that they will eventually lose the freedom to own an entire militias worth of weapons
they now realize it's only a matter of time
"Regulated" does not mean "legislated." It's in reference to organization, like when talking about soldiers, ie regulars vs irregulars.
It's saying that a good militia is needed for the security of the state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It was literally (and yes, I mean the literal definition of literally) written to mean that the private citizen has the right to own the same weapons and tools that the standing, professional army of the State has the right to own.
I want my recreational nuke damnit
>it's only a matter of time
No, it isn't. We've had dipshits trying to do this for the past 40 years and not much has changed. A lot of guys on here aren't old enough to remember the AWB. Before it, people weren't really interested in AR-15s and AKs and shit. The people who liked owning those were the "fringe" gun owners. The preppers, the militia guys, the military vets. After the AWB, people realized just how easily we could have things taken away from us. So when it was allowed to expire (because it proved that banning assault weapons did absolutely nothing to stop school shootings, murder rates, etc.), people wanted them.
Gun culture today is more concerned with fighting for the 2nd Amendment than ever before. The NRA is bigger and has more lobbying power than ever before. Gun owners are finally not being silent about the ATF and Congress and their bullshit legislation. Individual states may continue to make bullshit laws, but there will never, ever, EVER be any kind of federal legislation banning assault weapons or semi-autos again.
And trust me, people have their breaking point. The day the Congress says that all semi-automatic guns are illegal is the day there will be widespread bloodshed.
>Implying a constitutional amendment specifically protecting the free exchange of information via digital media would be a bad idea
Get fucked commie.
The clause is not conditional.
We need a boss militia therefore the chaps should have arms and know how to shoot them.
It doesn't follow that if such a militia does not exist the right to bear arms would be nullified.
>Would rather have ISPs be allowed to throttle his internet connection at will and bottleneck connections to lower-tier paying sites, very likely including Sup Forums
Enjoy sucking that corporate cock, faggot.
>>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
A preamble clause to the main clause,
>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Regardless of what is written in the preamble this section is the important bit.
>Gun culture today is more concerned with fighting for the 2nd Amendment than ever before.
I think this is evidence that it wont be around much longer
people realize that (every?) other first world country has already lost basically all gun ownership rights
it's a clear trend, no first world country is giving back gun ownership rights to its citizens
the US is the last holdout, and it has only held out this long because repealing an amendment is very very hard to do
but it's not impossible. it will happen eventually
Bootlicker
Fucking BASED.
>Liberals be like
*Baby Noises*
>Republicans being like
Shut your fucking hole.
You refuted literally nothing. What makes you so sure the 2nd is doomed when gun owners are more vocal and powerful than ever?
Pulse, Newtown, Aurora and Charleston also caused mass hysteria and people like you were saying the same thing. Turns out they were nothing burgers.
I know you only started browsing /k/ for a couple days, but at least try to form a decent argument bases in reality.
The U.S. is the last holdout because our system of government is based on violence being the capital spent to gain material wealth.
You know those Poland Ball cartoons?
after WWII the U.S. took and takes the effort to be the world's policeman and as such most other countries became fucking pussy bitches and whine their pussy bitch rhetoric at those who don't give a fuck.
If I've gotta lick boots, I'd rather lick the boots of the government that protects me than those of the businessman who exploits me.
>can-government-keep-us-safe
>allocates a few trillion on collective government defense
knob, well regulated means having a working weapon with plenty of ammo and other supplies. do any of you actually read any history?
This, liberals openly admit to having a "modern interpretation" to the bill of rights/constitution. By that they mean, "Im going to pervert the words into something I like." That's treason.
it means that each member of the militia was suppose to have a working weapon, with plenty of shot and gunpowder and other supplies. they were also suppose to be able to use their weapons effectively, ie. they were suppose to train with them regularly.
You can take your business elsewhere under capital rule. Governmental rule means everyone has to play by the rule and that same business man is usually at the top still enjoying your suffering.
>when gun owners are more vocal and powerful than ever?
the key to your original statement was
>concerned
people are more concerned and more vocal now because there is now more threat to their gun ownership rights than ever before
and that threat seems to only get larger and larger every year
pressure from the international community is changing the hearts and minds of the people
maybe it will take a generation for the full repeal, but we already see gun rights being whittled away bit by bit
Every American is part of "militia" since 1904.
Always interesting how the right to bare arms was made in case of a tyranical covernment, and then its the politicians who always push for gun control when stuff like this happens. Just look at Hillary, first opportunity she gets its to go against the guns. Why are they targeting legal gun owners who doesnt commit these crimes? Why do they not push down on gangs and criminals, and work for better border control. Oh right because border control is racist. Wanting better security from the country that smuggles weapons, humans and drugs hourly. Where cartel rule and people are corrupt to the bone.
"O-oh, b-but Australia and Britain"
Oh right, who do they border again?
>You can take your business elsewhere under capital rule.
Great idea in theory, doesn't work in practice.
America has extremely shit internet because the top companies work together (illegally) like a big monopoly to keep speeds down and prices high.
They will all throttle if legally allowed to. You wont have any other choice.
>Why are they targeting legal gun owners who doesnt commit these crimes?
Uhm, this guy was a legal gun owner.
>second amendment exists so the people can, if necessary, violently overthrow a tyrannical, unjust, and unilateral government
>the media and elite want to get rid of the second amendment for complete control to set up their tyrannical, unjust, and unilateral government
The second amendment existing is proof that it needs to exist. It's amazing how one sentence written by people who didn't know how to wash hands still stands strong today, perhaps more than ever before.
Delete this!!!!!!
Proof you don't know what you're talking about. The various hoops and permits you have to go through, tied with frivolous lawsuits the courts don't immediately throw out is the problem. That is what stifles the competition and allows companies to gain a monopoly.
You don't fix bad regulation with more bad regulation. You find a better system that actually allows costs to come down and competition to increase.
I should clarify the frivolous lawsuits larger companies file on new ISPs to protect their monopoly. These can run smaller companies into the ground quickly.
>Just change the entire country and culture so that the big guy can't crush the small guy!
Yeah, that sounds a lot easier to do...
you've got to deal with reality if you want to get anything done buddy
>The killer used rifles that he purchased legally and altered illegally.
Quit straw manning.
You literally just have to change the process of starting a new ISP you fucking idiot. Americans such as yourself are completely uneducated on the subject but still pop off about how net neutrality is a good thing.
If society likes giving their money to large corporations, why should the government intervene? You have yet to provide any rational argument.
...
alright, so let's say they meant only muskets as that was what was around at the time. seeing at the time was christian and majority Protestant. muslims have no freedom of religion in the us as they were not included in the definition of what the founding fathers considered a religion in the us.
>uhh this guy was a legal truck driver
yaeh, lets take *that* approach. lets make everyone despise the 2nd amendment even more by saying it was only for white christian land owning males.
I'm gonna go ahead and steal that argument from you, senpai. That's a very good point.
I agree. It's very cut and dry if you know the English language. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
do you even know what you're getting angry at?
>The other 9 amendments in the bill of rights are limiting the power of the federal government
>EXCEPT THIS ONE THAT'S MEANT TO LIMIT THE POWER OF THE PEOPLE AND TO PROTECT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
How can anyone possibly think this way?
it's not a straw man
I directly addressed your position and indicated how difficult it is to get to your proposed capitalist utopia free of frivolous lawsuits where the small business can easily compete with the big dogs
>If society likes giving their money to large corporations, why should the government intervene?
Not this guy but this is very simple question. In case of ISP's you're dealing with what is for functional purposes a cartel, the government has the legal tools to deal with cartels(net neutrality not included, why even bother with it) and this should simply happen as it leads to the benefit of all Americans(consumers side economy instead of supply side one). Of course making becoming ISP easier is also a good way to start the change.
What about net neutrality fixes that then? Conditions won't actually change if the bug ISPs still have a monopoly. Do you not understand that?
Refreshing to see someone who understands. Idk why people think the internet is some special market that needs to be locked down tightly with regulation.
>If society likes giving their money to large corporations, why should the government intervene?
movingthegoalposts.jpg
nobody prefers giving their money to monopolies
the choice in this case is either do that or have no internet
>What about net neutrality fixes that then?
If the lawsuit/fine for throttling internet access is greater than the amount of money they make by throttling internet access, they won't throttle
It's perfectly possible to force bad actors to do the right thing with large enough penalties
>why do you guys ignore the "well regulated militia" part?
What exactly does militia mean? Because it means military force made up of CIVILIANS
If the civilians didn't have military hardware they wouldn't be much of a militia now would they?
Like the 18th?
You still can't solve the problem of monopolistic ISPs. They can still collude in other ways to keep the market for themselves.
yes
Shitty bait but I need to vent.
What part of "the right of the people" do you not get, fuckwit?
im pretty sure there is a hearing where they properly describe what 'well-regulated' and 'militia' mean.
of course
just like every other business in America
when they come up with another particularly fucked up thing, you come up with a way to penalize that as well
Holy fucking shit.
EVERYBODY VOTE TO BAN NOW. It'll be abput a year, but we'll get another amendment to ban tge ban of firearms, just like we did with alcohol.
I agree but
>posting LOOK REDDIT I'M LOOKING AT DRAGONTITS XD - the anime
No, no you inbred loser, it's not about who has the right but why you have it - you have the right to arms (be aware that there is no mention of guns, or other firearms, just arms) only because of the militia.
So no militia = no arms. And no, your get together doesn't count, neither all that bullshit about every guy being a default member of it.
Remember, lots of cosmoline before that unfortunate boat accident, you don't want them to rust, do you?
What's a civilian?
So is it only a militia when a militia inspector regulates it?
>but we'll get another amendment to ban tge ban of firearms
maybe, but probably not
I guess we'll find out
You obviously don’t understand what a militia is
Yep.
No, no need for that, they just need a judge willing to say that the only arms that you're allowed to own according to the 2A are knives with blunt blades that are smaller than an inch.
Sorry, obsolete interpretation, next.
ok then what is the up-to-date interpretation?
One that says the second actually says no guns for anyone ever
Except the mysterious "well regulated" militia
Because that makes much more sense if you hate funs
The ones right above your comment.
>Nigger butchering their understanding of best Amendment
Justification Clause:
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
Operative Clause:
>the right of people to keep and bear Arms,
The operative clause is the only part stating a right. It can't be that fucking hard you nigger.
Now stop coming to /k/ to have your homework done Sup Forums.
>obsolete interpretation
Right, just like it's an obsolete interpretation of all those rights the patriot act violates, because if the founding fathers knew how terrorism would happen, they'd totally be okay with stripping people's rights away on mere suspicion of being a terrorist, without any kind of proof or due process whatsoever. Get fucked you statist pile of shit.
if the 2nd amendment is supposed to be for keeping the government in check (see: "being necessary to the security of a free State" ie NOT a tyrannical government), then how come they would imply a militia is government regulated?
>militia
A militia is a military force raised from the civilian populace, or could even be defined as all military able civilians within the populations.
Switzerland, Czech Republic and Austria have pretty ok gun laws.
Not great, but you don't always need a license to buy guns and that's a pretty big deal in Europe.
Hey, if you don't like it you're free to petition the government to give you a new interpretation one more to your liking. Good luck with that.
state = government, you freakishly imbecilic sovereign citizen, there isn't one without the other.
>a military force raised from the civilian populace
Raised by whom? Itself? Then they are a riotous mob, traitors, not a militia. A militia is a force raised by the government from among the common people in desperate times, in cases of extreme emergency when the existence of the state is as stake and everyone and everything must be raised to defend it.
>I get ignoring all the other stuff the founding fathers wrote. I can even kind of get ignoring the other 9 amendments.
Oh the irony. So Madison used Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 to explicitly limit the power of the federal government over individuals and the states, but number 2 was intended to give the feds the power to keep guns out of the hands of individuals?
Bravo, OP. You get a gold medal for Long Jump in the logic Olympics.
>state = government
yes, and FREE state implies not tyrannical, gotta watch those modifiers.
They imply no such thing, read the fucking federalist papers if you need it spelled out clear as fucking day for you what the purpose of the second amendment is.
Federalist papers are not law.
>if the CIVILIAN military force raises itself IN A TIME OF NEED they are traitors
loyalist scum
>state = government, you freakishly imbecilic sovereign citizen, there isn't one without the other.
Your ignorance defies belief. I can point, RIGHT NOW, to instances of states without governments and governments without states. You're a pompous moron and I fear there is no cure for your pomposity but castration and no cure for your stupidity but suicide.
/k/ is the easiest board to troll.
But the second amendment is, and the federalist papers very concisely annihilate the preferred anti argument of "but we don't know what the founders meant by well regulated this, and militia that". Yes faggot, we do know what they meant by those words, because they fucking wrote down what they meant in this other document over here, in case retards like you ever got into politics/law.
>A militia is a force raised by the government from among the common people in desperate times
It can be, and the constitution states that the citizenry are to have their own arms with which to use.
>Raised by whom? Itself? Then they are a riotous mob, traitors, not a militia.
We are a nation whose first act was revolt against the state and our founding principals put the welfare of the people before the state. Sovereignty lies with the consent of the governed.
...
>riotous mob
>traitors
Wow that sounds awfully familiar I wonder who was considered such
Civil war when?
Anybody living in a blue county shouldn't even be allowed to post on this board.
I like how after months of shitting on the police these same people are clamoring for only cops to be armed.
10 USC 246 states that all males between the age of 18 and 45 who are not part of the US regular military or National Guard are members of the unorganized militia.
At the time of the framing "well regulated" meant "in proper working order" or "well equipped".
Many times militias have had problems performing their function because they had either non-uniform arms (no two calibers alike) or unsuitable arms (imagine if your entire platoon were outfitted with 10/22's as their service rifle) or never actually able to practice with their primary weapons.
Most likely a "first world insurgency" and nobody will be the good guys
Or if we're lucky everyone including the military gangs up on the government after the first neighborhood is napalm'd