The key to understanding the 2A is knowing that it was drafted within the context of regulating a state militia...

The key to understanding the 2A is knowing that it was drafted within the context of regulating a state militia. As the Supreme Court ruled in 1840, "A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffalo might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms." Translation: owning a gun privately does not fit the definition of what it means to "bear arms."

So what does this mean for current gun debates? First, we need to remember that the interpretation that would read the 2A as a guarantee for private citizens' gun rights … is a very recent invention. It's not the traditional interpretation, so no conservative should be pretending that it is. Gun rights advocates should especially keep this in mind when they're tempted to charge gun-control advocates with revisionism. Second, we should stop pretending the right to "bear arms" has much, if anything, to do with individual freedoms. "Bearing arms" is a military term — admitting that does not in any way compromise my freedom as a private American citizen. Third (and this is not from the piece I'm linking to), we need to think about the relationship between freedom and life. Bill O'Reilly's recent rant — that Vegas is "the price" we have to pay for freedom — seems like it gets the relationship entirely wrong by subverting the order of goods. Our freedoms should only be guaranteed when they safeguard human life and flourishing. It shouldn't be the other way around (i.e. "Life is only worth pursuing when and only when US citizens' gun rights are safeguarded").

The Second Amendment isn't what anyone thinks it means. politico.com/magazine/story/2014/05/nra-guns-second-amendment-106856?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=CquUBWHU2_s
craigboyce.com/w/2011/03/historic-lewis-clark-air-rifle/
youtu.be/GPC7KiYDshw
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

sage

Dumber than snake mittens.

>fourth amendment right for people to be secured in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures protects a woman's right to abortion
>the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED doesn't have anything to do with guns

sage

How bout i hit you with a gut shot with one of those and see if you survive that without modern medicine. Saged

>keep and bear arms
>keep

>usually survivable at close range
you gotta be fucking shitting me? if you get shot in the knee with a musket your leg is off.

Fuck, I lost it.

I have actually researched this and you are
>Wrong.

youtube.com/watch?v=CquUBWHU2_s

>keep AND bear arms
Bad news faggot enabler.

Sees op's link realize hes a shill.

The key to understanding the 1A is knowing that it was drafted within the context of hand-cranked press.

So what does this mean for current press? First, we need to remember that the interpretation that would read the 1A as a guarantee for private corporate press rights … is a very recent invention. It's not the traditional interpretation, so no conservative should be pretending that it is. Press right advocates should especially keep this in mind when they're tempted to charge fake news advocates with revisionism. Second, we should stop pretending the right to "free press" has much, if anything, to do with individual freedoms. "Free press" is a specific term — admitting that does not in any way compromise my freedom as a private American citizen. Third (and this is not from the piece I'm linking to), we need to think about the relationship between freedom and lies. The mainstream media's recent rant — that Vegas is "the price" we have to pay for a police state — seems like it gets the relationship entirely wrong by subverting the order of goods. Press freedoms should only be guaranteed when they safeguard human life and flourishing. It shouldn't be the other way around (i.e. "Truth is only worth pursuing when and only when the mainstream media's press rights are not safeguarded").

The First Amendment isn't what anyone thinks it means. (Link to some bullshit article most likely written by a kike)

Militia act of 1903 means that every male 18-65 is part of the militia, you nigger

...

I love that the 1stA is a work of genuis with massive built in foresight which considers a variable future and people assume that wisdom doesnt apply to the 2ndA.

The supreme court decided twice in 2011 that OP is a total retard

SHALL

Countless of debates I've hear about the 2nd and this takes the most retarded argument award.

I think I find a pic of you.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED are the only words that need to be said.

It means hunting weapons are not arms, so therefore we should be able to have machine-guns

>.70 caliber musket ball
>close range
>no such thing as a hospital
>survivable

It's like democraps just spew the first thing they hear without doing even a modicum of research.

more like
>punches a hole in your chest
>even if you live the wound probably gets infected
>destination FUCKED

...

>Air guns: the automatic weapons of the 18th century

>They were revolutionary weapons, powerful, noiseless, and smokeless, for the bullets were propelled not by the explosion of gunpowder, as in a musket, but by a removable compressed-air reservoir that gave the rifles their distinctive club-shaped butts. An automatic magazine, loaded from the breech, could shoot twenty bullets a minute.

>craigboyce.com/w/2011/03/historic-lewis-clark-air-rifle/

nice try faggot

This 100%. Democrats should show their true patriotism and make gun bans their top talking point next election.

When they wrote the first amendment, there were only feather pens and letters.
GTFO Sup Forums you hypocrite.

ban assault printers NOW

...

here's a counter argument

When the 2nd amendment was written, that was also high grade military weaponry.

>Muskets were the highest quality of weapon.

you sound like an idiot
shut up

>point blank musket shot
>surviving

we can go back to 18th century rules if you like, but it means we're going to have to tar and feather you for being a faggot

Maybe (((OP))) is right!
We should go back to THE ORIGINAL interpretation of the constitution, in which only white men can vote and every community has a muster yearly where all the armed men discuss issues relating to freedom, finance, and the management of nonwhites.

Yeah, he is right, the ORIGINAL interpretation is better, not this new "conservative" crap!

Nowhere does it say "buy", you fucking idiots. You don't have the right to buy arms, only keep and bear them.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, but lol you have no basis for being legally allowed to buy them

Now I have no choice but to exercise my first amendment rights and call you a no dick toe licker.

Lewis and Clark used semi-automatic rifles on their expedition. when 2A was written we knew things were advancing

By that logic, every weapon produced after Dec 15, 1791 is illegal

>that flag
>those mental gymnastics

fpbp
the right to bear arms is an extension of the right to life and liberty, being that those arms are necessary to protect our life and liberty. leftists believe that our rights are not natural but granted by government and thus we can just let the government protect our rights with their arms. obviously if this were the case, it would be all the more reason to have our own arms but that's the mind of a leftist for you.

Repeating weapons and cartridge ammuntion was used during the revolution. Google the Puckle Gun.

Also, to assume the founding fathers so ignorant as not to forsee the advancment of weaponry, which made great strides forward in their lifetime, is insulting to our nations history

tldr: come and take it

What they forget to leave out is how fucking brutal musket wounds are. We banned their bayonets for their savagry in inflicting a wound that does more damage being removed than it does being inserted. We also reinvented the bullet so as to penetrate completely and leave the cleanest exit wound possible, not to tear limbs off and linger inside of you.

I bet if they saw some range action, every one of these prissy faggots would take a 9mm over a musket ball any day of the week.

>citing politico

Fucking kill yourself, shill

T H R E E
F
I
F
T
H
S

So it was acceptable to carry what the army carried.

Saged. Another redefinition of militia faggot.

Enjoy your flood of fully automatic 80% lowers being manufacturered.

tl;dr

exactly

lol literally no good response, fucking easiest debate of my life you fucking white idiots

A trained soldier could load and fire a musket within 20 seconds. It didn't take 90 seconds, holy shit.

>As the Supreme Court ruled in 1840, "A man in the pursuit of deer, elk, and buffalo might carry his rifle every day for forty years, and yet it would never be said of him that he had borne arms." Translation: owning a gun privately does not fit the definition of what it means to "bear arms."

Yeah, bearing arms means to carry weapons for fighting or war. A hunting rifle is not for war, it is for hunting.

Thus it is clear that the 2nd Amendment is about the people having the right to keep and use rifles for war.

>First, we need to remember that the interpretation that would read the 2A as a guarantee for private citizens' gun rights … is a very recent invention.

Bullshit.

>Second, we should stop pretending the right to "bear arms" has much, if anything, to do with individual freedoms. "Bearing arms" is a military term — admitting that does not in any way compromise my freedom as a private American citizen.

It is an individual freedom. The people have the right to bear arms, not the militia.
The militia act of 1792 states that the men capable of serving in the militia were obligated to own and maintain a musket, bayonet and ammunition pouch. That is the basic gear of a contemporary infantryman. The 2nd Amendment was made so that every man could arm himself as the contemporary infantryman.

...

Also, Federalist Paper 46 makes it clear that the intent behind the second amendment was armed revolution against tyranny since before the bill of rights was drafted.

Go gas yourself commie.

what can you not understand about..
CAN NOT BE INFRINGED............... you dumb fuck

They also had Gatling guns, cannons and warships...you dumb ass tyrant

>you gotta be fucking shitting me? if you get shot in the knee with a musket your leg is off.

They were basically 16 gauge shotguns firing round shot. Nasty, nasty wounds from soft lead that mushrooms. Shattered bones if they hit a limb, big exit wounds if they leave the body.

...

>no good response
I'm not obligated to respond to every illiterate savage who can't into reason. What you said was retarded and not worthy of a rebuttal because all you really want are (You)'s, you larping faggot

You are retarded and I am done paying 1/5733452 of your rent

>The Second Amendment isn't what anyone thinks it means.


"Shall not be infringed"

The 2nd says nothing about muskets or hunting....

Also, those muskets were state of the art at the time and very lethal despite what your silly graphic says.

K homie. I will sell lowers at cost to every and anyone. Since i am a private seller, I need not take any precautions. Good job you noguns cuck.

>still no argument since "MUH AMMENDMENT" isn't valid

fucking morons, literally got owned by a black guy

lol, I'm smarter, faster, stronger, and fucking your wife

If your meme is True, then the first also only covers what is written with quill and ink, or spoken aloud (both of which the left is trying to remove), because the founding fathers in no way could have ever forseen the coming of the internet/computers.

Check.

Mate.


Nigger,

Gawd I hope you're on of the first to be cleansed, but only after you watch your family....cleansed

So the founding fathers, smart people for that time, didn’t have the foresight in factoring innovation when drafting the constitution?
Guns had advanced from their first inception to 1789. They thought that guns were as advanced as they ever would be? How many amendments are there? The document should be re-evaluated and changed with the times. We all know it is about gun lobby’s and money, than protection of 2A.

>The second amendment was made with muskets in mind!
>Meanwhile private citizens in that era owned cannons, grenades, and fucking battleships

You would think that, if it were never their intent to arm people with military grade weapons, they would correct these people and explain what they REALLY meant. As it turns out, the founding fathers never did.

Due to at least three SCotUS rulings, it is deemed in the preview of the law that the 2nd amendment only reaffirms the NATURAL RIGHT to own arms, and bars the federal government from enacting laws to restrict their ownership, it does not in any way classify what style nor modernity of arms men have the NATURAL RIGHT to own and maintain.

All arguments in favor of arms control are immediately invalid because ownership of arms (mainly to support the need of a well regulated homeland defense, or militia) is a right granted by a persons very existence.

>the sheer state of nigger delusion

have you considered that the 2ed amendment was written to ensure that The people could stand up to government tyranny, so having the people be on a somewhat equal playing field would be needed.

USSC in Heller v. DC case disagreed. If I recall the majority opinion (authored by Scalia) said the "well regulated Militia...security of the state" part was a "prefatory" clause or antecedent clause that explains the purpose of the subsequent clause, but the antecedent clause is not a prerequisite for the subsequent to be valid. From all of the unbiased writings about whether that grammatical parsing argument is tenable, the way the amendment was written is ambiguous and can be interpreted either way. You'd have to look into the author's other writings on the matter to find the true sentiment behind it (just like how we assume "arms" means personal firearms and not artillery, etc. based upon the use of the term by the founding fathers elsewhere). And to the NRA's credit, the contemporaneous state constitutions and personal correspondences of signatories of the Constitution corroborate the theory that the amendment was intended to ensure the right to personal ownership of arms, irrespective of participation in some formal militia.

>2nd amendment not designed to keep up to date with future technologies
at what point exactly did it go out of date?
>wheellock pistols
>flintlock muskets
>revolvers
>lever action rifles
>gatling guns
>bolt action rifles
>pump action shotguns
>semi auto handguns
>WWI era machine guns
>semiautomatic rifles
>sub machine guns
>automatic rifles
>miniguns
at what point exactly did the 2nd amendment expire?
what technologies are we allowed and disallowed?

Freedom of speech was granted before the invention of the internet or modern computing so it no longer applies.... great logic faggot.

it's okay white boi, just accept your fate as a cum rag when 2020 comes around and the dems win and put the REAL 2nd amendment into play, the one where no civilian gets to buy guns and you're at the complete mercy of your superiors

Niggers are in for a big surprise in 2020...just like 2016

Doesn't that mean a militia that can actually commit to effective modern war? Like with jets, tanks, bombers, satellites etc.?
Must say it seems more that the scope of their idea was a time where manpower was much more of a deciding factor than it is now.

And what's going to stop someone with a milling machine? You know how much guns would cost if we banned them? You could make guns and get rich if that happened.
Also most military machine guns were designed with production in mind, some are supper simple with not many parts.

>the Supreme Court
>mfw

Supreme Court didn't write the constitution and its interpretation of it is as fickle as the breeze. If you want to get technical then the second amendment actually guarantees us a right to own stinger missiles and tanks

what OP can not give a counter to this?
Wow do I need to break out the crayons again!

lets use your retarded logic on another right shall we...Faggot

>the writers of the constitution had no concept of technological advancement

>more living document bullshit from the left
why am i not surprised.

With regards to that retarded picture in OP, consider the following:

The whole fucking point of the second amendment is to make sure that the government always knows it can be overthrown by the people.

In the days when the second ammendment was written, the general population had access to more or less the exact same weapons and equipment that the military used (and in some cases, civilian arms were better than outdated military weapons).

In 2017, the power of the military has so dramatically outpaced what civilians are capable of obtaining, to the point that, in the spirit of the second amendment, gun and weapons laws are in fact already far too strict. After all, if the civilians can't realistically take on the military, then what the fuck is the point?

>wants to contextualize the constitution with regard to the time it was written
>cites court case from fifty years later
This is called anachronism.

Picture is 100% wrong. The Founding Fathers knew of Puckle guns, they knew of air rifles, they explicitly said it was okay for you to get a cannon.

>The key to understanding the 2A is knowing that it was drafted within the context of regulating a state militia

It wasn't, KYS

Are you saying people should start letting guns do all the talking?

Read The Federalist No. 46
written by James Madison, who also wrote the 2nd amendment

rare BASED leafposter

>Usually survivable even at close range

What the fuck? Muskets fired .62 caliber balls; that's bigger in diameter than the commonly known .50 caliber on the Browning.

These people are loonies.

>only had muskets in 1776
uhhhm no sweety
youtu.be/GPC7KiYDshw

Also this has no regulations. If you were a kid with a credit card you could buy this.

Hahahahaha

Someone who did absolutely no research decided to school people who have actually studied this.

So let’s look into this a bit more deeply:

>A well regulated militia

This simply means an order in working order. At the time, if someone was intelligent or simply thinking clearly, they were considered to be of a well-regulated mind. Also, we’ll have to look at the words of one of the men who framed this amendment: George Mason. “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? Is is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”

>being necessary

This means that is is not only a suggestion, but a necessity.

>for the security of a free state

We, the people, are the 4th check and balance. If the militia is the people, invaders, tyrannical government, and domestic terrorists stand no chance, as they are surrounded by all sides by the militia. You have to keep in mind that these people fled the tyranny of Mother England to establish a new and free way of life. They did not want that taken away from us.

>the right to keep and bear arms

Keep: own, bear: carry. That’s pretty fucking self-explanatory. Arms is not restricted to firearms. Anything else stores in the armory is consider to be arms.

>Shall not be infringed

This one’s a fun one. Infringe means to encroach, limit, restrict.

So a modern translation would be:

The militia, that is the people of this country, is necessary to protect our country from tyranny. The right to own and carry arms will not be limited.


>B-but Politico said—

Politico also said that Hillary Clinton had a near 100% chance of becoming president. Let’s talk about how right they are.

fuck off commie.

This

FPBS
Liberals BTFO!

think of what a modern war is, its Insurgent warfare

"The people" don't need tanks, jets bombers, satellites etc. to win a war agents their government they just need similarly functioning rifle to be effective at urban insurgent warfare

Retarded, you can literally read the letters between the founders regards this issue.

Furthermore
>Militiaman
A white man, often land owner.
>No blacks, woman, or poor people can own guns or serve in the military.

Lewis and Clark had one, tried to kill a Grizzly with it. It took offense and treed them for the night.

Dude I could make this.

Sure, you got rid of "bear", but how do you get rid of "keep"?

>“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? Is is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
Founding Fathers were fucking bantmasters

are you a R E T A R D?

how about you read it. I was using OPs failed logic to show what kind of retarded logic he was using. I suggest you read my other post. or do I need the crayons....to explain