Why can't lefties understand English?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

thehypertexts.com/Slavery and the Second Amendment Slave Patrol Militias.htm
thehypertexts.com/About_The_Hypertexts.htm
lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
rawstory.com/2016/07/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery/
motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment/
minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2013/01/was-second-amendment-adopted-slaveholders
truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
alternet.org/civil-liberties/thom-hartmann-second-amendment-was-ratified-preserve-slavery
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

At this point I think they want to be shot and killed to end their misery

nobody is taking away your right to own a musket, pleb.

Your "rights" are infringed all the time. Now fuck off you stupid Russian shill.

They understand. They want to disarmed you. Don't let them.

It's narcissistic projection. They don't want others to have guns because they think everyone is as violent and emotional as they are.

Because they do anything Soros tells them to do. It's sad

*to bear arms

>musket
to bear arms faggot

what part of not an argument can't you understand?

It's time to stop having these fucking gun control conversations. They are fucking slides to distract from other important happenings.
Tell the commie fags to come back when they have necessary votes to amend or fuck off.

To repeal one of the original bill of rights is more difficult than they think. They can joke about drone strikes against some faggot living innawoods, but controlling an armed urban population with domestic armed forces wouldn't be practical without damaging vital infrastructure they want to keep. Wish I had the based nip copy pasta right now.

I AM SO ANGRY DALLAS POLITICIANS TELLING NRA TO FUCK OFF. REEEE

fpbp

What part of "well regulated" do you not understand?

This very much they are weak pathetic females all of them. They have zero understanding of the controlled and funneled rage that is the true man.

>regulation #1: Own a gun, faggot

The part where they have corrupted the well regulated militia so much, most states' armies are just part and parcel to the US military system. We deserve B2's and Nuclear Armaments, and I should be able to buy grenades and we should nullify/repeal the NFA act of 1934 and all the other unconstitutional legislature that cripples our 2nd Amendment rights.

You can regulate the militia all you want

Because the constitution is the closest-to-sweetspot governmental framework that ever existed and they can't take control with the bill of rights in place. That's why they've been trying to erode it for a century.

They want to take away the guns so white genocide will be easier.

The last thing they want is 100M armed whites.

The ownership of arms must be guaranteed before you can have a militia of any form. The line
>"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."
Literally means...
>because the people need to be able to form effective militias, we're not going to say you can't have guns, presumably guns that put you on par with an invading force or a tyrannical government.
The line about well-regulated militias is not a proviso for the people to own arms, it is a reasoning for not disarming citizens in the first place.

Agreed.

+1

Gun regulations need to fuck right off. Gun free zones need to fuck right off. I dont care how many (((school shootings))) happen, and how many people (((die))) from guns, GET YOUR FUCKING HANDS OFF MY POTATO GUN!

>Why can't lefties understand English?
Kremlin shit-threads by Kremlin shit-heads to turn righties against lefties. Typical demoralization and destabilization propaganda technique. Yuri was right.

I dont need russians to hate liberals

>hurr durr the Russians have been on,here trolling and manipulating us all along guys why,can't you see that

You mean this one?

Do you know the exact number of AR15s in the country (that we know of?) Do the democrats realize that if they enact any sort of ban or restriction on these rifles that they will essentially turn millions of law abiding Americans into felons?

Why the fuck would anyone be opposed to a civil right?
>Also groups opposed to civil rights are known as hate groups so use that.

I do, rights are memes, all of them.
It is legit your duty to buy a weapon and keep whatever your government form is in check.

They seem to think that taking away guns is their right lol. They forget that the legal gun owner has the right specifically for that purpose.

english isn't a lefty's native language

>It is legit your duty to buy a weapon and keep whatever your government form is in check
Why? Why is that your duty?

I think after coming civil war we should rewrite Constitution to me bore clear on these things and also include clause that anyone domestic or abroad who does anything including agitation to change clauses on free speech, superiority of white race or right to carry open and concealed any kind of weapon that single person can lift, should be threated as enemy of USA and anyone in the world has right to immediately kill him and USA government must pay him reward and do everything in their capacity to guarantee him life and freedom. Any US official or subcontractor who tries to stop such killing should be considered as traitor and be killed too.

>after coming civil war we should rewrite Constitution to me bore clear on these things
Terrible idea. You do not immediately legislate in the wake of a crisis, especially when you're tinkering with the constitution itself. The most damaging legislations we're had have been under the same type of situation you just said. Too much of a risk of misuse.

nope. it's all good how it is. minus the fucking revisions made thereafter, repeal NFA of 1934 and every other infringement to our 2nd amendment. Also, they need to either legalize dope(weed), or go fucking arrest all these mother fuckers, because this is going to be used and the basis for attack on all of our bill of rights guaranteed freedoms. I mean, the drug shit is just one example, but it's one of the biggest examples that will be used to why states rights should trump federal law - another means to convince normies that the bill of rights is fundamentally flawed, based completely on subversion and takes advantage of how fickle and stupid our politicians and their constituents can be.

Arms, not semiautomatic rifles.

>Arms
Weapons. Contextually, that means weapons capable of putting the populace on par with an invading force or a tyrannical government. That means military-grade hardware. Things like fully auto rifles and most explosives.

If you don't like it, stay in Europe where they arrest you for owning a butterknife.

huh?

arms
ärmz/Submit
noun
1.
weapons and ammunition; armaments.
"they were subjugated by force of arms"
synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions, matériel

What part of "well regulated" don't right wingers understand?

It is your duty because every type of government can be corrupted, some less than others, but over time it is inevitable.
To make sure your own freedom is not infringed over the State's (which is a construct, not a human being, mind you, therefore inferior by design), you have to be able to shoot back if it ever decides to actually fight you to protect its interests against either your or the collective's interests.
Keep in mind that it's all assuming you are a virtuous and righteous individual. There will will always be wicked among us, but it clearly makes it very, very hard for them to operate on their own when everyone else is as armed as they are.

Constitution of United States of America 1789 (rev. 1992)

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.


a well regulated militia is completely separate statement from our right to bear arms, which is an implied necessity to having a well regulated militia. which means a militia which has arms, well regulated simply means it exists, and to make sure it continues to exist.

Read Orwells 1984, and hopefully you understand our language is under siege. “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.”

― George Orwell, 1984

When you start making new definitions for words and redefining terms, it doesn't change the historical context unless that historical context has been completely corrupted.

>We want to amend this law.
>You can't, it's against the law.
>It absolutely is not.
>Yes it is, it says right in the law.
>You can't just write into the law "you can't change this law."
>SHALL

>It is your duty because every type of government can be corrupted, some less than others, but over time it is inevitable.
>To make sure your own freedom is not infringed over the State's (which is a construct, not a human being, mind you, therefore inferior by design)
And would you say that it's proper and correct for human beings to do such a thing? To enforce their liberties against being infringed?

To have a milita, you have to have privately owned weaponry in the hand of citizen-soldiers, retard, not a STATE-OPERATED INSTITUTION, which would ruin the very basis of the statement.

There's no law of physics that prevents your rights from being infringed. Only vigilant and ruthless enforcement does that.

Stay vigilant, we only get to have a democracy as long as we fight to keep it.

Of course. Government exist to facilitate the administration of countries or nation-state so that the citizens themselves are free to either idle, socialize or work.
If the government does not facilitate the political life but totally subjugate the citizenry, what need is there then for a government?

That's why law should include "kill everyone who tries despite this law".
Overwhelming violence is the only method that works against leftist subverters.

I love that ramenpasta. It put so much in perspective for me. WISH IT A HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

What part of "the people" do you not understand?

It helps if you understand that written English rules from the 1700's differ from what he have today

Also, if you do a deep dive in the historical arguments of the time, the "well regulated militias" were referring to Armed Slave Retrievers from Southern States - armed parties of slave owners who went out and found slaves that ran away.

The 2A is obsolete and dangerous and needs to be repealed or at the very least replaced. If you want to have guns, even as a Liberal I can be OK with that. How about the same as a Car - License, Insurance, Registration, Strong Background Checks, No personal sales, Classes, and stiff fines/penalties for even owning one without it.

Japan does that and guess what - they have less than 10 gun deaths per year

Most other civilized, first world counties either do about the same or outright ban them together. Only America is completely cucked about guns...time to grow up.

>at the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787
>“A lady asked Dr. Franklin: "Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy?"
>"A republic", replied the Doctor, "if you can keep it.”

Time to line up your kin against the wall.

Literally all of those things are basically in the original. The founding fathers would be flipping tables in DC and chimping out if we brought them back today.

Then how have you come to the conclusion of rights being "memes" when the entire premise for the state existing is predicated on the idea of primacy of rights and recognition and enforcement of rights?

/thread

>musket
good thing the word "musket" appears right next to the word "need". you know that the constitution only defines in language certain inalienable human rights? they are inalienable. you could destroy the whole constitution in the legal institutions and it wouldn't matter. the constitution is the eternal law of the land, its a blood oath on human rights. i suggest you read up on the Supremacy Clause.
>pleb
you're using the lowest form of social capital, disgusting.

This fucking revisionism. Did a professor with pink hair tell you that? Go read some actual period accounts; ones that haven't been filtered through modern neo-marxism.

Learn some fucking history cockgoblin...

thehypertexts.com/Slavery and the Second Amendment Slave Patrol Militias.htm

>muh musket

I guess your freedom of speech is restricted to newspapers as well.

>thehypertexts.com/Slavery and the Second Amendment Slave Patrol Militias.htm

thehypertexts.com/About_The_Hypertexts.htm

"We are not a "formal" journal or a "free verse" journal; we simply publish the best poetry we can find."

Yes, very academic.

Because they don't teach grammer in schools anymore

Muskets in the modern day would be pretty entertaining IMO.

>hypertexts.com is her academic resource on the rights-based patriarchal post enlightenment dialectic that allowed the peasant led guerilla warfare that won the revolutionary war and inspired the 2nd smendment

great job kid, heres your participation trophy

The part where you want to put machine guns into the hands of mentally ill sociopaths who want nothing more than to slay as many kids as they can, that part, that's the part I don't understand why you're that level of retarded to think that's fine, why are you fine with that ? is it just that you're evil or is it a lack of ability to think rationally ? evil ? or irrational ? or both ?

How about, you learn that the civil war was not about slavery, but a mirror of what we're seeing now. Fucking imbosiles who think they can redefine what "is" is, and start putting their own ideas into what they think the framers truly meant by ignoring the facts and basis of our Constitution.

The well regulated militia had nothing to do with slavery. It has to do mostly with the fact that we trust our neighbors to protect us if shit starts getting hairy. We trust our neighbors, and we will defend our neighbors if anyone starts to step on their guaranteed freedoms. That is what the civil war was about. Now, read something that doesn't have fuck-ass confirmation bias in it, you know - you must like the smell of your own shit, and everyone else who stinks like you do, because you wont pull your head out. We are trying to protect your children, because I give a fuck less about you.

lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

>If you want to have guns, even as a Liberal I can be OK with that
No one gives a shit what you're OK with. Completely irreverent point.
>Japan does that and guess what - they have less than 10 gun deaths per year
How is a gun death any different from any other violent death? Completely irreverent point
>Only America is completely cucked about guns...time to grow up.
This is just hilarious. It's like you read 'a shills guide to fitting into Sup Forums'

Trump lets this slide, Right Wing Death Squads are here to save us from (((them))) and the UN.

...

>you want to put machine guns into the hands of mentally ill sociopaths

No one wants that, nor does anyone want to see kids killed. Get off your high horse.

Rights are memes taken to a fanatical level by egalitarian radicals under shaky assumption on the Natural State of Man, according to Rousseau. Recent scientific discoveries on the tribalistic nature of Man in pre-hiostoric times have given reason to Rousseau's philosophical opponent Hobbe about the Nature of Man, which isn't egalitarian and pacifical, corrupted by society, but exactly the opposite, where Man is a competitive, egotistical warmonger that had to be chained to the strong State to embrace (relative) peace and prosperity. Rousseau's theory extrapolated from his erroneous views on the Natural State of Man that since they were egalitarian and good-willed at the root, Man inherited universal rights which were lost with the establishment of civilization; the right to life, the religious right, the political right, etc.
But it was wrong. If those rights were truly universal, then obviously people everywhere would recognize those tenets as the foundations of their society. The Aztec civilization was the exact antithesis to Rousseau's utopia, in which the Aztec overlords of the Mexicas tribes constantly sacrificed foreigners and the old to Huitzilopochtli, against the very notion of human material worth. And it was only one amongst many.
What were the first official norms of society established? It was rules, not rights. From the moment civilization was birthed, in Jericho (allegedly), despotic rule characterized by the will to do right with the majority, not to ensure their happiness, was the first thing invented, against Rousseau's thesis.
Rights ultimately are nothing but a tool to control the masses into egalitarianism, and by this, force them to accept egalitarian ideologies : marxism, american or british democracy, and all other flavors against traditionnal forms of government.
And who does egalitarian ideologies benefit again, but minorities and those who aren't bred to rule?

...

rawstory.com/2016/07/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery/

motherjones.com/politics/2008/03/whitewashing-second-amendment/

minnpost.com/eric-black-ink/2013/01/was-second-amendment-adopted-slaveholders

truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery

alternet.org/civil-liberties/thom-hartmann-second-amendment-was-ratified-preserve-slavery

Go fuck yourself, stupid cuck...learn some fucking history

For real at the cost of at least 1 million dollars a month some of it on stolen credit cards. They have a whole system in place to fuck with "The Greatest Nation On Earth" and are still , even with a W , still the biggest faggot losers around.

No wonder our schools are shit...

You do know that EVERY STATE that succeeded from the Union specifically mentioned SLAVERY in their official declaration?

No wonder America elected Trump....

>grammer

nice trips

I am a product of the system

The problem is that the 2nd has not teeth.
None of the constitution is actually protected. If a law maker violates the constitution there is no penalty.
The worst that happens is that 20 years later it gets ruled unconstitutional. They have perverse incentive to keep trying to reduce the scope of the constitution.

only government employees are OK to have guns.

probably the opposite reason tighty-righties can't comprehend "well regulated"

/thread

Well-regulated
>Always resplenished
>Always trained
>Never attacked by either Law or State
there you go, well regulated.
Now go buy a gun faggot.

Let's see...

>by Michael R. Burch
>Also a peace activist, he is the author of the Burch-Elberry Peace Initiative,[6] which has been published online by United Progressives

Hmm United progressives, huh? I'm sure all those "resist" posts on thier facebook page don't have anything to do with cultural marxism.

Let's dig deeper...

>In his U.C. Davis Law Review article "The Hidden History of the Second Amendment," Professor Carl T. Bogus of the Roger Williams University School of Law offers an interesting thesis: James Madison re-wrote the Second Amendment to assure the southern states that Congress would not undermine the slave system by disarming militias which at that time were the principal instruments of slave control throughout the South.
>Carl T. Bogus is Distinguished Research Professor of Law at the Roger Williams University School of Law in Bristol, Rhode Island.
>Professor Bogus has written and spoken extensively about torts and the civil justice system, gun control and the Second Amendment, and political ideology.

Well, I'm sure he probably isn't biased in any way...

>Hartmann lifts this claim from the Carl T. Bogus article he cites, which in turn relies on Herbert Aptheker’s 1949 book, generally considered exaggerated even at the time it was published, before much additional research on slave revolts had made historians curious about their relative infrequency when compared with other slave societies in the New World. Nor were the few serious slave revolts during the colonial period confined to the South, with two in New York City
>Herbert Aptheker
>Herbert Aptheker (July 31, 1915 – March 17, 2003) was an American Marxist historian and political activist. He wrote more than 50 books, mostly in the fields of African-American history and general U.S. history, most notably, American Negro Slave Revolts (1943), a classic in the field, and the 7-volume Documentary History of the Negro People (1951–1994).

If you really believe the civil war was part and parcel of support of slavery, then that's what I'm trying to point out to you -- believing this is a fallacy, a scapegoat to the true reason for the civil war - which was a blatant violation of states rights, and violation of the freedoms set forth by the US Constitution.

What part of disciplines don’t you understand? Or did you not read it all?

>ITT: gun worshiping fags

...

>already gave up his 2nd amendment rights. because this person is a fucking pussy who knows they are so much smarter than the founding fathers of the USA, and also knows in his heart that the government would never betray us in the future.
>Furthermore, relies on other people to protect him and his. Because protecting his own shit would be "foolish" and "dangerous", and better left to the "professionals".

>What were the first official norms of society established? It was rules, not rights.
Except you've missed the point. You've started looking after the point of origin, which is where the notion of rights are most important. The natural rights of men to life, association, pursuit of happiness, etc; as well as the rights that facilitate their protection, are things innate to humans and humans will enforce their own personal rights to the best of their ability. The notion of forming tribes is predicated on more effective protection of rights.

American democracy is the best system the world has ever seen. The fact that the republic has been eroded for centuries and is still going at all is a testament to it's stability. That said, if you dispense with the idea of rights, then you have zero grounds for defending the rights you yourself claim to have. Egalitarianism, when not perverted by marxism, is not a fault. Centralized power is a fault. Social engineering is a fault. Equality of opportunity fundamentally benefits anyone who can produce things of value; which is exactly who you want to be benefiting.

What proof do you have that the examples you bring up are not a result of people being packed into cities due to revisionism, social engineering and overpopulation?

-1 karma for not posting the TALLY HO version

>a bunch of left-wing blogs that copy each other and regularly get caught coordinating political hit-pieces
What did Jews mean by this?

Conveniently omitted: The primary slave owners and sellers and slave ship owners, were Jews.

adequate gun control does not infringe our rights.

>can't into abstract reasoning
Arms is a broad term that encapsulates whatever the weapons of war in a particular era happen to be.

If this is what you believe, why aren’t you guys marching on Washinton to unban. Machine guns, submachine guns, selective fire rifles, mini guns, grenade launchers, tanks, fighter aircraft. Etc...

If you read the full amendment you would see that the right to keep and bear arms isn't absolute. In fact for the majority of US history the courts never believed in the individual right to bear arms as it's currently understood. The entire notion was made up back in the 80s.

The 2nd amendment was written because the founding fathers did not want to have a standing army, but likewise did not want to be left defenseless if the Brits came back. The 2nd amendment provided for well regulated militias (being necessary for the security of a free state) to be formed. If you aren't in the militia, or well regulated, it doesn't apply to you.

>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 right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
>the right of the people
>the people
>The militia?
>No, the people
>The army?
>No, the people
>The fucking people

Stop pushing revisionism, faggot. What you just wrote is clearly debunked by the amendment itself.