Our forefathers did NOT say we had a right to bear arms...

Our forefathers did NOT say we had a right to bear arms. They said that ONLY a “well regulated militia” had the right to bear arms.

We need to sue the several States and include as a Defendant every gun owning citizen of the United States. Our Petition would claim that our personal security and right to peace is being violated by the unconstitutional acts of people who bear arms unregulated outside of a militia (which is military and law enforcement), according to the 2nd Amendment.

If we can get the case in front of the Supreme Court, the judges could then make the decision on the constitutionality of the right for an unregulated citizen to bear arms. It’s not a constitutional right!

Or we can demand a national referendum that gives the people the right to choose (vote) whether or not an unregulated citizen can legally bear arms.

We strongly believe, that in such referendum, or if the Supreme Court was forced to rule on grounds of constitutionality, we would make some serious steps towards safety and peace.

The Humanity Party®

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
youtube.com/watch?v=diz-8FzHOLM
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Buy a gun, kill yourself, and delete your shitty thread.

/thread

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban and requirement that lawfully-owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.

>Our Petition would claim that our personal security and right to peace is being violated by the unconstitutional acts of people who bear arms unregulated
Oh so its okay to use the constitution as long as it suits you.
Fuck off and end your shill self.

Sage

>smug liberal makes a smug liberal face while telling people the correct way of thinking as a joke like giving a child a bubblegum flavored cough syrup

If school shootings are a good reason to repeal the 2nd, niggers like this are a good reason to repeal the 13th.

Nigger. Repeal all gun laws or millions of you will be slaughtered.

>Our forefathers did NOT say we had a right to bear arms.
Then why does it literally say THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE?

Was that some complicated riddle that you want to explain away for us?

>Lack of Reading Comprehension: The Post

Go back and retake middle-school english.

>Every other right in the bill of rights is directed towards we the people
>Except the second guys they only meant the military, which isn't mentioned anywhere else in the document other than barring soldiers from entering private citizens homes in the third

this proves niggers cannot read

>The Humanity Party
Randian Thelemite shills. Shoot them on sight.
No survivors.

WE the people!

WE

Only a spear chucking level of that faggot on the daily show would make the constitution about them.

You fucking monkey wern't a thought in our forefathers head when the drew that up.

Stop responding to these bait threads you dumb fucks. Sage

1) the people are the subject of that sentence.
2) well regulated was a common term meaning "working" or "trained" for a few hundred years before 1776, right up until the early 1900s.

18-25 mental illness
26-99 old

kys

Look at how he throws his own grandfather under a bus as he proceeds to self-aggrandise. Only shitlibs think and talk like this.

the right OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

this is deep

>Compares the most important documented in American history to racist old white relative
>Would be literally dead had it never existed

Niggers, first they complain, then they complain, then they complain, then you lose, then they complain.

Eat shit lefty. If you actually try and take away guns you will push the country closer to civil war. Right after guns or right with it comes "adjustments" to the 1st amendment.. for everyone's own good of course...

the right of THE PEOPLE shall not be infringed

It's not hard, Pedro.

the people are not separate from the militia, in the original context, with the free states disciplining and training ("well regulated", right?) citizens unless a citizen's religious disposition prompts him to not own a weapon (this was noted in the original proposed amendment. courts have upheld the "every man a militia" argument, but we are seeing that this unfettered access to high powered arms is backfiring.

Sage

I hope the government gives every teacher a free gun imagine how many kids will get shot then.

the militia is the people

>They said that ONLY a “well regulated militia” had the right to bear arms.
But we have no right to be in militias. So if you want to make it a law that to own a gun we have to join a non-goverment based NRA like militia then fine nigger.

/thread

You can’t sage if you post an image, also thank you for this image it is a nice image

how would you feel about armories storing the weapons, and everyone has access to the guns for the purposes of hunting and sport, (providing they don't pose a public threat)?

sounds like socialism.

>the founding father gave themselves the right to bear arms.
>we have the right to a well regulated militia.

Maeks sense, amirite guise?

>That smug look

Sage

It hasnt worked like that for years. Sage works with images. Dont belive, go try it Faggot.

This.

But please do hire a lawyer, buy TV air time, solicit donations, and spend it all getting through the lower courts to the supreme court. Spend it all on that mission because this keeps coming up and we've tired of giving the same answer.

>a 5-4 decision

Why do these simple decisions always seem so close? Do the 4 vote to appease liberals?

>Our forefathers did NOT say we had a right to bear arms.

yes, they did.

okay so let's get the militias going then

oh, you dont want that either...ok. have you ever been checked for being retarded?

>black figurehead
>Jewish writer
>our forefathers
Wew

This is what I dont get about Americunts. So some dead guys some centuries ago decided somethings should be this way and no other way. So what?

You are all seriously saying that those guys hundreds of years ago knew better what should and shouldn't be law? Is this like Americunt version of Abrahamic religions or what?

You have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about.

All well-regulated means is having the ability to take care of your weapon and doing so, being proficient at using it and having some experience in group tactics.

youtube.com/watch?v=diz-8FzHOLM

Mark Passio breaks down the 2nd amendment word for word in this video. Watch it, and fuck off.

fpbp

>Do the 4 vote to appease liberals?
the 4 have blackmail photos of themselves in bed with children, the other 5 do also but different people with a different agenda are holding their blackmail photos

SCOTUS, the intent of the founders, common sense, syntax, sentence structure, vocabulary, and grammar all happen to agree that the right to keep and bear arms applies to the individual.

Give it a rest, the Supreme Court has already ruled on this.

...

Ridde me this, Amerifats:

If the government starts banning certain guns, like the AR-15, how exactly by doing so are they violating your CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS?
You don't have a constitutional right to bear ANY arm. Just the constitutional right to bear arms.
Therefore, nobody is infringing on your right to bear arms. Because it is not your *right* to bear arms that is being infringed, if the government makes it harder to get certain guns.


tl;dr: you do NOT have the constitional right to bear a particular arm, or any arm, as both these terms are missing in the amendment, therefore just the right to bear arms in general, and therefore
the only way one could infringe on that right in general is if the age was raised, ID checks introduced etc. but not via legislature targeting certain gun types, rather than the rights of people in general.

Militia= a military force raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
A militia is the exact opposite of a military, it is an irregular force formed by normal people who are able to use guns, the specific difference between them and a paramilitary is that the paramilitary(as the name already says) is a unofficial, but well-organized and trained force, similiar to the military.

Obviously, the military won't appear, when you are getting shot at by a criminal, who ignores any legal rights and got weapons from the black market, which he can always do, in this case the next best citizen with a firearm is the representative of the state, as a militiaman by definition, he is obligated to neutralize the criminal.

And, even if you do not agree to this, despite reason and definition working completely against you, the second amendmend said that the right of the people shall not be infringed, I can't imagine that "a well-regulated militia" can be infringed as such.

A "well-regulated" militia would most likely be one with members who posess reasonable moral views and a stable psychological constitution, which is (obviously) any US-citizen that did not commit any major crime or was considered mentally ill by a doctor, which is about anyone in the US(including gun-owners).

Otherwise it's mostly already regulated, you are prohibited from owning full-automatic weapons, guns have to be registered etc.

If you read my post,congrats, I needn't tell you anymore, that the only free people are armed.

learn to read cunt, "the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
reading comprehension and punctuation matters

The constitution doesn't grant rights. It simply lists them.

It's a simple maxim of natural law that nobody has the right to tell you what you can or cannot do, unless you are doing harm to another, have done harm to another, and / or are likely to do harm to another.

The right to defend oneself against violations of one's natural rights by any means necessary is in itself a right, and the right to bear arms is an extension of that right. The constitution simply lists this secondary right, extended from the former, because of the specific type of threats that the founding fathers experienced and foresaw would be around for generations to come.

TLDR: the constitution doesn't mean shit. it has no substance on its own. what gives it substance is the natural laws and principles it's based on which are immutable and inherent in all men and women from birth 'till death.

kek

> Constitution is old and doesn't matter
Let them put their money where their mouths are. Have them voluntarily surrender their Constitutional rights to prove that they're serious. No free speech, no freedom of religion, no freedom from the establishment of religion, no protection against searches and seizures, we can keep troops in their homes, they don't get juries or the right to confront their witnesses, no freedom from racial or sex discrimination, and they can't vote. Then we'll have a referendum on guns.

Yeah expect niggers to lecture you about constitutional law when they cant even grasp the concept of the rule of law taking from their anarchic shitholes

If we got rid of niggers the U.S. rate of violence, even mass shootings, would be the same (or less than) Europe.

Kill yourself with a million paper cuts shill.

>Have them voluntarily surrender their Constitutional rights to prove that they're serious.
just declare them criminals and send the jack booted thugs to make an example of someone

getting sick of this narrative

>complain about 2nd amendment
>uses slavery in argument
>forgets abolishing slavery is also an amendment

>constitution says we can own slaves
>literally does not

jesus Christ I bet you own shares in soy too

>you do NOT have the constitional right to bear a particular arm, or any arm
>both these terms are missing in the amendment

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

are you really that fucking retarded?

How dare you trigger me with that nigger's face

>If we can get the case in front of the Supreme Court, the judges could then make the decision on the constitutionality of the right for an unregulated citizen to bear arms. It’s not a constitutional right!
They already ruled on this. Sorry, it did not go your way.

All men are in a militia. If we go by "Only militias can have guns" then you need to disarm only women.

Fun fact: Every year there;s 200,000+ cases of women defending themselves from sexual assault with a firearm. These women would be disarmed.

(You) are correct from a literal standpoint, but from a practical one you should also consider this:
An AR-15 is certainly not the deadliest of rifles nor the easiest to purchase, yet the tactical image it gives off is something that the public has come to fear by association perhaps because of the media. We indeed have strict laws against automatic firearms and fees and annual checks for specific firearms which can be asily modified to be automatic. As we already have these things in place after decades of legislation pushing into more and more forms of arms, we should consider that by using the hype around the AR-15, other similar Semi-Automatic Rifles will most likely be heavily regulated as well. Granted, the second amendment also says nothing about a right to trade firearms without hinderence. So, we already have systems of background checks in place to ensure that our lawful right to bear arms is not tarnished by criminals, but is this that failed us because the shooter was, in fact, not sane and had a criminal record before he turned 18. When he turned 18 he was still not sane, but now had practically no criminal record. What we should do, is not blame the weapon, there are plenty like it and by focusing on these, we open ourselves to heavier legislation on SEMI-Automatic rifles. Meanwhile we should have stronger background checks, not merely more questions, rather they should include all history regardless of state, their should be heavier punishment for lying on background checks, but most importantly, more people should lawfully own guns and become well versed in them. Ensuring that our right to bear arms is well regulated (in the classic sense).

fuck your reddit spacing. (((you))) don't belong here. GET OUT

>"we can't change the constitution!!"

>"remember the time we changed the constituion?"

But you don't have a "right to peace", whoever told you that lied.

Spamming this irrelevant shit in every gun thread

All citizens are part of the militia. Well-regulated has nothing to do with government regulations.

Every US citizen is in their state militia. If you don't feel your local militia is well regulated then take up with your local government

Do not reply to troll threads. Report them and move on.

The glorious black people, should have the right to return to their ancestral homeland, from which they were taken away.
They should be granted protection, transportation and enough money to safely make it to a new existance, on the western coast of AFRICA.

>Listen, Amerifats, as long as you still have the right to own a single-shot pellet gun, your rights are not being infringed

Part of me is actually happy that Shitslam is going to wipe you Eurocucks out of existence by the end of the century.

>i don't like what you say, therefor you're a troll.

sorry to disrupt your safe space. i'll let this thread die. i have one more thread about this issue coming up. stay tuned.

The second amendment can be better understood by rephrasing it.
“A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”
-now, does this statement say that ONLY a “well-schooled electorate” (college educated) people have the right to read books? No! It means that everyone has the right to read books.

Which amendment to the constitution protects the right to won slaves? I'm pretty sure it's the opposite.

>No! It means that everyone has the right to read books.
maintained through a state educational apparatus, if we're to go with your rephrasing. you want illiterates in your book club?

Fuck you nigger

Lmao did commies just skip grammar lessons in school

oh boy, another foreigner high off the smell of his own farts here to educate me on my own constitution

please continue

would you leave it up to the states then? shouldn't we be selective about who's allowed in the state militia?

>Why do these simple decisions always seem so close? Do the 4 vote to appease liberals?
Wait till Kennedy and Ginsburg get replaced.

two more threads coming up. the opposition on this issue is strooong and THumP is working on it.

"A well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and bear food shall not be infringed."

who has the right to food? the people or the well balanced breakfast?

>would you leave it up to the states then?
It is an individual's right to make the decision to be apart of the militia, not the state's.

get out socialist, lol.

All fighting aged men are members of the unorganized militia:

you dumb fucking nigger. i'm arguing in favor of gun rights. get some reading comprehension.

The last thing they want is militias forming, but if we must.

I don't know who this George Washington guy is but he seems important.
Also the slavery deal actually came down to a few votes.

they also didn't say niggers should be allowed to vote, and they definitely would have said it exactly that way.

So is what you're saying is you do not understand how commas work, got it fag.

"Old people are stupid, amiright"

Since I paid for my gun had a background check ran on me when I did I am a registered gun owner which means I am regulated

>absolute phrase
>not a modifier
kys faggot

Do you have a copy of this without the red line?

Our forefathers also didn't believe there would be assholes willing to give up rights

/thread.