Why can't people just come out and say exactly what they mean with this whole gun control debate.
Leftist faggots: We want to repeal the second amendment.
People with balls: The right to keep and bear arms supersedes all risks involved with its existence and we really don't give a fuck how many people die in order to keep it in tact. It is a trade off between safety and freedom and the choice is clear. Shall not be infringed.
That would clear up the debate wouldn't it?
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
independent.co.uk
atomwaffendivision.org
nypost.com
twitter.com
>accepting the lie that disarmament would make us safer
Ok but why the fuck do you need guns? That's why we have police. They will protect you.
Doesn't that make the whole thing a non sequitur.
What about people who don't eat a balanced breakfast?
True. Just ask sheriff Scot Peterson.
That's their fucking business.
Those assholes don't have the right to restrict my breakfast.
What if the police are the ones we need protection from?
en.wikipedia.org
those kids were so protected by the police that sat in the parking lot while they were getting to meet Jesus huh
What if you eat children and they have children and you are hungry.
Yeah, that cop in Parkland assigned to guard duty at the school that shot up did a great job protecting everyone with his whole 'never go in or do anything the whole time' routine.
Because most conservacucks don't even understand or care about principles of freedom.
the people have a right to the food, but only when it is part of a well balanced breakfast.
Just like how you are allowed to have guns only when you are part of a REGULATED militia.
>the police are trash humans
Maybe nobody should have guns then.
...
Hey guy, go look up what the common usage of the term regulated was in 1787.
Ok how is that accomplished?
then we get acid attacks and stabbings.
I'd rather get shot in the head then have Habir throw acid in my eyes.
How about the common usage of the term "gun" before 1787?
So you want all gun owners to form an organized miltia?
Try again sweetie.
Maybe you should fly back off away to your lala fantasy planet, spaceman. Welcome to the real world, where if you solely rely on fucking anyone that isn't yourself for your own personal protection you're fucking dead.
People would have the right to eat food, solely for the purpose of a balanced breakfast.
Seems really obvious when you word it that way.
Look up what the militia is then jackass.
Did you fail grade school English class?
Just stop.
Are liberals really this poor at reading comprehension?
A well regulated militia can not have rights. It's not a person. Only people have rights. The constitution only deals with rights of the people.
It is guaranteeing the right to bear arms as well as the right to have militias. Jist like the first amendment gives rights to freedom of speech, religion, assembly, etc.
It links related rights and links then together.
You are a literal nigger if you can't read it correctly.
Did you? You're the one ignoring the first half of the sentence. A nominative absolute isn't a totally unrelated part of a sentence. It's the basis of the entire point of the sentence.
>Since you are retarded, you shouldn't post here anymore.
The "Since you are retarded" part is a nominative absolute and critical to the rest of the sentence, because if you weren't retarded, you would be encouraged to post.
So the same way, because a well regulated militia is necessary, people should have guns. No militia means people don't need guns.
People have rights, for the purpose of forming a militia.
If that wasn't important, the framers wouldn't have added it. They didn't do that anywhere else. There is not a single wasted word.
All citizens are part of the militia.
That's not very well regulated then. Guess it doesn't count.
Well-regulated has nothing to do with government regulations.
Doesn't have to. A group that includes literally everyone is the most poorly organized group you can possibly make.
I'd say most peoples arms are in proper working order.
You wouldn't know, given how poorly regulated that militia is.
The framers didn't anticipate kikes like you twisting language to an absurd degree.
That's like saying freedom of speech only applies to the press since they are mentioned together.
No, it's the arms that are well regulated. And most peoples arms are capable of firing, or in other words proper working order.
If they wanted free speech only for the press, they would have said "A free press, being essential for a free state, congress shall make no law abridging freedom speech"
But they didn't. In fact, the 1st amendment is written in an entirely different way. Almost like it was intentionally worded differently...
Nobody needs guns? Nobody needs a whiny bitch yet you're here.
>it's the arms that are well regulated.
You're a special kind of stupid. See
Maybe you can figure out how the words apply to one another.
The group's structure is irrelevant. To function properly the militia must be armed with weapons and munitions, ergo well-regulated.
>The right to keep and bear arms supersedes all risks involved with its existence and we really don't give a fuck how many people die in order to keep it in tact. It is a trade off between safety and freedom and the choice is clear. Shall not be infringed.
Because when this is explained at length it's very powerful. The cowards and power hungry (((people))) behind the scenes are using fear to eat away at the 2A until it's completely gone. You should believe some leftists when they say they are pro-Gun, even if they shill for control. Their fear is getting the best of them. Also they're still faggots.
For a militia to be in proper working order the arms of the militia need to be in proper working order. May I suggest repeating 2nd grade English?
>>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
This means that for a free state to have security you need the ability to form a well regulated militia without delay. You must be able to form a militia.
>> the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
This means that people must have the right to own and carry weapons to use in the militia should they need to do so.
If we all of a sudden need to form a militia and nobody has any guns what are we supposed to do? Use or cocks? The government clearly doesn't exist at this point if we meed a fucking militia so what now?
I can't wait until we line you fucking leftists up against the wall and slit your fucking throats.
guns have been so woefully mythicized, like owning a gun is some sort of Religious object.
It's ludicrous. If you remove the civil religion around gun ownership, you'll see that they are just tools, nothing special.
But tools that have the potential to harm others, need to be licensed and regulated. Any transgression of such regulation needs to call for fines or other actions to prevent abuse of gun ownership.
Also, the Heller decision was a mistake, Scalia didn't even adhere to his principle of Textualism.
Breyer's dissent should be the law of the land.
"regulated" does not, and has never meant "having ammo" Hell, it doesn't even mean that now.
I dare you to find a single contemporary source that uses the word "regulated" to mean anything other than "organized"
Maybe come back to earth where you aren't a navy seal and aren't more likely to shoot yourself or your family with your gun than a home invader.
Regulator valve.
Actually, they don't. A militia could work without any guns at all. It may not be as deadly, but it would work just fine.
You know one thing it couldn't work without? Organization. Regulated = organized, and unless you can prove it means "muh gun can shoot" go eat a dog dick and go back to school.
the police and military have accountability to the public, whereas many zealous, disgruntled, violent, and angry gun owners do not have accountability until they lash out.
Public safety is more critical to a civil society than paranoid, nervous, delusion of persecution gun nuts.
If food is only for Breakfast, where do you get off eating Lunch and Dinner then?
Which doesn't mean "working valve" it means "organized flow valve"
Thank you for proving my point.
Leftists are inherently deceptive and would never admit to their goals. Why should the Right play fair and honest and push the weakminded away?
>very same document talks about the right to bear arms
>hurr the militia doesn't even need arms
Really noggin my joggin over here.
It's a valve that keeps the system in proper working order, wow, so difficult.
Because we only want the best and most pure when the purge happens.
guns are tools, if they are used for masturbation thoughts of committing violence, that is a mental illness that should prevent someone from unlimited gun ownership because they become a liability to public safety.
Well-regulated means in proper working order. For a militia to be in proper working order, citizens must be armed with access to arms and ammo.
When seconds count, the police hide until the shooting stops.
Because people can't communicate without trying to filter their thoughts to appeal to their target audience.
Wow some dumb fucking people here. All citizens are not the militia, rather, all citizens can potentially be called up to become militia. Militia are contrasted with soldiers in that militia bring everything, including arms, with them. Soldiers have their kit and weapons issued to them. Being able to form a well regulated militia which can potentialy include the entire population presupposes an armed population not the other way around you mouth breathing faggots.
Left faggots: there is no reason civilians should own military grade rifles that only exist to kill himans
"People with balls": please respect me, i can't tell the difference between fear of my gun and respect so I need to have my guns
It keeps REGULAR which means ORGANIZED flow. Fucking every part makes something work.
And yeah, a militia can exist just fine with clubs and knives. Are you saying there was no such thing as a militia until the gun was invented?
>All citizens are not the militia
Wrong. All citizens are part of the unorganized militia.
Ah you're retarded. I'm sorry.
Tell that to the FBI and police force that failed to stop the shooting
Why not prove it? So far the other two guys have completely failed to do so.
Show me one single contemporary source (or even, single source from any point in history) where someone used "regulated" to mean "working"
You can't.
Thanks for admitting my win senpai.
I think he meant that you are regulated.
When will people realize that a piece of paper does not give us our rights? We never even signed that piece of paper, so the entire Constitution is a fraudulent contract. Our rights are God-given and if any of you niggers try to infringe on my rights you will meet your maker. There is absolutely no debate.
>All citizens are part of the unorganized militia.
You mean a militia with no regulation of any kind? Legal or organization wise?
lol
No, as in Regular, like your bowel movements.
Y U No Get?
SHALL
NOT
BE
INFRINGED
We The People, every individual one of us, *are* The Milita. There is no MILITIA without the individual right to keep and bear arms. This isn't fucking rocket surgery. It's plain and simple english. You don't get to take our guns, and if you try, we shoot you. Deal with it.
How were they supposed to stop it? Arrest the kid for shitposting? Or because some liberal busybody reported him to the FBI for dressing in black and having knives? Or should they just have locked him up against his will in a psych ward and took away all his gun rights? You know once you're involuntarily committed you lose your gun rights... Sounds way too convenient.
"A well and balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."
Does it say that you have to eat breakfast in order to keep and eat food? No, it says that breakfast is necessary for starting a healthy day, and that in order to eat breakfast, you must have the right to keep and eat food. It does not say that you can only keep and eat food so you can eat breakfast, food is a requirement for breakfast and breakfast is a requirement for a healthy day, If you don't eat breakfast do you still need food? What if you only eat lunch and dinner? You're arguing semantics but you are incorrect in your assertions.
"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 shall not be infringed because a well and regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free state.
You are misconstruing the meaning of the amendment, the right to bear arms is not dependent on the militia, it is the other way around, the militia is dependent on the right to bear arms and the security of the free state is dependent on the militia. You are essentially saying that the right to bear arms is dependent on involvement with militia but you are incorrect. It is clear from the writings of the founding fathers that the intention of the second amendment was to be a safeguard against the erosion of our rights and freedoms as Americans.
the left
>we can't kill off the white people while they still have guns!
white people
>buy guns like crazy before liberals get elected and after every "mass" shooting
Debate is useless. The left does not argue faithfully; they're engaging in social warfare. Just keep your guns and use them if anybody tries to take them.
A regular bowel movement is one that happens on a schedule. You know, in an organized way. Like a regular check up?
You can have the most diseased and barely functional bowels, but if you crap regularly, you are regular. Get it?
The guy was a literal slavnigger that made threats against family members
>google is hard
SAD!
>It does not say that you can only keep and eat food so you can eat breakfast,
That's exactly what it says. If it meant food for any other purpose, it wouldn't be so specific about the purpose.
Sauce
This.
Also, JOIN YOUR LOCAL NAZIS
atomwaffendivision.org
I say exactly what I mean every thread. I will kill you if you attempt a gun grab. There is no iffs and's or buts. Get fucked pussy.
Here’s something interesting I didnt know until debating a jew on the 2A
>In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"
Here we can clearly see that my right to bear arms is intrinsic to my existence. The 2A doesn’t encode the regulation of weapon ownership in that Im allowed to buy them. The 2A only reminds the government it cannot attempt to
Even if the 2A were repealed, any attempt to confiscate or undermine is null and void, my rights aren’t provided, they are.
It will be legal to build and assemble any firearm for self defense regardless of an amendment banning firearms out right.
Any “right” leftists try to suppose like internet, clean water, abortion, have to be provided by someone else. The ability to purchase a firearm is a convenience. I will fight for that convenience because expect to have a proponderance of deterrence against what they want to do next.
One big problem with all of that.
The 2nd amendment says "Well regulated MILITIA" not "Well regulated ARMS"
Thus, the Militia must be organized and working, NOT the guns.
When someone says a clock is well regulated, sure, they mean it is working. That allows it to keep time and stay organized. When people say a militia is well regulated, they mean the militia is organized, not "some random guy has working guns."
Why is that so hard to understand?
Let me phrase it one more way for your retardation:
When they say "Well regulated court" do you think they mean that the judge needs to have a working gavel?
No, they mean it's organized.
A militia in proper working order would need guns able to combat threads foreign and abroad no?
I said sauce nigger. This is nothing, but CNN BS.
Ahh, it's even dumber than we thought.
My mind is well orginized, i am a militia.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
F U C K O F F
It says arms are required for a militia not that the militia is a requirement for the right.
It's literally not worth the effort to talk to him.
No, sorry, I have Chrohn's Disease.
Either way, nobody poops on a regular schedule, it refers to being well formed, and somewhat (but not perfectly) consistent. You can't set your watch by WHEN you crap.
Measure your turds, are they all the same shape? all the same size? Same color? I would be they're all pretty inconsistent; Which puts your argument in the crapper.
The Founders knew the difference between the Militia (which were known as "Irregulars") and the Continental Army (Known as Regulars)
In the 2A, they meant "As regular as a Militia of the people could get", Sort of like your Shit.
Not by its nature. A militia is just an organized mob. Take away the guns, the militia still exists, but would have a harder time fighting people with guns.
Take away the organization, and you have no militia.
You can have a militia in the modern day without tanks, but they're going to have a hell of a time fighting tanks foreign and abroad. Thankfully, the ownership of tanks doesn't define the militia.
Well regulated meant keep the niggers and Jews out.
So wait, you're saying it refers to the poops being ORGANIZED ?
Christ you're dumb as shit, but my parents taught me not to pick on the special kids so I'll leave you be. Say, can I get your address though? I want to write you off for tax purposes.
Go thorough that picture and replace every instance of "well regulated" with "Well organized" and every sentence makes perfect sense.
Replace it with "working" and none of them do.