If the Second Amendment is the only amendment with "shall not be infringed" added to it wouldn't that make a difference...

If the Second Amendment is the only amendment with "shall not be infringed" added to it wouldn't that make a difference and defeats any legal attempts to repeal it? I need a lawfag to explain this

Attached: FB_IMG_1522105016924.jpg (720x492, 36K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
twitter.com/AnonBabble

bump

In a perfect world, sure. However SCOTUS has given itself defacto comolete constitutional oversight and enforcement of "shall not be infringed" suffers at the whim of 5 faggots in black dresses.

Any attempt to overturn 2a would require 100pc of the state's to ratify it. Changing the 2a would also invalidate 1 and the definition of individual rights, leading to a massive overturn and review of all personal freedoms and natural laws.

Tldr: if it does happen kiss your ass goodbye because the concept of citizen will cease to exist and the state will be the only thing with rights and freedoms.

No. The constitution can be amended in any way, including the repeal of previously existing amendments. The constitution as written at any given time is the supreme law of the land. If the 2nd was repealed and the amendment repealing it furthermore completely prohibited all forms of civilian gun ownership that would be the supreme law of the land and no federal, state or local law could supercede it without some creative interpretation from SCOTUS.

It's just that amending the constitution is incredibly hard.

The issue is that due to Marbury v. Madison, SCOTUS was given the power of judical review which in turn allowed them to decide what would be considered infringement and what wouldn't be. The first amendment was also greatly affected because "Congress shall make no law..."

Leaf here.

I hope you know that the 2nd Amendment of the US constitution is literally the only part of any nation on Earth's legal documents, that guarantees a free citizenry.

You guys are literally the absolute last bastion on Earth where the citizenry are free people, and not subjugated to the monopolistic violence of the state.

Sure we have guns in other countries, but only granted as a charitable courtesy, at the whims of the authorities.

Please dont let it all come to an end.
I see you guys as the shining beacon of hope for the rest of humanity, before we potentially fall into the most twisted dystopia, of compelled thought, and absolute control

The future of even my children, in another country, depends on you Americans, preventing the Overton window from being totally shifted away from the concept of protection of natural rights.

As long as the 2nd stands, there will always be a reference for Freedom in this world.

If it is destroyed, the future will rapidly spiral into darkness for humanity.

Godspeed.

I love you all.

:/

Part of the problem is determining when some law actually "infringes" on the right secured by the 2nd Amendment. It's easy to say that any restriction is an infringement, but is it really?

Even with the First Amendment, which another user has rightly pointed out is far more restrictive on government by saying "Congress shall make no law..." But even there, Congress makes all sorts of laws that obliquely deal with speech and religion, and make certain practices more difficult, and those are absolutely fine (at least inasmuch as the Court has held).

>legal attempts to repeal it
Oh wait, I'm an idiot. You're talking about repealing the amendment and not about the construction of laws as infringing.

Honestly user, the entire constitution can be thrown away, and a new constitution adopted in its place. This is absolutely the case through the amendment process, though in theory it's also possible to simply abandon the constitution and start over (sort of as happened with the articles of confederation).

It really doesn't matter how essential any particular thing is to the constitution, the amendment process can simply overwrite it with something else, and the courts have to figure out how it works in practice. The 14th Amendment was a MASSIVE fucking mess in that regard, inasmuch as the original bill of rights did not apply to state law, only to federal law. It dramatically changed state and federal relations, and in many ways for the worse.

That is true of course and if amendment like you describe replaced it (banning all forms of civilian gun ownership) I kind of think we're looking at a blood bath at the worst and a bunch of people refusing to comply at best.

>100% of the states
Wrong, it's only 38 out of 50 states. Which is still a massive obstacle to repeal desu.

This. PJ O'Rourke outlined it nicely: where the rest of the world sees human freedom as a gift from Gubbmint, America sees it as a human right, and that the State is a means to an end.

Isn't the 2nd amendment about the right to have and keep weapons "for a well regulated militia"?
What does that have to do with free citizenry?
Explain for a yurocuck, cause this just makes you sound hella autist

militia is made of non-professional soldiers. i.e. free citizenry.

Read the federalist papers, the people are the militia that was supposed to be our army so to speak since the founders were strictly against the thought of a standing army (like we have today, which I'm not for)

I don't see the connection, a militia still has brass to answer too, that doesn't make you free. Explain what do you mean by free citizenry then, because I'm really struggling to see how owning weapons/being part of a militia makes you free. I can guarantee you that there are people who do have guns, and have a right to them, and you could even call them militia, but that doesn't make them "free"

>only granted as a charitable courtesy, at the whims of the authorities

as a leaf, this makes me want to die inside

Attached: 1520509051984m.jpg (723x1024, 72K)

No, no rights are unlimited.

t. Antonin Scalia

1. Militia availability was defined as "Every able-bodied male age 18-45".
2. The "well-regulated" part means that the militia is well-functioning.
None of it has anything to do with the official Armed Forces, which are provided for in Article 1, Section 8.
The 2nd Amendment, meanwhile, is part of the Bill of Rights, which also upholds freedom of speech, against unreasonable search and seizure, against self-incrimination, against cruel and unusual punishment, etc.

Tldr take away the Right to bear arms, you might as well take the rest away

Attached: 1522011479636.jpg (1024x587, 154K)

>bloodbath at worst
You mean "at best."

Black powder firearms are never infringed, hence why even felons can own them.
Eveything else is not considered an arms by the gov.
You can thank the Republicans for this post civil war.

>Wrong, it's only 38 out of 50 states. Which is still a massive obstacle to repeal desu.

Just make more states that agree with you out of Puerto Rico.

>A properly armed people is necessary for a state to be free and secure"

That's just like, your opinion man

>Leaf here.I hope you know that the 2nd Amendment of the US constitution is literally the only part of any nation on Earth's legal documents, that guarantees a free citizenry.You guys are literally the absolute last bastion on Earth where the citizenry are free people, and not subjugated to the monopolistic violence of the state.Sure we have guns in other countries, but only granted as a charitable courtesy, at the whims of the authorities.Please dont let it all come to an end.I see you guys as the shining beacon of hope for the rest of humanity, before we potentially fall into the most twisted dystopia, of compelled thought, and absolute controlThe future of even my children, in another country, depends on you Americans, preventing the Overton window from being totally shifted away from the concept of protection of natural rights.As long as the 2nd stands, there will always be a reference for Freedom in this world.If it is destroyed, the future will rapidly spiral into darkness for humanity.


Irish here. This

>agree with you
When did I imply I want 2A repealed? I was just stating the facts. It's not 100% of the states that require ratification, just slightly less than 80%.

T. Tanks, helicopters, and McNukes should be legal

No small american town is safe without its own privately owned missile base. If putin can be trusted with nukes, jimmy bob down the road can be to.

It's the correct one, now please leave /k/, fagtron.

Define what makes a citizen free.
I mean, you don't need a gun to
>hold any opinion/have freedom of speech
>belong to any religion
>to be able to choose what career you choose
>to start a family
You could argue that you need a gun to protect these rights, but in functioning contries, that's what the government, laws, and police do.

On the flipside, I'd say there are more "not free" countries where the populace is armed.
Don't get me wrong, I love guns, but guns do not provide you freedom, and this is a completly asinine thing burgers cannot understand
T. ex-eastern block yurocuck

The idea is that a militia is sometimes needed to defend the interests of the people, and you can't have a militia if the people aren't armed.

How is freedom of speech faring in western Europe and the Anglo countries?
Also, name a non free country with an armed populace, I'll wait.

Inb4 he names a country where unarmed people are being genocided because “the genociders have weapons”

I'm not from western europe, so I don't have first hand experience there, but I'm pretty sure you can get the same amount of crazy shit, or conspiracy theorist shit published as in the usa. Same goes for dissenting political opinions. You can be pretty far left or right leaning and say whatever you want within the same limits as in burgeristan.

>name a non free country with an armed populace
Any african nation where there has been a civil war in the past decade? Balkan countries? Ex-Commies? Take your pick
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country

>that's what the government, laws, and police do.
So put all of our trust in the wisdom of Big Brother?

Police and laws != Big Brother Nanny state

Yes and no, a well regulated militia is vital to a free state. A militia is every able bodied citizen age 18-45. If the amendment had nothing to do with the people and just the militia they wouldn't have ever put THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

W-Well, don’t worry, we’re just making some REASONABLE changes to it, h-haha

Attached: CB3AC6B7-CF44-4477-9BAC-CDF7D06A0C97.png (593x635, 260K)

I still don't get why is a Militia vital to a free state, especially in (((current year))), when we have things like police. When was the last time the "Militia" was needed in american history?
I mean in wild west days, I can see the connection, you need to be able to protect your freedoms, otherwise any roaming bandit gang can take over your town and run it their own way. But I can't see this in the modern day desu

I don't give FUCK about what Congress does.

I hold certain truths to be self-evident.

Attached: tumblr_ok73rp8pSg1uz7w7ko1_400.jpg (400x417, 57K)

>government and police
HAHAHAHA yeah, good call because a government and the police have never been corrupt in the history of our planet. The American gun owner is the largest standing army (militia) in the world. This is what grants us freedom. What a burger like yourself cannot understand is that a government does not grant inalienable rights, God does. What happened in your ex commie shitholes and yurofag 1984 areas hasn't happened here. US and anywhere else is very very different. If you think the government has your best interest in mind then maybe you liked that commie plantation you are from?

>your countrymen lived as disarmed, silenced peasants for decades under the rule of a corrupt system of government, laws, and police that they could not overthrow
>”haha yeah bro just trust the government, laws, and police bro that’s real freedom lol”

Attached: 933220D8-50E1-4437-B571-712117EA0391.jpg (650x524, 87K)

Are you implying individuals cannot be corrupted, or have been corrupted in the history of our planet?
Would you rather trust a police officer, or Joe-Bob from down the swamp to protect your freedoms, if you're in a situation where you can't do it yourself?

An armed populace does not equate an armed rebellion. Or are you guys saying that you need your guns because you plan to overthrow the government, or fight the police if you feel like your rights are infringed upon? Do you not trust your own country? This is the doublethink that I do not understand.

The only people in america who have a problem with the police are the dindus, are you advocating for Jamal and Tyrone's rights to own guns and defend themselves against police if they feel like their freedoms are being trampled upon?

>I kind of think we're looking at a blood bath at the worst and a bunch of people refusing to comply at best.
I think you have those flipped desu.

A militia is a rag-tag group of normal everyday people. A militia is formed to secure a 'FREE' state, that being a rag-tag group to assemble whenever need be to fight for their freedom from an oppressor. So to say you have the right to form a militia, but not the right to procure any of the necessities to actually FORM the militia is like saying you have the right to religion, but no right to build a church. Not to mention in the amendment it clearly states 'THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS'. And if you're wondering about the 'well regulated' part meaning only government can regulate then you're saying government is the only form of organizational institutions in the world.

The government in the United States is already corrupted, from the local level so small as the village council's right on up to Congress and the White House.
Study your history friend, with democracy and Republics, it's not a matter of if they will become corrupted and self servicing, but when, and for those of us in America that time has been for decades.
For what needs to be done in order to correct this the government absolutely cannot have a monopoly on violence.
The 2nd amendment was put in place to ensure that the government did not end up holding such a monopoly.
Now I know where this goes, "muh nukes, much drones, muh tanks"
Yes they have a massive advantage in direct engagements, that was true of the British Army too, and of the United States Armed Forces in Vietnam.
We will need every advantage we can get so to purposely throw that away and give up on trying is just the talk of whiners and quitters, or more accurately in your case, bootlickers.

Attached: 1522094127589.jpg (500x689, 32K)

The only real difference between those days and now is that the shut-in faggots that don't live independently have a means of pretending they do

Police are very well capable of oppressing people. Any group can oppress any other group. And if that results in violence the oppressed group has the right to own guns so that they can rebel if needed. And it isn't about "current" needs, but the potential for future needs. If you get to the point you need them, and you don't have them, the ability to get them is not going to be possible.

Also, the 2A deals nothing with hunting at all. Get fucked fudds.

Disappointing get.

Attached: NowIsGood.png (393x293, 70K)

I am a white as fuck cracker ass honky and I absolutely do think that African Americans have the right to own guns and I wouldn't bat an eye at them for using them against crooked and corrupt cops if the circumstances warranted it.
You are just a racist.
So much for being progressive, eh, soyboy?

>But I can't see this in the modern day
>tyranny and oppression do not exist today
Also police are an arm of the government. They're not some fighting force that will protect you from federal level right infringements. They exist to enforce laws and promote order, not to guarantee your rights.

Depends how you term 'free'.

A lot of African countries engender a huge amount of liberty to the people that live there; you can go to somewhere like Somalia and do whatever the fuck you want. They're just incredibly free shitholes.

First explanation ITT that actually makes sense

Here is a fun troll I use on antigunners. I would totally accept a repeal of the second ammendment and any strict gun control you want to put in place as long as it applies to every citizen of the United States. Politicians. Police. Military. Everyone is fucked.

Then we can all die together.

Attached: 1494564087538.jpg (225x225, 13K)

SHALL

I still don't see the correlation here friend. The populace of Serbia has acces to weapons too, but I'd say that's a more corrupt and less free coutnry than the US. Just because a populace is armed, it doesn't mean they can't be oppressed. In medieval europe the populace was armed to the teeth, since they had to be armed back then for multiple reasons, but your medieval peasants were more oppressed than your gun toting burgers, and the peasants actually had a semi-level playing field when it comes to weapons.

If you have people squatting in your house, if you call the police chances are, they will kick them out. Or if there's someone trespassing on your property the police will deal with them too. The police SHOULD guarantee your rights. Wheter or not they actually do is a different topic

>resorting to Sup Forumsbuzzwords
lmao ok

The militia as it was stated when the constitution was written, means all able bodied men. It guarantees a free citizenry because should the government go tyrannical, the people can fight back. According to the 2A, we should be able to own cannons and tanks and everything the military can get so we can match the military should they over rule our rights.
It's the whole "Govt should fear it's people, not the other way around" shit, except we're the only ones who could still fight back via an insurgency.

>muh scotus
They can determine what's legal, they can't determine what the constitution says. If a couple of them "interpret" the 2nd a certain way that doesn't change what it says. They might change what a few lower courts do with gun rights cases but that's about it.

The 2A cost more lives to get than it has ever taken
And getting it back after it's taken away will cost so many lives, it will be incalculable
First they come for your guns
Then they come for the journalists
Then the artists

>resorting to Sup Forumsbuzzwords
Not an argument friendo

When it is admitted that Americans have the right to keep and bear arms. All arms. As well as the right to form well-regulated militias, I will admit that concessions need to be made. Until then, tit for fucking tat

>I still don't see the correlation here friend. The populace of Serbia has acces to weapons too, but I'd say that's a more corrupt and less free coutnry than the US. Just because a populace is armed, it doesn't mean they can't be oppressed. In medieval europe the populace was armed to the teeth, since they had to be armed back then for multiple reasons, but your medieval peasants were more oppressed than your gun toting burgers, and the peasants actually had a semi-level playing field when it comes to weapons.

This is correct, because it also takes the people having the will power to use them, however a lack of willingness by the population at any given time to use said weapons to force the corrupt government to abdicate does not justify outlawing them or in the case of the United States removing the 2nd amendment.

Name a first world country where the populace would stand a chance against their own government. The reality is, since the 20th century, governments have absolutely superior firepower, whether you have access to guns or not, you will not be able to defeat your own government. You cannot win, regardless if you have willpower or not, case in point, Hungarian revolution of 56. Even if the populace had access to more guns, they wouldn't have lasted much longer against an actual army. Do you seriously think if people like Antifa suddenly started a revolution, because they perceive the current government as corrupt, would they stand a chance? Militias cannot defeat modern day armies, unless the militia has acces to the same caliber of weapons, meaning shit like tanks, planes, etc.

Fuck off and die

Not an argument

>Militias cannot defeat modern day armies, unless the militia has acces to the same caliber of weapons, meaning shit like tanks, planes, etc.
Taliban and Viet Cong: "hold my beer"

You seem to think we would all march out to a field somewhere, and wait for the government to show up, then start shooting until one side is gone. Wars haven't been fought like that for some time now. If there is ever a second american civil war, it will be an asymmetric one.

Here's a linguistic outline of the 2nd amendment.

Militia back then was any able bodied man, aged 16-45.

Attached: 1466662125496.gif (827x628, 44K)

>because a drone can police door to door

Attached: drone police.png (600x450, 212K)

You're proving my point, the Taliban and VC were not fighthing against their own government, they were an army, not a militia. They were also able to level their playing field somewhat. Also had acces to military grade equipment. They were not a civlian militia. You can't currently buy Anti Armor weapons as a US citizen, right?
Not to mention,the US deciding it's not worth it to fight for a bumfuck nowhere ricefield isn't the same as a total military defeat.

The point is that the police and military are, at the end of the day, citizens just like you. How come they get to bear arms but you can't?

As for fighting the government. Imagine it like this:

>Military martial law in effect
>Citizens still armed
>Patrol moves through city
>Angry rebel with a gun opens fire from the 13th story of an apartment building
>Soldiers try to fight back
>ND into someone innocents' home
>They get pissed off, join rebels
>Other rebels open fire on patrols
>Police/military can no longer operate in cities

SHALL

What is asymmetrical warefare for 500 Alex?
Also, being fatalist about the odds is still it justification for civilian disarmament.

*Still NOT justification for disarmament

>anti-armor weapons
Just reload ammo with steel cores and wow there ya go, AP rounds.

That's the dumbest shit I've ever read. It's totally fucking meaningless and just takes away from the meaning of the 2A.

The 2A literally says that the peoples' right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and that in order to maintain the security of a free state, the people have the right to form well regulated militias (With access to the arms aforementioned)

>How come they get to bear arms but you can't?

Because they're supposed to be trained in their use, they filter out the crazies from their ranks, and they are more responsible, and better trained in their use, than a civilian. Whether or not the police/army is actually successful in this is a different story tho.
Also, nothing's stopping you from trying to join the police or the army.

>they were an army, not a militia
Wrong. VC were distinct from the NVA.
>Also, they had access to military grade equipment
You just proved *my* point. The NFA, Gun Control Act, and Machine Gun Ban destroy parity and give primacy to the government.

>wouldn't that make a difference and defeats any legal attempts to repeal it?
lmao no guns are bad

Not the user you are responding too, but I mentioned earlier that it was intended to prevent the government from having monopoly of violence.
The NFA most definitely took a massive shit on that intention.

What
I think you misunderstood what i posted.
It states what you state.
That..
>the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Is the main idea. It further states that a well-regulated (read: well armed and trained) militia (every able bodied man from 16-45), is necessary to the security of a free state (required in order to maintain liberty and freedom across the country)
How is that not what you read?

Guerrilla warfare baby! :DDDDDDDDDDDDDD

What the fuck does that have to do with citizens' rights or the wording of the 2A?

You're not even defending the original post I responded to. Remember when I told you to fuck off and die? That's because I know that I can explain everything to you in a clear and concise manner and you'll still just fucking talk about something else as if I haven't refuted your statement.

>How come they get to bear arms but you can't?
>>Your response

Then how come vets have such a high mental disorder rate? Suicides, mental snaps? What the fuck makes you think they're so much better?

Last I checked, bucko, WE won the war. The entire premise of our society is that we are equal. Doesn't matter if you went to fucking police academy or whether you are a bum on the street, we're all equal.

>just join the police or military
Because the State, as an entity, only expands at the expense of liberty.
>"The Party seeks power entirely for its own sake. We are not interested in the good of others; we are interested solely in power. Not wealth or luxury or long life or happiness: only power, pure power."
>We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means, it is an end.
>If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – for ever."

>I mean, you don't need a gun to
You'll need a gun if someone wants to take those freedoms away from you at gunpoint.

The only logical way to construct is as a collective right would mean that you have a right to serve in the military that shall not be infringed.

So anyone would have to be allowed to join and do some sort of service.

It's part of the bill of rights, it's the read-only section.

This thread is full of amazingly stupid people.

It's a dumbass picture that causes more confusion than it fixes. We shouldn't reference things other than the actual wording, it just takes away from the meaning and allows more subjective measures of thinking to be applied

Attached: Rxn Disgusted worried child.jpg (409x464, 19K)

>Taliban
Taliban got fucked 6 ways to Sunday and had to go completely underground until the US left. Viet Cong did the same. All they could do is pick at the fringe and try to carry out hit-and-run attacks, but they could never defeat a standing military. Vietnam only fell after the US left. The US was never allowed to invade North Vietnam. With that in mind, what sort of "victory" could you expect?

correct we do not trust the government as no citizen of any nation should if you look at history they do not have your best interests at heart and can tell you to fuck off/jail you if you complain or protest what they are doing unlike in the US where if they go to far we can tell them to fuck off and back it up with deadly force if needed

But they are a civilian.
Let me ask you one question.

>If you can't be trusted with your own life, why is another man trusted with protecting yours, when he too (by your standards) can't protect his own.

If you cant be trusted with your own life, why are you ok with someone who's not you taking that responsibility?


Logically, it makes no sense to trust someone else (another man, who is inherently no less human than you) with your life, if you cant trust yourself with your own.

If thats your mindset, you really should just drive your car off a cliff, because your life isnt valuable if you're not willing to defend it.

Giving up already bootlicker?

No, anyone is able to own arms, as they are already part of the militia.
We had both a miltia and a standing army, which were two seperate things.

>the taliban were not fighting against their own government
Correct they were fighting against a government that would drop 100tons of ordinance on an abandoned village for the hell of it. A government that could insert 1,000 angry soldiers from flying boxes in no time at all. And they lasted many years against them.

39

Sure, ill take that criticism.
I guess i need a new inforgraphic.

Sorry I'm an asshole

Do you realize that the bill of rights is itself an amendment to the original constitution?

But anyway, we have definitely amended the bill of rights in the past. For example, the 13th and 14th amendments extend the protections in the bill of rights to all people.

Beyond the legislative process, the judicial branch is given the power to interpret the constitution, and they have reinterpreted themselves many times over the history of the US, sometimes expanding the powers in the bill of rights, sometimes removing them.

No man. You do you. :D i have thick skin, and know that its probably a shitty picture. You're not an asshole, you're passionate

>sometimes removing them
Name cases where rights have been "removed" due to interpretations.

NFA is a big one. Arms means all mil grade weapons. Everything was restricted, removing it as an option for the everyman and highlighting it for the better-off