ITT: we defend our right to bear arms

ITT: we defend our right to bear arms

...

I need bear arms because otherwise how the fuck am I supposed to catch salmon and maul uppity cunts?

...

...

I don't have to defend anything, that's also why I don't need guns.

...

Remember after 9/11 when they increased airline security and there was a massive upsweep in air plane violence ? Wait what was I saying again o yeah the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a plane is a good guy with a plane.

...

There's no denying the 2nd Amendment clearly states, "..the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.."

Did you read the rest of it, though?

Go on, i wanna see where you go with this.
>hint: i already know

Hurt durr well regulated.

>implying well regulated doesn't mean well maintained
>implying the founders of the country wanted a government to regulated guns after they just won their freedom from an over regulating government

Fucking kill yourself

just no

I always confuse shoes with knifes

The bill of rights was written by slave owners 200 years ago who thought mercury was a good cure for headaches, also they were elite of the day the same type of people who are alive today the right looks down upon. Hey aren't you guys tired of paying taxes to that asshole ? Give your taxes to us so we can fund an army to collect taxes from the whiskey distillers who aren't paying taxes.

>trying this hard to stay stupid

...

"...shall not be infringed."

the most important part.

So?

You can't have a nuclear weapon though.

Like a jet? Or a rocket platform ? How about ricin ? Where do you draw the line

>Not knowing the difference between firearms and ordinance.
That is correct.

You do realize that just because something is old and was written by people of a different culture, doesnt mean it is wrong, right? Like you understand that right? Because we could apply your argument to a whole bunch of old timey philosphers and political scientists and even regular scientists and get the outcome you just made. So maybe rethink your argument

"Arms" refers to firearms. Not explosives, not poisons. We're talking about bullet-launching weapons.

Maybe they aren't the best people to listen to when it comes to human rights.... they bent the people to do their will just like the NRA is doing now. You think they support your freedom, they laugh because you're supporting their wallets

It's about time to realize that it's 2016 now, and what held true 200 years ago might be obsolete now.

Why would you want one? Conventional weapons are better in almost every way. The next use of Nuclear weapons will be by the desperate, right before they get wiped off the face of the map by the rest of the world.

>you can buy a jet if you have the money, but not have the ordinance
>you could build a rocket platform, and a rocket but the ordinance, no
>ricin isnt an "arm"
Does that work for you?

But it's a weapon. The amendment only talk about weapons, not fire arms. And the distinction towards ordinance is arbitrary. Instead of a nuclear weapon take a howitzer that's a fire arm.

>I mean, come on guys, it's current year.
Being this stupid.

O I forgot the amendment specifies that and didn't mean weapons in general... got ya

You really have no argument if that's your go to statement

If you want access to guns because it was the law 200 years ago, then I want my right to keep nigger slaves because it was the law 250 years ago.

Funny how slaves arent a right huh?

rockets aren't illegal, m8. Neither are jets or cars or soybeans.

The warheads are WMDs so, of course they are illegal.

Yes I do actually, it wasn't an argument, it's just pointing out that exact fallacy. However the only argument on the other side is, well these old dudes wrote it on paper so we can't rethink it now

keeping slaves was never a constitutionally protected right, nigger.

Actually it isnt that simple, it is about human rights. What rights we are born with.

Sorry I didn't specific so the missiles on the Jets and ordinances for the Rockets should be allowed considered they are the armaments right ?

Honestly, i feel if you can afford them sure. But not alot of people think like me

We can rethink it all we want, but nothing has changed in human nature since then, so it's just as valid today, if not more so. An armed citizenry is a prerequisite for a free people. What you want is a nanny state to feed your fat ass and protect you from yourself, but others aren't as stupid and don't need their hand held, and are busy being independent agents in pursuit of their individual freedoms, and their God given, constitutionally protected right to their pursuit of happiness.

Nigger

Where in the bill of rights does it mention you can't have a nuclear weapon because it's a weapon if mass destruction ?

We can debate whether the founders intended "arms" to mean "firearms" or "armaments", but generally it means the former.

That's because you're insane

How is that insane? You know how much a missle costs? No one could afford it, dont be stupid

It means weapons..... hence a man at arms or the term ARMaments

I'm with you. Prohibiting people from buying fighter jets is infringing our right to bear arms.

So you're setting up a system that the rich can do whatever they want because they have the money to buy the weapons they want ...

You can already buy a fighter jet dummy

>ITT everyone is on a list

It's frustrating knowing the real issues in this world yet everyone is arguing over the distractions that are thrown right infront of you and everyone has to fight over it like the distracted children they are

Thanks for the heads up, Snowden.

Your point? Do you think this isnt happening now? Also why is it a concern if a rich person buys a tank? They are evil user, they are just like you and i

The right to bear arms so the government can't overthrow citizens is great when everyone has a musket. But whatever weapon you have now is a pea shooter if the government wanted to overthrow us now. It's pointless. Plus they have your name and address on a list of houses they need to go to first with weapon registrations.

Sorry arent* evil

No they meant weapons, there's a difference between arm and firearm can you spot it ? Or do you mean that the 2nd amendment just protects the right to bear firearms but swords are going to far ?

This is a good argument to allow all weapons.

>weapons registration
>big bad government
Shill spotted

>what jews actually....well they don't even belueve it themselves but everyone of them has golden jew key for the jew fortress

...

That was his point..... it's a fallacy at the very core

>because the government can always be trusted to do the right thing
Shill spotted

If the country is weak and decrepit enough that people are begging the government for gun control, then that nation and those people are pretty fucking worthless that they can't protect themselves from each other.

It's all just political manipulation so that special interests get rich, and nothing else matters. The people are smarter than this, but they are busy getting their strings yanked

Welcome to Sup Forums ?

?
Where did i imply that

Where the fuck is my complimentary 8 year old and cherry soda? Fuck you.

I mean, it just would not be as fun of a disscussion without having some jackass claiming that if you have the means, perhaps something should be a right then. Hey, why not expand the 2nd ammendment to include ordinance, right? What could possibly go wrong? If the bad guys can buy black market nukes, why can't the good guys buy some? Plus it will protect the common man from da big bad gubberman...I can keep going with with this bullshit sarcasm, but I will lay it out plain and simple. There are some things human beings should not be entitled to have or do. It is high time the American people learn the importance of temporing their "rights" with a dose of responsibility.

...

Who decides what is responsible? You?

That was the point....

>because I don't have guns
>or a use for guns
>my view is the only view.
>I'm happy with no guns
>no one should have guns

the right to bear arms was never about overthrowing government - that is a new anarchist interpretation put forward by survivalists and people who think they should be allowed to freeload and not pay taxes. The original 2nd amendment draft actually had a clause allowing Christians because of their faith not to bear arms - that is not to be forced to join a well regulated militia and serve their country. That is what the right to bear arms means - the right of all citizens to serve in the army. It did not mean a right to own weapons, or to self defense, and it did not mean a right to rise in seditious revolution. Learn to legal history.

The only good guy with a gun survived the Florida shootings. Almost everyone else was executed like sheep.

I don't want to be a sheep.

An overwhelming majority of people

You cant take my arms, fuckface

Strawman argument, GTFO.

Pretty sure that amendment was enforced to arm civilians in case of invasion from the many that were prepared to do it at the time.They didn't think that 200 years in the future there'd be nutcases going round cutting down the general public or wannabe gangsters shooting each other.The amendment should've been disbanded after WW2.

Learn to source

Holy shit, someone who actually knows this

Everything you said is verifiably wrong.

Let's just bring more irrelevant things into the discussion. If someone can have a million dollars who's to say I shouldn't. I mean everyone may as well be given a million dollars, a nuke and a gun.....

It was intended for the other guy to see.

So a bunch of people fed a diet of fear propoganda and who are ignorant to the whole issue?

So an overwhelming majority of people thought the earth was flat 1000 years ago. Were they right?

...

...

Yes, but that is a debate for another time.

If you look at the papers written by the founding fathers that are not just the constitution it is clear they wanted everyone to have the right to guns to defend against both foreign and domestic governments and threats. Many thought there should be a revolution quiet often to keep the government's power in check

This I would support for the most part, but it is possible that the majority can be wrong. In that event we have consented to be governed, and I support regulation and intervention when appropriate or necessary. Same guy that posted the rant by the way.

Topkek. Nice one user.

>Murderous nutcase goes around killing people.
>solution: ban guns

How about we not let the wackos free to do as they please?

So we should listen to the majority except if they're wrong ? Wait what?

Or you know, shoot the nutcase who slips through the net. Armed queers don't get bashed.

Haha yea that is not even remotely accurate. Look at the founding fathers other papers from that time, you know the guys who WROTE the constitution. They clearly state it's for people to have guns to protect themselves and the country from foreign AND local governments that are tyrannical. So stop rewriting history and maybe try learning some

We banned handguns in the UK. It made no difference to the crime rate committed with firearms. In fact, it went up.
You want to do something to stop all the shootings. Banning guns is your knee jerk response. And it won't make a blind bit of difference.
Look at the UK figures for proof.
Maybe there's nothing you can do.

Who determines if they are right or wrong? What is neccesary regulation?

Samefag. No it's not at all accurate and has 0% truth

/gun politics

The government moron.

If the gun control advocates are to be believed, the UK has the lowest gun crime rates in the world.