Can anyone give me a straightforward and unbiased explanation about why the 2nd Amendment exists, using facts...

Can anyone give me a straightforward and unbiased explanation about why the 2nd Amendment exists, using facts, and without bringing any personal political opinions into your explanation?

Attached: F24C7A48-FAB4-4E2F-AD6A-8884F9686419.jpg (2133x1600, 930K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8
washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/02/22/what-the-second-amendment-really-meant-to-the-founders/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

The government can pay for a standing army, or a bunch of dicks can buy their own guns. Founding Fathers were cheap and broke.

So that we can protect ourselves from a tyrannical government.

The founding fathers had just come out on top of a war with an oppressive government that taxed the people unfairly.
The second amendment was put into the constitution to help ensure, that if ever a future American government would oppress its people, the people would have the means to fight back.
The first part of the second amendment acknowledges the necessity in a government controlled militia or police to keep the peace among the population.

/thread
sage

Attached: anonymous030212fri1739no1921453ifonlyyouknewhow6747612.png (500x522, 135K)

So why is this a problem with the left?

Because leftist societies tend to be on the oppressive side, and they know that.

If anyone where asked "Do you think your government would try to establish a tyranical regime with military force?", they would be laughed at and ridiculed if they said anything other than no.
The left has come to trust the government completely. So they don't see the possible necessity of the second amendment. As such, to the left, guns only 'cause harm.
I think the right primarily hold on to the second amendment because it's part of the constitution and therefore, as a cornerstone of America itself, must be protected at all cost.

Whatever the cost.

Attached: B994F10E-B37B-404F-B5A5-EF4517A7BCA9.jpg (500x300, 61K)

cool story. good luck taking on a country with nuclear submarines with your AR15

This and protect our own lives from others trying to cause harm.

You really think the US government would nuke its own people? The moment they do, you can be damn sure the European contries, Russia and China will be all over America.

Attached: 1441738978085.png (1802x905, 203K)

According the the debates within the state, the second amendment was a promise that the standing army of the nation would not be able to turn against the states or their people as both would be armed, and as the states and their people have the natural right to self defense, the right to bear arms is duly important as a means for personal and national defense.

Because King George tried to disarm the colonists as a way to control them and make them pay taxes.

its just the difference in military power in general

no they're not going to nuke you but you're kidding yourself if you think you can hold them off in any sort of real warfare

Because times were very different back then. And by 'bear arms' they meant muskets that shoot a bullet a minute if you're fast, not 750 rounds per minute on full-auto.

So who’s going to operate those nuclear subs user?

Attached: FD8AEF65-921F-478E-8D6E-9CBDCDA1A906.jpg (500x500, 26K)

Attached: 1 (16).jpg (1273x1273, 369K)

More bullets meant more dead enemies > your faggot opinion

Means that you can't go apeshit in a crowd with a musket. And if the government decided to turn on you, your weapons wouldn't do shit anyway against tanks, bombs or whatever the fuck they throw.
You'd probably surrender anyway 24h after they'd cut your precious interwebz and electricity.

Debunked bullshit. There were automatic-repeating guns at the time, among other types of multiple-fire weapons.

>I think the right primarily hold on to the second amendment because it's part of the constitution and therefore, as a cornerstone of America itself, must be protected at all cost.

Indeed. As the amendments were meant to be as practically permanent as the Constitution itself, a contract between the government and its people. The only way to amend the Constitution is via two processes which each require super-majority ratification. The first process is by means of an amendment introduced in Congress and ratified by the states, and the second process is the calling of a convention of states and the subsequent ratification of what it bears; ratification requiring 3/4 vote of the various state legislatures.

The Constitution is a contract, much like any other contract in law, rigid and strict in its interpretation as the interpretation at the time of inception. Any changes to the contract, even if how recognized by law, requires amending.

britain was a superpower and big bully. americans didnt like britain any more and wanted to ensure that they could always do the things they wanted without britain interfering. guns were necessary for fighting off the british occupation, fighting off british soldiers, and finally protecting the americans from something like that happening in the future. the 2nd amendment enables the other amendments in the bill of rights in a way

Attached: 317.png (500x501, 90K)

"Surely we've reached the peak of weapon technology with this here musket. No possible way they will invent more effecient weapons in the future that will replace the musket" - George Washington, First Grand Poobah of the Murican Isles

it was to protect themselves from what Britain king George didn't want us to have access to power as any crown should feel and we started our revolution we didn't like the tyranny so we fought them off

The crux of this being, if the 2nd Amendment can be undermined without undergoing the proper process, then ANY restriction upon governmental power, and thus freedoms, promised in the Constitution immediately becomes null and void.

>you could stop the US military
Top kek my man

The concept of American government is that the individual is free. We have rights by nature. Not because they are given to us by the gov. The constitution protects them. It doesn't give them to us. One of those rights is to protect ourselves and our property. Also protect ourselves from tyrants that would take the second or other rights away. Also cocks.

Attached: 1519753319532.jpg (690x847, 527K)

This

I don’t need the fucking internet or electricity cunt, I’ll get by just fine. Lol trust me

I’ll make my own life after the liberals get wiped out by radiation sickness and urban war. Live off the land, hunt my own food, distill my own water and whiskey, grow my own fruits and vegetables, build my own house out in the mountains. Don’t worry about me, I’m fine

I don't understand why americunts always cite the 2nd amendment. You cunts ain't in a 'well regulated militia', so it doesn't apply to you. Can't you read in murrica?

If a bunch of starving chinks can do it, I'd say it's definitely possible.

Kind of like how the Afghans couldn't, right? I mean, they only had AKs, IEDs, and caves to operate out of. Small wonder they folded so easily.
>oh wait

1903 Jones Act. Every able-bodied man between 17 and 45 is legally in the militia

After being ruled by a king from across an ocean the new-ish American government was still hella paranoid about being ruled by a tyrant.

Thus the need for well regulated militias.

One could probably also make the case that the second amendment was needed in the bill of rights to help entice some of the less populated states to agree to abide by the constitution.

Yeah americans are sure used to live in caves. The average american eat like 5000 calories a day, you can't do that while hiding and planning guerilla warfare attacks. They'd die of starvation on day 3. Maybe day 2 of panic attacks once they realize they can't post their status on Facebook/Twitter.

* Correction; the 1903 Dick Act is the act that establishes the militia as being any male between 17-45

>A bunch of vietnamese farmers couldn't stop the US military
>A bunch of raghead Taliban couldn't stop the US military
>250 million people with guns couldn't stop 4 million soldiers

Top kek

Where exactly are you going to buy your ammunition, shithead?

>unironically being this retarded

Where did a bunch of starving chinks get it?

From their government, you retarded faggot

In 'the militia' maybe. But we're speaking of a 'well-regulated militia' here.

It's like saying all regulated teachers must earn 70k/year. Anyone able to speak is a teacher since they can explain things. That doesn't mean anyone must earn 70k/year, since they're not regulated.

Gov be bad we allowed gun in case gov be bad so we no be slave

Russia or China.
If the US government suddenly declared war on its own people or vice versa, Russia or China would jump on that opportunity straight away.

Attached: 38b[1].png (500x333, 185K)

Yes, and with over 10,000 laws on the books, the American people are some of the most "well regulated" on the planet.

youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8

They'd simply let the US destroy itself then pick up the remains.

And how do you plan on importing stuff from China/Russia if the governments don't want you to? You'll swim there and back?

>implying that isn't just liberals and tide pod eaters

The insurgent Vietcong got all of their ammunition from their government, which didn't exist yet?

Yeah except in the civil war, the south technically had nothing, yet how did they actually put up a reasonable fight against the US army?

Because people in the army change sides too u fucking idiot.

History of the 2nd Amendment:
It all starts in the 1400s or 1500s in England when parents were REQUIRED to teach their sons to use bows by the age of 14. Talented archers were the sharpshooters and snipers of the day while the infantry (swords, but mostly maces, axes, hammers and clubs) were cannon fodder (even though they didn't have much in the way of cannons).
This assured that England had a standing arming to fend off invaders (the French mostly).
Add to this that the original Republicans (not the republicans of today) were huge supporters of the Sovereign Man idea, where each man represented a 'country onto himself' with inalienable rights (you've heard that term before, right?). At the time of the writing of the Constitution tyranny was the norm and no western Europeans had lived in a democracy for hundreds of years. Their belief was that unless the populous was given the right and the responsibility to defend itself neither the country as a whole, nor individual men would retain the freedom they sought.
At the time of the writing the use of the term 'free state' was a double entendre meaning both the state as New York, and a free state as in a state of personal freedom reserved to each man as a sovereign entity.

Hes right tho. Its not to defeat a current power. Its to still have them when shit goes down and not be in a position where you cannot defend yourself with anything more than rocks.

What are you doing using logic, reason and intelligence here? Knock that off right now young man.

When the redneck rebels have a central command responsible for their logistics, you'll have a point. Until then, you're just a faggot.

You really don't think they would covertly support the US people to ensure the government lose the war?
And the people wouldn't have to import when Russia and China would simply smuggle arms and ammunition into the country.

>SO.o...HE was behind of it..

Attached: 12g3enj9kbk52544582000000.jpg (488x535, 26K)

If you're not at the level where you know this argument is stupid, then you're not ready to post here.

He's wrong you know. 250 million Americans don't have guns and they certainly don't have the same ideation.

America was founded on the citizenry bearing arming and gaining independence from a tyrannical government.
They decided to keep that philosophy and allow the citizenry of the new United States the means to stand up to the government if/when they became tyrannical themselves.

And the British subjects had been disarmed long before that.

It's not needed. It's outdated as there is no militia.

>redneck rebels
And at least half of the military, not to mention those who choose to stay inside as saboteurs. And what the fuck is this about a central command? Do you understand what the 'guerilla' in 'guerilla warfare' means?

Basically gives the people the right to protect themselves in absence of other adequate protection. Essentially gives the people the right to build an army.

Correct but the availabilty of them - to that many people for the reason I stated - remains a possibility and not a situation like “why did our ancestors decide to forfeit their weapons”

>t. 24 yo liberal college freshman

You can stop posting any time

>Guns > heavy artillery, missiles, nuclear weapons, drones, etc.
See above

Attached: 1 (28).jpg (1273x1273, 345K)

The US military's history is pretty much getting cucked by villagers with small arms

Originally each individual state had its own army a militia if you will. According to the federalist papers each state was required to arm its citizens mean well regulated.

The first time this amendment was breached was when a national army was formed. Taking away the rights of individual states.

>founders thought the bill of rights was unnecessary
How little they knew.

You can't occupy with artillery
You can't occupy with tank
You can't occupy with jets
You can't occupy with attack helicopters
You can't occupy with air craft carriers
You can't occupy with drones
Those are all used to destroy. You don't destroy shit when you're trying to occupy it.
Your idea is for the government to go full niggermode and destroy their own country
You occupy with troops on the ground who are vulnerable to small arms fire

>implying the us military would turn on its own citizens

stop while you're ahead my man

If you actually knew your history you would know how stupid that statement is and why anyone who uses the word cuck is a raging homosexual

Explained this in my original post. Hit the blue number a couple times.

No but you can kill all the people who are as stupid as you are, so all good there

>Heavy artillery
>missiles
>nuclear weapons
>drone strikes
All of which require personel to operate and cause severe collateral damage.

washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/02/22/what-the-second-amendment-really-meant-to-the-founders/

It was to legitimize the revolutionary war

Let me introduce you to the concept of guerilla warfare. It was one of the key tactics that led to the victory for American war of independence. The redcoats had superior fleets of warships and technology, and yet farmers with muskets won.

Back in the 1700s when this nation was liberated from britfailia it was because of the peoples' ability to keep and bear arms. The founding fathers, seeing that these arms released them from tyranny wanted to ensure the peoples' right to protect themselves from future tyranny. They did not figure upon the advent of military aircraft or atomic weapons, so it's more an antiquated notion, but it's become who we are.

All of the Bill of Rights, essentially, is there to prevent the government from fucking around where it has no business. Unless an oppressive government tries to stop you, a free people will speak out, worship (or not worship), publish the news, or defend themselves as they see fit.

Funny how liberals today want to stifle free speech, censor news groups they disagree with, and infringe on people's right to own guns. If people don’t push back and stand up for their rights - ALL of their rights - the government will do whatever it can get away with to one by one take them all away. It boggles the mind that there is a growing segment of the population who are such willing accomplices ...

They didn’t figure on radio, tv or the internet, either, but the fundamental principle is unchanged regarding free speech. Back in the day, the musket was their AR-15.

Attached: 29542455_858123761050291_3746750589000507900_n.jpg (512x738, 57K)

And your point?

Don't discount French intervention. If Ben Franklin weren't so adept at fucking French floozies this nation may have never risen.

It's a check to keep the government honest. It's to keep the government "for the people" or the people can kill them.

Attached: 0VtyLFN.png (439x327, 198K)

Nobody ITT knows the first post you made. Glad you just celebrated your first week here tho.

Yeah, it was their AR15, but they had no analogue to the F22, the M1 Abrams or little boy and fat man.

Butthurt 3rd worlder. You ever seen a 50 cal ignore armor before? It does

That the US government would shoot itself in the foot by using those kinds of weapons and that it's very likely that a good part of the personnel operating and in charge of the those weapons would not side with the government.

If this were a ylyl thread I'd have just lost.

Cut the water/electricity/internet/food distribution. You'll give your weapons away pretty quickly or just use em to off yourselves.

Majority of the military wouldn’t support this and disobey the order

ITT we pretend like we don't remember members of the military swear an oath to defend the constitution, not the government

it gives people the right to join an armed and well regulated state militia

Because water cannot be found in rivers or lakes. Electricity cannot be generated by any other means than with massive power plants. Internet is absolutely irreplaceable by shortwave radios for communicating with other rebels. Food cannot be hunted, grown or plundered from anywhere but government reserves.
And surely, no outside factions would lend their aid to the rebels.

That's what you think. Those idiots in the army are trained to obey, not think.

The 2nd amendment was made becausd the colonies were done with a corrupt government. So to make sure that they wouldn't have a corrupt government they made sure that if it became corupt then it could be stopped by the people. It is ment to give the people a chance to fight back against a cruel and tyrannical government. Im pretty sure thats what it is.