Conservatives Now Supporting Gun Control

I was surprised by Bill O'Reilly's segment in which he made an argument in support of gun control.

>Video
youtu.be/sNye7irPf0k?t=3m35s

What surprised me more however, was how he made the argument using the Constitution. I had to check the actual text of the 2nd amendment, because I was always under the impression that the 2nd amendment was basically this:
>"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Because that is how it is often presented, especially by pro-gun advocates, but that is only half of the sentence.

The full sentence is this:

>"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."

This is the argument made in part by Bill O'Reilly, that the purpose and means of the right to bear arms is clear:

>"a well regulated militia"

I learned to shoot a .357 at the age of twelve, my father gave me a .38 special when I turned 18 and I've shot everything from AR-15s to SKS and AK-47s. I no longer own a gun, but I am by no means anti-gun. However, I do feel somewhat misled on the 2nd amendment, particularly by groups like the NRA. The 2nd amendment is clear as to what it's purpose and means are, a "well regulated militia".

My father is a gun advocate and has always owned firearms and taught me at a young age how to responsibly handle firearms. He reminded me the other day that his political hero, Ronald Reagan, supported the semi-automatic assault weapons ban and even rallied Congressional Republicans to pass the assault weapons ban in 1994. However from the 90s into the 2000s, the NRA had adopted an uncompromising dogma and stronghold in the GOP.

What do you Sup Forumsfags think?

Other urls found in this thread:

constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt
buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers
tjrs.monticello.org/letter/100
mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low
pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

See minute 3:35 in video for the part where O'Reilly makes his argument in support of gun control, I time-tagged the video but Sup Forums's embed feature doesn't take this into account

babby's first reading comprehension

the right of the people to keep and bear arms exists unrelated to the existence of a weel regulated militia

>o'veyly
>not a massive cuckservative 90% of the time

It's the same sentence, the first part of the sentence is incomplete on it's own.

>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

The second part is clearly the continuation of the premise set in the first part of the sentence above.

>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.

I think you're a faggot considering that "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is a dependent clause, explaining why the "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infinged"
Reagan was a neo con ass half the time anyway.

It's because the GOP knows it is dying. There will be more last ditch efforts before the new right comes in.

The simplest solution to the whole gun issue is to form a well-regulated militias then. Just set one up for your neighborhood and work from there.

I need dis

again babbys first reading comprehension

the fact that the first part of the sentence is incomplete should tell you that it's a subclause and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is the main clause and what you should see as the crucial part of this amendment

Well regulated meant well prepare and in working order when the 2nd amendment was written.

Not that this matters as the well regulated militia isn't a qualifier for the right to keep and bear arms but is a statement of its purpose

why didn't the just use a semicolon instead of a comma?

...

Crowders latest video covers this exact argument. There are hundreds of quotes from the founding fathers, WHO WROTE THE CONSTITUTION, that say things like "all men should armed at all times" and "to enslave a people, first disarm them" etc. This argument has already been covered.

they

...

learn english you dumb fucker

How easy is it for USA born ISIS supporters to do an Ataturk Airport?

"the militia" at the time referred to all able bodied males that would be expected to defend their homes if for some reason he had to.

Future amendments to the constitution would remove the gender and ability restrictions so technically every breathing american citizen is part of the militia and therefore can keep and bear arms.

THIS.

in order to have a necessary militia (for the security of the free state), the people must have the right to keep and bear arms, and that right shall not be infringed.
Gun controls faggots BTFO

/thread

...

This is the difference between "gun owners" and "gun nuts" right?

Like for example a mate of mine owns a shotgun for sport shooting but because he has 3 kids he keeps it in a proper gun safe that is bolted into the concrete foundation of his house.

I'm not really into guns but what concerns me most is not "gun owners" but irresponsible yahoos who don't respect guns, as in, respect that guns have the potential to maim or kill and do need to be handled and stored sensibly.

You are the militia, you guarantee the freedom of your state, you have a right to own arms.

Fuck off shill.

No, a "gun nut" is literally anyone who owns a firearm.

You don't understand how liberals work.

You need to understand that I was under the impression as well that the "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" was the premise.

I high suggest reading the first gun debate in our nation among our founding fathers when drafting the 2nd amendment. There is no mystery as to what they meant by the 2nd amendment, because the debate that precluded the drafting of the 2nd amendment is well documented:

constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt

Different state delegates wanted different things, some states wanted no right to bear arms, some only wanted the right to be given to military personnel. The 2nd amendment was a compromise, we know exactly what they meant by it.

>Not understanding the second amendment

Wew

Muh nigga

Hullo from the other side

>Well-regulated means well equipped, supplied or trained
>240 years later people pretend it means something different and hope the average person is dumb enough to fall for it
>They usually are
This is what happens when you let people control the narrative.

I always thought schools should dedicate a day towards gun safety since there are already days where kids learn about sex, or school shootings. Just show a video about how to properly hold a firearm so you don't blast your head off, how a safety works, where to store guns if you have children, local laws about gun ownership, always treat a gun as loaded and only point at things that you are ready to shoot. Trigger discipline alone would cut a good 70% of teen's deaths outside of suicide when it comes to firearms. Despite this, I don't think the "Please think of the children" types would support this.

Some Church got a range permit to help educate people about proper gun safety, while having some fun too. Thought it was a great idea.

sad really considering that in terms of 'classical liberalism', gun ownership should be a function of individual liberty.

but at the same time, I don't think its unreasonable to expect that persons who choose to own guns should be expected to exercise a certain degree of prudent risk-management vis-a-vis secure storage and appropriate firearms training.

It used to be the case, but liberals are so scared of guns they don't even want kids LOOKING at them.

Ideally, kids wouldn't even know what a gun IS.

It tellingly reveals how liberals view education as a form of propaganda and brainwashing, rather than a way to actually educate.

So you're a faggot from reddit pretending to be confused as to the meaning of the 2nd amendment. Fuck off.

2nd amendment = don't touch my fucking guns.
Source: lawyer

yeah this too. you would think considering how entrenched (and perhaps even necessary) gun ownership is in USA, that public institutions would be all for teach kids how to properly handle guns.

Mein Niggaumf

and I suggest fucking off
buckeyefirearms.org/gun-quotations-founding-fathers
quotations from the founding fathers in relation to the right of the people to keep and bear arms
The intention doesnt matter anyway, the amendment says that its the right of the people, even if it was just in a militia (all men, Milita act of 1903), shall not be infringed

Americans are so dumb they can't even comprehend their own language.

The meaning behind the sentence is very clear and impossible to misinterpret.
The right for people to own guns is not going to be infringed, the reason is that there needs to be a well regulated militia.
It says that your rights will not be infringed, and it cites a good reason for why your rights aren't going to be infringed.

The founding fathers should have dumbed down the constitution because Americans are fucking retarded.

When Sun Tzu said that laws and military orders should be simple, direct and easy to understand to avoid interpretations, this comes to my mind.
Reading the Bill of Rights in my wattle and daub school I always thought it was a mix of advices and protecting peoples' right. Like, don't take aways the right of the people to own firearms and allowing militias to exist (an addendum to the first) to protect themselves from the government.

>For the United States of America to remain free and independent, the population shall be armed, and no one shall hinder them being armed.
Nothing changed retard, if you haven't heard the full 2nd before, you're just so stupid.

I think there is some confusion here,

this is your right:

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

This is the reason you have that right:

>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

You are right that the "well regulated militia being necessary" is conditional statement dependent on the "right to bear arms".

I highly suggest reading the well-document drafting of the 2nd amendment. This is the original gun debate in the US. Some state delegates wanted no right to bear arms, some only wanted it to be granted to military personnel. Some states wanted the right to be granted only to those who were properly trained.

The 2nd amendment was basically a compromise, and the purpose is clear. The right was given so that citizen militias could be formed to protect their freedom. But not just any citizen militia, a well regulated militia.

What I really fucking hate is how they push the lie that the second amendment exists so that people will be armed and can stop the federal government if it becomes tyrannical.

This is completely fucking ridiculous. The founding fathers had just for a very bloody war to establish their government, the last thing they wanted was a fucking killswitch for it.

If you read their actual debates on the subject, like the first congressional debate on arms and militia, 1789, it becomes obvious that the second Amendment of the United States Constitution is NOT meant for overthrowing the American government at all. It's so that people can fucking defend the government. The government is not even supposed to have teeth, it is not supposed to control a federal army when not in a state of war as declared by congress, it is only supposed to maintain a standing Navy to protect shipping lanes. The US government is not even supposed to be able to exert tyranny, by design.

It pisses me off when lobby groups like the NRA spread propaganda, because it just means that people remain willfully ignorant to the full extent of how visionary the founders truly were. They designed a nation in which the government was not intended to be able to ever enforce it's will by force.

And when I point this out, all anybody can do is bleat on about how I am anti-gun, even though the intent I am pointing out is that EVERY American is supposed to be trained and either armed, or with access to arms, depending on the logistics favoured by individual states for their state militias, which every able bodied citizen is supposed to be in.

I don't know if it's because they're too fucking stupid do do anything but lash out the moment anybody disagrees with the exact letter of about whatever propaganda it is that they've chosen to favour, or if they just don't want to look at what the founders tried to create, in light of how far America has drifted away from their intent.

Forgot to provide link above, here you go:

constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt

The debate that led to the drafting of the 2nd amendment is well documented.

It's just so sad that the argument for sexual education is "They are doing it anyway so better show them how to be safe" somehow doesn't apply to teens playing with guns. One kid in my school died because they were playing with an "empty" gun and tried to mock suicide but he didn't know about the +1.

I cannot think of a downside to gathering the kids in a room and making them watch a thirty minute video about trigger discipline and other tips when we have entire days dedicated to bullying and school shootings.

I can already imagine the moral guardians screaming that it would encourage school shootings or other crap. Like the only thing holding back more murder is criminals not knowing that they should always keep their gun pointed down to the ground or away from others.

This is in Oklahoma so if it doesn't happen here it's not happening anywhere.

Most of the time you learn this from your parents. My father had two revolvers and a shotgun, he told us about it and it's not something impossible to learn.

How the fuck do you compose a well-regulated militia without individuals who are able to own arms?

A militia that in 1903, was determined to be all Male citizens of the united states

NAU FUCK YEAH!
PREPARE YOUR WHITE FLAGS.

The meaning is clear: the militia would get to exist because individual citizens were armed. The militia is the afterthought in the 2nd Amendment, even though the way it is phrased is sort of inverted.

Plus multiple founders explicitly stated the point was the individual arming of citizens.

Why are people like this cuck so afraid of rifles?

They're hardly used at all criminally compared to hand guns

>The founding fathers had just for a very bloody war to establish their government, the last thing they wanted was a fucking killswitch for it.
That exactly what they wanted you idiot, Thomas Jefferson thought there should be a revolution every generation

Problem is some parents are liberal pussies. My dad, ex military, pretended guns didn't even exist around us. I only learned about guns through my own curiosity when I was 19.

You just can't trust that all parents will be traditional like that. Maybe it's their choice not to teach their kids but every time a ND kills somebody we start the whole gun control debate again.

Hes just following jebu's teachings for:
There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. (Romans 13:1b)

Anyone who doesnt listen to their government is a heretic and will burn in hell.

Yea really makes you think, its almost like the founding father himself never mentioned rebellions because of too much overreach or anything.

tjrs.monticello.org/letter/100

>(((well documented)))

You are a faggot though, a militia is not a full time job. A militia is a "grassroots army" and the second amendment states clearly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is essential to the formation of a militia. You can't just say we're never going to for any more militias, and the only people allowed to have guns are the people in the current militias.

Basically, I'm saying that even if your entire premise WAS correct, you would still only be able to draw the conclusion that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

>But not just any citizen militia, a well regulated militia.

that means they have access to all weaponry and equipment as able to provided by adequate budgeting,

something about this post disturbs me

>so that people will be armed and can stop the federal government if it becomes tyrannical.
the government can never become completely tyrannical so long as the people are armed

>were never going to form* any more militias.

>Conservatives
always knew these guys were just democrats

Maybe you're a bit confused. I never in this thread made an argument that citizens should not have the right to bear arms. Read my post.

this is your right:

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

This is the reason you have that right:

>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

It is a conditional statement, the necessity of a well regulated militia is dependent on the right to bear arms. But this also makes clear the purpose of that right.

Read the proposals and debate that led to the drafting of 2nd amendment, it is well-documented:

constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt

The 2nd amendment was basically a compromise, some state delegates at the constitutional convention wanted no right to bear arms. Some state delegates wanted only military personnel to have the right, some only wanted well-trained persons to have the right. They all agreed as to the purpose of the right, for citizens to form a well regulated militia to protect the free state.

Shitty bait you cocksucking faggot.

>Conservatives Now Supporting Gun Control
One can't be Conservative and support Gun Control.

Conservative = Conserve Gun Rights.

O'Reilly has always supported firearm registration. He's not a Conservative.

>What do you Sup Forumsfags think?
Shall not be infringed motherfucker.

i like how you left that big, fat, juicy comma out that clearly and distinctly divides the sentence
sage for shilling

If I recall correctly, a "well regulated militia" meant something very different when the 2nd amendment was written.

People think it means a government approved militia being subject to regulations set forth by the government or some shit, but at the time "militia" and "regulated" didn't mean this.

I hope someone else can find the relevant information I can't quite remember exactly

Simple. Travel out west. Get some heavy weapons from Mexican "La Raza" cartel smugglers. And have fun.

Legally purchased guns are harder to get than street Steele. Especially if both the supplier and the customer hate the intended target.

>It's so that people can fucking defend the government.

the just and true government Sally

no get that cute little ass in the kitchen and get me a sandwich

DELETE THIS

This is your right:

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

This is the reason you have that right:

>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state

Now read the well-documented debate that led to the drafting of the 2nd amendment for a better understanding of what they meant:

constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt

A militia that in 1903, was determined to be all Male citizens of the united states

The founders and the framers of the Constitution themselves disagree with your interpretation of what they themselves wrote. Read anything of what the founders & framers wrote about what they meant by the 2nd amendment.

>it's a nobody understand how compound sentences work anymore rerun
*click*

>Can't read.

Look:

>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.

That appears to be a big fat comma in the sentence, which I did not leave out.

>only one guy ever wrote anything and he only wrote that one thing

You're fucking morons. Try actually reading their actual writings and debates instead of just taking one soundbyte and letting it sum up decades of works, lazy ignorant trash.


And then there's this retard who can't even fucking read a few short simple sentences. Well done.

Our homicide rate is the lowest it has ever been in 51 years and that gun homicides have dropped by 49% per capita while at the same time tens of millions of guns have been purchased by citizens so I don't think guns are a problem.

mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low

pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/10/21/gun-homicides-steady-after-decline-in-90s-suicide-rate-edges-up/

>Thinks one person dictated the entire constitution on his own

Thomas Jefferson didn't individually dictate the constitution. The constitution could be subtitled "compromise" as it was the result of much debate and compromise.

Now, I highly suggest reading the well-documented debate that gave us the 2nd amendment:

constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt

>hurr I cant uderstand why someone would make a government and want to make sure that government didnt become tyrannical and oppressive, so they made revolution possible and protected

Bill O'Reilly has always been a gun grabbing faggot. He's progressive as fuck.

Originally the 2nd amendment included mortars
because pirates

this user is correct, but NOT because of the document he outlined

the 14th amendment basically retroactively applies the bill of rights to individual states. meaning: previously, the bill of rights was a lmitation solely of federal power, leaving states to regulate speech etc as they saw fit.

the 14th decided that the bill of rights applied as a limitation of state powers as well.

however, you'll notice in the famous legal case "general sherman just killed some 100k people in the south, half of whom were children under the age of 12. you'll notice the constitution doesn't matter anymore, because if you follow lawful protocol to peacefully secede, we will simply kill you and your wives and chldren."

that famous legal case determined that if you follow the law, but defy the wishes of the northeast coast elite, they will simply kill you. truly a remarkable court case.

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.

Says nothing about banning mortars and bazookas.


Doesn't say the right of the people to keep and bear arms is contingent upon the state's need for a well regulated militia, but merely mentions that the state has a need for a well regulated militia.

No, actually in the debate that ultimately gave us the 2nd amendment (which was a massive compromise between constitutional delegates), the reason most often given for arming militias was to call upon them to squash any rebellion of their new "we the people" government.

And not long after the Constitution was drafted, the first President used his powers to call upon the citizen militias to squash rebellion..

In 1794, armed Americans took up guns against what they viewed as a tyrannical George Washington administration imposing taxes on whiskey. President Washington called up 13,000 militia men, and personally led the troops to squash the rebellion of armed citizens in Bedford, Pennsylvania. No Army. No right to have guns to overthrow the oppressive US government.

>Stating facts and appealing to reason
>on Sup Forums
You must be new here

And what percentage of Latvia is actually literate?

who wrote the amendment anyway? they were either world class trolls or massive retards.

as clear as the meaning is, it's so stupid to phrase it that way. "apple pie being yummy the right to buy fruit shall not be infringed." unnecessary, confusing and stupid to include a comment like that.

people should spit on the authors' graves.

Kys

This is just the media and the government working to take away responsiblities that belong to the family and give more power to themselves.

And yet that has absolutely no bearing on what the amendment actually says. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Literally 2nd grade reading level shit here.

It's only difficult to understand to retards and progressive gun grabbing faggots trying to push their broken agenda.

>Conservatives Now Supporting Gun Control

>Literally one dude.

Sage

I want gun control.

The way I want it is as follows:
1. Require ROTC / Civilian military training
2. Require completion of highschool
3. IQ test score about 95.
4. Be on the draft list

Nigs will lose their 2nd Amendment as will women.

I mentioned the founding fatherS and framerS of the constitution and used one example. You can't comprehend reading a comment on a Mongolian basket-weaving forum let alone the constitution

the miltia is for national defense against invaders that seek to destroy our freedom

the right to keep and bear arms is to defend against criminals and the goverment if it ever wishes to destroy our way of life

The founding fathers know that the American goverment might one day no longer be working for the people and would have to be removed

He's fucking retarded and always has been

the homicide rate has only fallen because of improvements in medical technology. a gunshot used to be guaranteed fatal as recently as the 50's. currently, about 90% of gunshot victims survive despite increased lethality of arms. the gunshot wound rate has increased some 12 times, and the assault with a deadly arm rate a similar amount, whch are more reliable numbers. further, many guncrimes are attempted, but stopped by CC'ers before a victi is killed. this occurs at a rate of about 20x GREATER than the homicide rate itself (many of which WOULD be homicides without intervention)

in all reality, the attempted murder rate with a firearm has increased roughly some factor of 10y(20x) y being the realized rate, and x being the attempted rate, times. approximately about 200 times the (prevented) murder rate of the 1950s. more people simply survive these days, or are stopped by hypervigilant citizens.

just for reference, a reduction of the combined murder/attempted murder rate to 1/200th ofthe current level would make us as safe as japan. america USED to be as safe as japan.

The sentence, is a conditional statement.

This is your right:

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

This is the reason you have that right:

>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

Now read the well-documented debate that led to the drafting of the 2nd amendment for a better understanding of what they meant. It focuses almost entirely on the need for militias:

constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt

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

It doesn't say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms

nobody has a problem with automatic weapons being banned.

It's about time semi auto guns were banned/severely restricted.

MY idea is that if you need a semi auto hunting rifle for hunting purposes, like hog hunting, then you can sign one out for a short period, and then return it when you are done with it.

The "well-regulated" clause meant adequately equipped for the purpose of which it was intended, not oversight by governing body.

The intent of the 2nd Amendment was to provide protection for the people of the country, who give the government legitimacy through consent of the governed. Allowing the government to regulate (in the modern sense) the militia or the people's ability to own weapons, necessarily undermines the purpose of having the militia be a check against government power. If the government wanted to abuse its power, it would simply stop funding the militia, or regulate the militia into being useless.

You cannot have an overarching government body regulating the militia (either by declaring what stipulations the militia can operate under, or what weaponry they are allowed to own and use) without undermining the intent of the amendment. It's that simple.

It's not a conditional you mongoloid.