What do you think about the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution?

What do you think about the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution?

Attached: E39A1518-3C86-4100-9085-703703523E97.jpg (440x239, 107K)

Other urls found in this thread:


*Bill of Rights. I wholeheartedly support it, but its utility is so underused that people have forgotten what it's even for.

An Onion skit, where the US Congress forgets how to pass a law comes to mind.

it's not cool it irradiates coolness

How many gun owners are part of a well regulated militia?

>How many gun owners are part of a well regulated militia?
DC v Heller has answered that question

When shit hits the fan we are

To answer your question on a personal level I served in the Marines and got out honorably

>people have forgotten what it's even for.

I know, right? Why did nobody ice Trump? Gun owners hate him, liberals hate him; seems like a perfect unifying move. But nOoOo, instead we let the incompetent politicians cobble together some non-violent solution after years of waiting for them.

well, seeing as it's the only one left, I like it. The gun nuts gladly gave up the other 9 in the Bill of Rights just to keep this one.

We have the capability to quickly form one/ many when needed. Currently, it is not needed, but maintaining the capability is needed.

nobody iced Trup because he is the biggest part of the Deep State. Think about it -- since Trump has been president, every nutjob has been brought to the surface and ID'd by the FBI and everyone else. When the "Civil War" signups start, LE will know exactly who to target.

> (OP)
>well, seeing as it's the only one left, I like it. The gun nuts gladly gave up the other 9 in the Bill of Rights just to keep this one.
Glad you got your talking points from CNN, that way you don't have to take responsibility for being wrong.

The founding fathers created it for very good reasons, which are just as valid today as they were back then.

Attached: 1489024837942.jpg (600x600, 95K)

It is literally the only thing preventing the first and fourth amendments from being amended out.

Don't forget the Militia Act of 1903.

Where is the well-regulated militia that are supposed to keep and bear these arms? All I see is inbred rednecks on meth with arsenals and a bunch of conspiracy theorists waiting for either the apocalypse or some civil war in which they'll be smoked for being domestic terrorists.


> (OP)
>Where is the well-regulated militia that are supposed to keep and bear these arms? All I see is inbred rednecks on meth with arsenals and a bunch of conspiracy theorists waiting for either the apocalypse or some civil war in which they'll be smoked for being domestic terrorists.
Here's your (You)

Attached: 1428118492925.gif (300x182, 1.82M)

I support it fully and unconditionally.

thanks james madison very cool

>inbred rednecks on meth
Well that’s factually incorrect. But liberals lie, that’s what they do

>smoked for being domestic terrorists
Who’s going to “smoke” em’, faggot? You? Kek

Here you go my bro, and don't forget to thank me



It talks about people being able to keep and bear arms.
The part that even the right forgets about is that it calls for well regulated militias. Meaning that the people must be ready to fight whatever force threatens their freedom.

There are misconceptions though. That a well regulated militia must mean the military. It does not. Even though militias fought in the revolutionary war the main American force was the Continental army.
Militias and Armies are fundamentally different and back then they knew that too. The point of the people having arms and free militias was a measure taken because they knew that just because a power and army had legal precedent to rule over them, that it wasn't always in the best interests of the people themselves. It was to keep the government that ruled them from getting too powerful for the people to control.

The other misconception is that the amendment only applies to muskets and flintlocks. Even at the time there were examples of multiple barreled weapons and repeating arms. Even so the provisional continental government recognized that the weapons they possessed were THE SAME weapons that the British Army they fought had. They knew that firearms had evolved from matchlocks and hand cannons to having even rifled bores and being the picture of accuracy. Having been used by sharpshooter during the war.
A militia that does not have sufficient weapons to fight against their oppressors would be slaughtered.

>Well that’s factually incorrect. But liberals lie, that’s what they do
That's patently true.
>Who's going to smoke Domestic Terrorists that try starting a civil war? The US military friendo, that's what they do. They squish terrorists, foreign and domestic..

see: the dick act
it defined the well regulated militia...the national guard

I think it should not exist tbh.


Well you’re an ignorant fuck. Almost all of the military is 2A supporters and patriots.

I only did 8 years in the military so I have no idea what the fuck I’m talking about. Just ignore me and live in your little fantasy world

I think that the second amendment is bad and that guns are bad. I would much rather that the government took away all of our guns and criminals instead started hacking people to death with machetes like they do in the poor countries, it's much less violent and safer.

Well the Dick Act of 1903 broke down militia into two groups. The organized militia and the unorganized militia. The National Guard being the organized and We the People being the unorganized. Do some research bud

Only 8? I bet you tell people “I served my country “. People like you make me sick

Attached: lol2ndguns.png (460x435, 277K)

Attached: lolguns.png (872x886, 186K)

Attached: gunrights.png (1500x2700, 633K)

>Only 8? I bet you tell people “I served my country “. People like you make me sick
Post your DD214 with timestamp or STFU

Not entirely relevant, but I enjoy sharing this meme.

Attached: 7qr2achemm821.jpg (640x565, 65K)

Well friend I don’t flaunt myself around or use those choice of words - that “I served my country” because I have a little humility in me, but if I would be entitled to say that and I wouldn’t be wrong.

But let’s talk about people like me making people like you sick. Care to elaborate as to why that is?

Why would I do that? It has all my personal shit all over it

You think cause you’re a veteran you’re special? What a fucking faggot.

Without the 2nd amendment, you can't protect the rest.

We are quartering soldiers in our homes?

Itt more reasons to hate republicans and to consider them terrorists

You’re the reason I hate veterans so much. I bet you wear grunt style and tell people basic training stories.

reminds me of this
quite funny how a jap understands this more than half the american population

Attached: 6tc4e4skuxbz.jpg (640x650, 97K)

Good 200 years ago, bad today

What has changed to make it bad?

oh, yours is better quality
thank you


I'm willing to bet that was a muhreen stationed in Okinawa.

show me any evidence of a "well regulated militia" of American citizens.

What value does the 2nd amendment possibly have in the absence of a well regulated militia?

Also, the amendment guarantees citizens the right to bear "arms" meaning weapons. No one is arguing that this means citizens should be able to have any and all weapons (nukes, tanks, RPG's, etc...), so this clearly means "some" weapons. As long as citizens are allowed "some" weapons, the constitution is satisfied.

Attached: download.jpg (363x372, 26K)

>doesn't understand the concept of the unorganized militia, from which a well regulated militia is created in times of need
>Doesn't understand that the 2nd amendment is worthless without combat effective weapons

I was 03 infantry for 4 years in the Marines and switched to another MOS for the last 4. 2 deployments (one of those was a combat deployment). Now I work a desk job and make over 100k a year

A guy who’s a vet said “fuck” at my workplace today, he turned to me and said “sorry about that, it’s just my old Marine-self talking”. I didn’t say anything

So no, I’m pretty reserved. You’re wrong about me

No one is arguing for those.

which is why you are not a law maker and politician, you need to have at least a basic understanding of the constitution.

Attached: grabbers.jpg (540x960, 81K)

100k a year, sure you do bud, that’s why you’re on Sup Forums.

Stereotype much?

Didn't thought about that. Nice thinking user


If the emoluments clause doesn't mean shit, then why would the 2nd amendment or any other part of the constitution mean anything, you fake ass patriot user shits?

Attached: edf8da125d28dea88f125bcea32c1243.jpg (1051x1554, 569K)

Anyone who brags about their time in the service or how much money they make is usually a liar.

>No one is arguing for those
that's exactly what i said

Any statistics to back that up or is just an unfounded and biased assumption?

escpecially on internet, especially on chan

I think the second and third word are quite important and very much overlooked by all those who claim it allows them to stockpile weapons.

Attached: E3F33348-F32C-48FF-B385-068FA2B8C343.jpg (750x632, 58K)

The only thing that kept us safe in world war 1 and 2
The only thing that keeps commies at bay
The only thing that makes america safe

>you can have well regulated militia when you need it without having it the rest of the time

why does the military spend so much time and money training then, faggot?

They aren't. Look into the context. In order to form a well regulated militia when you need it, you need to have armed and trained citizens to serve as militia members.

>Gun owners never train with their firearms

Fun fact: the founding fathers were largely against having a large standing federal army.

>target shooting is just as good as training with a well regulated militia.

found the brainlet


>Tactical training totally isn't a thing
Found the noguns, but marksmanship is actually a vital component.

You'd get crushed in short order

there hasn't been a well regulated militia in this country since the Minute Men and there isn't any reason to believe that there ever will be again. The 2nd amendment is an anachronism.

Any under the age of 45, plus any ex mil/LEO of any age. The only militia members not fitting the well regulated criteria would be the citizens in either of the above 2 categories who don’t have guns.

Well that's just objectively false. Even if you don't count the National Guard as a militia, there are still state militias. The second amendment is fundamentally necessary as a check on federal power.

Not hard to redact the personal shit, boyo.

Either the whole constitution is valid or none of it is, and the current president and the electorate that supports him have no real regard for the constitution as a whole. They only care about the right to bear arms (which they read as "have any type of guns), and they want to scrap the rest.

Attached: Donald-Trum-Burn-the-Constitution.jpg (614x399, 61K)

>Well that's just objectively false
there are clearly no "well regulated" citizen militias




Trump is pro-Trump. Remember, it's under his administration that bump stocks were banned.


You... i hope you’re not serious. Thats just retarded, YOU are just retarded. Like actually try talking to people instead of concoct this bullshit.

...then the president said:

“I like taking the guns early. Like in this crazy man’s case that just took place in Florida… To go to court would have taken a long time. So you could do exactly what you're saying, but take the guns first, go through due process second.”

I agree with the president, take dem damn guns!

Attached: RTX4ZE1D_zttelx.jpg (1566x881, 115K)

Prove me wrong; what other part of the constitution do you like?

The National Firearms Act of 1934 is an infringement that must be repealed as it is a tax on a constitutional right orders of magnitude larger than the poll tax was and the poll tax was regarded as unconstitutional. And for those arguing the "well regulated" part of the amendment, well regulated at the time meant "in good working order" rather than being heavily regulated as we think think of today. When reading 18th century text, one must apply 18th century definitions to the terms used. See link


A year ago you'd never heard of an emolument, you still can't define them, but you know the constitution is in crisis because Orange Man Bad and he's full up on 'em. Go fuck yourself.

From people who shouldn't have them. Like criminals.

Stop always trying to "get" people. It's sad to watch

>well regulated at the time meant
the were talking about the Minute Men. Nothing remotely like the Minute Men exists today.

You've already been proven wrong. Leave while you have some dignity left.

You don't get a well regulated militia by calling in a bunch of gun freaks. A militia has to train as one. And no, drinking beer and shooting shit for fun is not training.

An emolument is when the president accepts something of value from a foreign interest. And the president has been shitting on the emoluments clause since he took the oath of office more than two years ago, and I was aware of it before he swore, so just because you are an uninformed brainlet doesn't mean everyone is.

>From people who shouldn't have them.
how do you know who shouldn't have them without due process, brainlet?

and you've proven yourself stupid and uninformed

Having an armed populace who are familiar with their weapons is a prerequisite for a well regulated militia. Promoting gun culture was the founders' alternative to mandatory military service in European countries.

Not an argument.

>gun owners hate him

Please explain in detail

>a year ago I'd never heard of emoluments therefore you can't have either

Having a prerequisite for a well regulated militia is not the same as having a well regulated militia, brainlet.

Doesn't "amendment" mean something changed or added by people.
You lot talk like it's something immutable, but it isnt.
if it was changed once,why not again?