"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

>"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."

What is so fucking hard about this?

"hurr durr they were talking about muskets."

Any argument further than/against that is completely ignored.

A lot of liberals want to keep guns away from minorities. They can't say that explicitly, but it's true. The problem is that the right to bear arms is an explicitly guaranteed constitutional right. Therefore, in order to attempt to affect change, they have to twist the wording around.

>What is so fucking hard about this?
Depends on what the primary purpose of the right is (which is currently, under judicial interpretation, self defense against criminals)

Also, it's fair to note that banning or regulating a certain class of weaponry does not technically infringe on the right.
It states the right to keep and bear arms, not keep and bear any and/or all arms.
If 9/10 guns were banned and the remaining 1/10 was enough for all citizens, you could still technically keep and bear arms.

>all those unnecessary commas

>grammar doesn't change over time

Are you 14? Language is ambiguous and in every case subject to interpretation. What are "arms"? Is a mortar battery arms? A cannon? A SAW? Why did they include the first clause at all if it's totally irrelevant?

I'm very pro-gun, but pretending there's no room for discussion or argument is just a 100% ignorance of our legal system.

It's not hard, they just want to take our rights away so they make out like it doesn't actually say something very simply. They're "Playing dumb" on a grand scale

Read anything the Founders wrote for once. Their writings are littered with commas. It's just how it was back then.

>Why did they include the first clause at all if it's totally irrelevant?

What makes you think it is totally irrelevant?

Fuck gun control, any kind, period. We have gone decades with nothing but bullshit taking our rights. The ATF shouldn't even exist.

>it's a Sup Forums pretends to be constitutional scholars episode

>implying you have to be a constitutional scholar to understand the meaning of the constitution

atf has its place

the nfa does not

What? I don't. I was asking a hypothetical questions directed at people who act like "shall" is the whole text of the amendment. My whole post was pointing out the ambiguity of language.

>this freedom stands in the way if our global hegemony
>how shall we turn them agaisnt their own mores?
>easy, change the meaning of their words

Gotta be a shill. Liberals know that niggers will get guns regardless.

hnnnnng
im so happy i work with a bunch of easter europeans with student visas

You're vastly overestimating the general intelligence of a leftist

>we the people fought for our independence against a tyrannical government with arms
>what shall we do next?
>restrict the rights of the people to fight against a tyrannical government

is the rock mexican?

honestly it comes down to thinking. most following the liberal agenda don't think. then you have your intellectually middle class liberals who use their cognition to create a reality that supports the liberal agenda because they just want to be good people.. Then you've got the wolves in sheep's clothing running the whole goddamned thing who are just out for mo money mo power. To reiterate:
>intellectual zombies thanks to TV and drugs
>useful idiots who just want to considered one of the good goys
>evil mastermind tier bastards


None of these people have an interest in preserving freedom.

I'm okay with the death of one nation, I just NEED for there to be a successor to bear the brilliant torch of freedom

...

They rebelled because they had no representation or official recourse against the King.

We have representation now; the state of the government is entirely the fault of the people for electing those chucklefucks to power, and frankly, that fact alone is enough to make me doubt democracy.

Libtards live by that meme.

Meme this on other platforms using #neverglobalism and create an echo chamber.

it's a facebook cover photo.

praise kek and remember meme magic is real.

nope its called non restrictive clauses.

The state doesn't trust the people.

It's been a problem for quite a few years now, but nobody will address it on face value.

It should make you doubt a represented republic as we are not a democracy, and we were never built in such fashion.

At it's core, we are a democracy (albeit a step removed and slightly obfuscated)

The people ultimately have the legal power to decide who rules, and what we have now are who the people chose.
I don't trust the people anymore.

>What is so fucking hard about this?
The fact that your left doesn't want it to exist.
It's kinda weird they don't just come out and just say that they want the 2nd amendment removed. I mean they could just make their case and be done with it..

But no..
Instead, they keep coming up with vapid excuses and gross misinterpretations of the document in an effort to somehow make it disappear via mental gymnastics..

And in a few more generations, they'll have succeeded and you'll be going the way of Britain.. Get a Life bin that Knife.

hnnnnng

that a e s t h e t i c most likely will not appeal to lib leaning normies

the problem is that people become complacent and allow themselves to be manipulated..

if there were systems in place to prevent this democracy may actually be the shit

>if there were systems in place to prevent this democracy may actually be the shit
Like limited voting rights, mandatory political, philosophical, and economical education, and so forth.

In short; not democracy, but a rather large and fluid oligarchy.

Its mainly women pushing the shit. Women will sign away peoples rights so quick it will make your fucking head spin. They have no concept of freedom.

Arms are arms. You could legally own a frigate as a private citizen then.

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

it doesnt fucking matter what says before it

the best way to end an argument with people bringing out semantics is just to repeatedly say "Shall not be infringed" over and over and over and over until they leave you alone.

vast doesn't even being to cover the sheer scale of the gulf between that user's estimation of leftist intelligence and the actuality

I've met pro-gun leftists though, but it's usually the only thing they're traditionalist towards

You mean like a perpetual right of revolt by force of the militia securing the free state?

this, women almost always prefer security to freedom.

Wait, are weapons platforms considered arms? Wouldn't that be armor or does 'armament' cover everything?

By Kek, that's why I've been getting near misses lately.

>Wait, are weapons platforms considered arms
yes
"arms" are defined as anything that can allow someone to fight more effectively. a fighter jet, battleship, and ar-15 are all considered arms

the government of course draws a line at anything more sophisticated than small arms (with shit like ITAR preventing any combat viable fighter jet from being used, etc) though

>security of a free State
>revolt

pick one insurrectionist scum

Look, if the tyranny is so bad the entire state is under oppression from all levels of authority, you've gone well past condition zero