How do you respond when you're debating a liberal on gun rights and they invoke the "muh well-regulated militia"...

How do you respond when you're debating a liberal on gun rights and they invoke the "muh well-regulated militia" talking point?

Other urls found in this thread:

"I don't know, why aren't you a well regulated militia?"

The militia act which says the militia is the people

Teach them about grammar, because they clearly failed English

I tell them the ugly sister of Rory from Gilmore Girls loves guns, and since that is a favorite show of Liberals, they immediately concede the point.

A well regulated militia means trained and maintained. Not regulated by the federal government.

If they sperg out with the typical "hurr durr are you in a militia!?!!?"
Say yes, Im in a militia of one.


1) Militia is everyone
2) Well-regulated means well-trained
3) That part of the amendment is a preamble, not a qualifier.
4) Why would the government need a constitutional amendment to protect its own rights?

Oh man this is pathetic. You can tell OP is a die hard gun rights advocate but he can't even articulate an argument against a basic liberal talking point so he goes running back to his buddies to do all the thinking and refuting for him.

Ask yourself OP, why are you not able to refute this point on your own? did a liberal actually stump you? LMAO!

Well regulated militia referred to all able bodied men. This included bearing military style small arms, that would include modern assault rifles. Checkmate libfags.

thats a RedRyder bb rifle

shit bait

That they are two separate clauses completely independent of one another.

Show them the actual line because it's completely irrelevant.

Ask them for a definition of militia, let them get deep into interpretation, then quote 10 U.S. Code § 311. Nothing deflates an argument like letting someone be factually incorrect.

Tell them that the Supreme Court has ruled that all citizens are part of the militia as decided in Heller versus DC.

Well-regulated has absolutely nothing to do with regulations and every adult citizen is a member of the militia.

great pic. saved.

Dunno mate. The Hells Angels are a pretty well-regulated militia, but they're more necessary for the protection of a competitive methamphetamine market I think.

If you disarmed those guys meth prices would skyrocket - so I'd make the argument that free market values demand bikies be armed with advanced weaponry to fend off the cartels.

Quote Jefferson, Madison, etc.

Crowder covered this.

I'm glad they don't let women bear arms

>debating a liberal on gun rights
why? they don't accept human rights so there's no point.

>deterred by facts


I'd like to expand that well-regulated means more than just well-trained but in order for a machine to work it needs all its parts. For a militia to be one it needs able bodied men which are the citizens along with weapons and the accessories associated with weapons. You cannot have a properly functioning, or regulated, militia without any part of that.
hitem with that

What is the 14th Amendment.

Donkey punch the libtard.

Easy it's called the federalist papers.

>debating retarded faggots
>worried about talking points

Faggotry knows no logic or reason. Accept the fact that the retarded cannot be helped, smile and nod at the bullshit they spout and continue on with your fucking day.

If they are unable to understand that WE THE PEOPLE _DECLARED_ (i don't recall the constitution asking for a god damned thing) that the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE

Its not about them, its about observers. When someone is factually wrong, the rest of their assertions become suspect.


Extant gun laws are the regulation for the militia.

DC vs heller, I suggest you read the majority opinion

I don't argue with people who can't understand the concept keeping a government military in check

women were never granted the privilege in the first place buddy

i used to have one of those bb guns when i was a kid

well regulated militia just means access to ammunition.

Rights aren't privileges. Even if they were, though, you've got Section 1 to contend with.

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

then are clearly retarded and not worth "debating"

TBh senpai I've never got this far in the argument usually they say that the whole constitution is outdated at least these people aknowledge the document even exists

The word 'regulated' doesn't mean the same thing today as it did during the enlightenment era.

Ever heard the term 'British Army Regular'? This means a soldier specifically trained and outfitted with regular equipment and tactical drills by the state. Unlike today, it was uncommon, for a host of reasons for a nations soldiers to be made up entirely, or even majorly of 'regulars'. The bulk of a fighting force in any serious war would have been 'irregulars' (ie militia, mercenaries, privateers etc.).

When the founding fathers penned the term 'well regulated militia' they meant that a militia can never be a regularized fighting force but that people should have right to bear whatever arms they can so the state's militias can be as regulated as possible. In other words a WELL regulated militia. And true to their word no weapons were barred from the populace. Look into America's merchant navy. Private citizens could own and operate battleships and cannonades if they so chose.

So the term actually means the opposite of liberals think it does due to their historical illiteracy.

> How do you respond when you're debating a liberal on gun rights and they invoke the "muh well-regulated militia" talking point?

Tell them that a militia is just ordinary citizens, who are trained to use firearms in defense of their homes.

How it USED to be, is that state governors could call on the militia for various purposes of defense.

Hell, George Washington once called the militia of 4 or so states to stop rioting.

And he led them, on horseback!

>So the term actually means the opposite of liberals think it does due to their historical illiteracy.

You hit the nail on the head, CanadaBro. :)

I don't even care about the constitution. People NEED to have access to weapons to stop their leaders from fucking them in the ass. A government document is the last thing anyone should take directions from on that front.

For thousands of years shithead dictators and monarchs have bled their people dry at the tip of a sword or a spear, knowing only they have the resources and funding necessary to create effective fighting men. With the invention of firearms a single smelly peasant who trained by shooting rodents in a field can kill a veteran soldier with a lifetime's worth of training in an instant. The government can't just throw their army at a domestic problem and crush all resistance anymore, they have to actually listen to the demands of those they rule over and give up some of their power; that is, unless they manage to brainwash the people into disarming themselves.

I think this one is enough

A millitia refers to an INFORMAL body of soldiers, this is what separates them from an army. More important is the context of the word in the second ammendment, the phrase "the people" is used in reference to the proposed "militia".

"Regulated" meant "properly equipped" inthe positive since. A militia without guns would not be regularly outfitted.

it also says RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. They love ignoring that part.

>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

Things that shall not be infringed
1. A well regulated Militia (which is necessary to the security of a free State)
2. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances


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.

Notice how the wording is the same. The right of the people.

I completely agree. We're not well-regulated enough with government restrictions.

Well-regulated in those times meant "well-armed".

>How do you respond to the "muh well-regulated militia" talking point?
The same way I respond to the other made up things they spout, by citing court rulings, case names, and other historical facts.









guns are gay

Well regulated militia does not refer to state oversight of the militia, but rather the right for a militia itself to exist and regulate itself.

A well regulated militia as defined by law is a white land owning man 18-45 years old. Are they sure they want to abide by that?

Underrated post

there's no such thing as a fucking militia in the united states. the amendment needs thrown out period. we don't have a militia


We do, it's just called the national guard

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

That means a well armed militia is needed to stop an over zealous government.

>The right to bare arms shall not be infringed

People must be allowed to bare arms, because this ties to the first part, being that a well suplied militia is necessary to keep the united states free from over reaching over legislaging government.

I have no idea how americans dont understand what this says, the language meaning and intention is clear, any arguments to the contrary are dishonest and semantics.


>Organized militia - consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia.[9] Note, the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.

we don't have a milita. there is no milita in the united states. are you claiming that in the event of "over reaching legislating government", a militia pops into existence, and this popping into existence is what the constitution refers to?


Why do you guys like guns so much though.

k keep me posted.

There doest have to be one, the amendment doesnt say that, it just states that one is necessary to protect the sovereignty of its citizens, thus people need to be well armed if the eventuality of a militia is needed to counterballance over zealous government.

The comma

"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."
It's saying a well regulated militia is necessary for the free state to be secure, and therefore people can keep and use guns.

It does not say how you can use those guns, it only says that guns are an important part of a well-regulated militia, and because of that, people have the right to keep and bear arms.

The "muh well-regulated militia" people have probably never read the actual text of the second amendment.

In other words, the well-regulated miltia bit is just the motivation for not allowing the government to regulate gun ownership, it's not in any way implied to be the only use.

>we don't have a milita

so you claim there "doesn't have to be one" and yet in the constitution it claims it is "well regulated"? what is not adding up here?

At the time the constitution was written all able bodied white men were expected to serve in the militia.
Gun registration is regulations
Firearm bans are beyond the scope.

The line doesn't matter because the militia act was modified to include basically all US citizens

>the well-regulated miltia bit is just the motivation for not allowing the government to regulate gun ownership

this is nonsense

we don't have a militia. if you say, "every able bodied man" IS the militia, that is as good as saying a definition doesn't apply to anything specific. if every able bodied man is the militia, I could say every able bodied man is the king of france. it becomes meaningless

It is clear what well regulated means. Well equipped, well conditioned and in working order.

Liberals twist everything and lie all the time.

America, you were always ment to bear arms, its part of the forming of your country.
A militia group can be class'd as an army, so needs to be repersented and regulated. A few secuirty firms can be class'd as private armys aswell.
If they dont like guns they should move to britian or austrila

I just shoot them.

Problem solved.

The people need repersentation, or your just a bloody ji-hady

>we don't have a milita. there is no milita in the united states. are you claiming that in the event of "over reaching legislating government", a militia pops into existence, and this popping into existence is what the constitution refers to?

Are you dense? Or just being disingenuous, i shouldnt have to explain the 2nd amendment to an american? Its clear as day the intention and implication, anybody that says otherwise is a cuck or a commie.

Consider the situation in which the united states became independent from the british. The founding fathers knew the danger of governmental oversight, the entire debate is about the people being armed to potentially fight another american revolutionary or civil war again.

How is a government militia a counter to government? Thats just a stand in army, by militia it means a civilian militia.

>if you say, "every able bodied man" IS the militia, that is as good as saying a definition doesn't apply to anything specific

Read the federalist papers. The people who wrote the constitution literally argued that the militia is the people.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

This has already been debated by people who are smarter than both of you and who's job is to interpret the constitution

well regulated militias back then meant getting together with your townbros and practicing shooting your guns. to encourage attendance and participation free beer was provided.

I don't know why but I never made the connection between "well-regulated militia" and "Regular" troops before, despite playing many /tg/ where Regular is a quality descriptor or units of men are called Roderick's Regulars or suchlike.

Tell them to read the rest.

>the right of THE PEOPLE

>A well regulated militia as defined by law is a white land owning man 18-45 years old.
What? No it isn't. Fuck off CTR shill.

Militia is all people capable of bearing arms in combat

Well regulated means "in proper working order/efficient in use" and has nothing to do with laws or regulations.

"A well regulated clock keeps accurate time"

>if you say, "every able bodied man" IS the militia, that is as good as saying a definition doesn't apply to anything

do databases and registries violate the 2nd amendment? I think people should be able to buy/carry whatever gun their heart desires as long as it's cataloged and registered, like cars.

if the militia is the people than cut it out entirely:

"Being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It's unclear why if the militia "is" the people, why you wouldn't simply skip the middleman and refer to the people directly.

there is no sort of regulations regarding any militia because there is no militia. I forgive the founding father's we have become so unwell-regulated with our "militia"

>cataloged and registered, like cars.

Only required if you are using them on public roads.

Shoot them.

The rights of the people shall not be infringed.

>there is no militia

yes there is

registration precedes confiscation in every situation its occured

how else would you use a car?

Are you a fucking beaner who cant read and write english properly, or sub 100 iq pleb?

Read the fucking amendment, you guys dont seem to understand this isnt a debate...

Im not religious but a parallel could be made to say the ten commandments. Its a rule, laid out by the founders, like how the ten commandments are a rule..

>"well regulated" has nothing to do with regulations


On private property

A well regulated clock isn't a clock that is restricted by the government.

>America, you were always ment to bear arms, its part of the forming of your country.

Exactly, thats totally the implication of the 2nd amendment.

10 U.S. Code § 311 was mentioned earlier, but here's what it reads according to -

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

It seems you're confusing "Well Regulated" with "Organized". We are still members of the militia, regardless of being part of the unorganized militia.

lol every situation? i registered my car the other day, nobody's coming to take it. if you could own any gun you wanted, fully auto 100 round drums whatever, isn't having to register it a small price to pay?

A well regulated timepiece being necessary to the accurate telling of time, the right to bare clocks shall not be infringed.

"well-regulated" to me seems like it would require some form of organization. there is no organization in modern times of any sort of militia. otherwise, how would you even KNOW if it were well-regulated?

you do understand the humor here, is that you claimed,

>there doesn't have to be one (militia), the amendment doesn't say that

and yet people in this very thread claim one exists, to which I've said, the lunacy lies in the fact I could ascribe any description I like to "every able bodied man"

Four words for you: Repeal NFA and GCA

Well the sentence says that the purpose of the second amendment is the militia, however it does not predicate the right to bare arms on the existence of such a militia. Therefore even lieu of a militia the infringement of the right to keep and bare arms is still forbidden.

The second amendment, along with all other amendments in the bill of rights, do no grant rights, as the existence of the rights is assumed to exist independent of the bill of rights.

>How do you respond when you're debating a liberal on gun rights and they invoke the "muh well-regulated militia" talking point?

>regulated means well equipped
>the Militia Acts of 1792 and 1903(?) outlined what the militia is
>The 1792 act outlined that the militia man was supposed to be able to outfit himself with a musket, powder horn and bayonet. Essentially the weaponry of the regular infantryman of the day
>The later act removed that specification because muskets were obsolete, and as weapon systems changed the exact gear needed would change anyway
>The point is that the unorganized militia, being physically healthy males aged 18-55 or something like that, and females formerly in the National Guard, were intended to be outfitted as equals to the contemporary infantryman

your car isn't a gun faggot

protip, you already have to register to get the guns you're talking about, pay a 200 dollar fee, wait several months at least.

oh and you cant buy any guns made after 1986, so the least you will pay is 6000 for a shitty nigger quality uzi

He was too good for this world, wasn't he?

Tell them that gun control is class warfare, I have yet to meet a liberal that doesn't quiet down after I state this because it's undebateable.

nobody's going to come and take your guns away from you if you bought/keep them legally...faggot...

ok, well the no guns made after 1986 rule sucks, uzis suck, waiting periods are understandable but can be improved with online registration. as long as your guns are documented and the information made available to law enforcement i figure you should be good to go

*Until they change what constitutes as buying/keeping them legally, then you're fucked
Not much use in saying "Just don't break the law!" when you're against a group of people that can bend it to their will.

>Tell them that gun control is class warfare, I have yet to meet a liberal that doesn't quiet down after I state this because it's undebateable.

Thats a pretty solid assessment imo. Who says warfare has to start with battles and bullets when it could well be ballots and bureaucracy.

I grab my gun, slam it on a table and I yell "Go! Attack!" to the gun. I go back to the libtard and say, "See, guns don't kill people, people kill people."

based democrat

As said by fucking leaf and others ITT, well-regulated is in the same vein as army regulars. That is to say that the militia should have access to military grade gear to be close to regular but not quite.

Americans may be wondering why canadians, brits, finns, brazilians, australians are all defending the 2nd amendment against an american in this thread.

Because we know and understand that if the US gives up its guns the world will be in a worse off place.

Some of our countries mostly gave up ours and its not helped for the most part.

We may joke and mock amerifats but its only because we are jelly..

Dont lose your country bros!



fuck right off, the state already has a monopoly on violence, the only reason to need a gun is in case the fucker trying to steal your telly has one.
I'd love to own a gun, just like i'd love to have cocaine legalised, but unfortunately fuckheads like you can't be trusted.

taxation contradicts this

>normie-tier, jewbook shareable short video

I just tell them that I support Planned Parenthood because it's basically government sponsored Black genocide. That usually leaves the speechless enough for me to claim victory with a simple: "1000 plus blacks a day killed by their black parents and white liberal doctors is nothing compared to the rare non-false flag mass shooting".

foetuses aren't people though, they are just tasty treats

The supreme court declared that every able bodied non-criminal white male over 18 or older is part of the militia, and the 14th amendment extends this everyone else. To argue that only the militia should be able to own guns is to say that only every legal adult who isn't a felon or mentally retarded/disabled should be able to own guns. If that's what they're arguing, they're already agreeing with me.
Only because we don't need one at the current moment. If the state or federal governments infringe upon the rights of the people (enough to really piss them off) or if a foreign nation invades our country, then you ARE the militia. One of the entire fucking points of acknowledging the right to bear arms is so that it becomes incredibly easy to raise a fighting force to protect our country from tyranny or invasion.

>guns exist
>the knowledge to make guns exist
>it's not incredibly complicated like a nuke or certain dangerous chemicals, that knowledge is classified anyway
>if guns are banned, people can still obtain them
>if guns are banned, people can still make them, even if they're shitty
>if guns are banned, how would one protect themselves from a gunman who obtained them illegally?
>there'd have to be someone to protect them
>probably law enforcement
>police are violent and racist according to liberals
>we need to reduce the power law enforcement has according to liberals
>ban guns for cops too?
>now who's going to protect you from a gunman who obtained them illegally?
>use a blunt object? against a gun? why not just get a gun and learn how to use it?
>that takes effort

Conclusion: Liberals hate working, and want other people to do everything for them. That's why a lot of them admire Communism, but they don't understand what Communism was really like because they'd have to research history that isn't spoonfed to them, or doesn't reaffirm their world views.

Here, I dug this out of the Library of Congress website. It's a page from a letter an army general wrote to his boss, asking for more troops, because the indians he's fighting are better regulated than the last ones. It's written around the same time the Bill of Rights was.

The irregular militia is a mob of farmers with pitchforks.


Armed citizens is a regulated militia.

militia act, google it

best way to deal with a liberal, stuff a dick inside them.

Under extraordinary circumstances the 2ND amendment allows the citizens to organize into militias and that isn't possible without mass gun ownership.

If there ever was a mass crisis that overwhelmed all government services the 2ND amendment is the last line of defense in keep civil order.

Based Armenia. I knew there was a reason I liked you.

It meant brought up to a standard, when it was written. It meant "has a rifle and knows how to use it". Today we see "tightly regulated" and "loosely regulated", meaning how constricted by laws something is. The meaning of regulated changed, plain and simple.

Remember folks, this man died a patriot.
Italians make fine Americans.

do you ever take the tinfoil hat off and just listen to yourself?

I am far-right and gilmore girls is my favorite show and I have not keked so hard in a long time oh my


You can't. You're a fucking idiot for believing the second amendment has any validity.

Did you ever ready any fucking history in your life? What makes you think that in our lifetimes there will be no crisis? Why should our generation be special and not have to face things that every single fucking generation int he entire history of mankind has faced? Fuck off.

Cite the Heller decision in which SCOTUS ruled that the right to bear arms is independent of being in a militia

I don't think it really matters anymore because we are bringing 22's to a Drone Fight. If our Government wanted too, and they could fully control the Military and Police, they would lock down cities (Just like they did in Boston)

Anyways like so many people have pointed out, they were talking about "Regulating a Militia" by allowing the People to have the right to Bear Arms. The fact that they say this should not be infringed upon, means the Government should lay the fuck off Gun Control once and for all.

militias vs military drones


millions of dead hicks are gonna be hard to bury though

>kill the very people who provide for the government's ability to have drones in the first place

Waging total war against your own populace is never a good idea

All males 21-49 (might be slightly misremembering the exact age range) are the irregular militia.

>People rise up and immediately move to take military bases, factories, powerplants, hospitals, etc.
>Hurrdurr I'll just blow up every vital piece of my own countries infrastructure to get at these people, that's totally tenable and won't in any way leave a burned out husk of a country that's completely worthless for me to rule over!
>What's that, the drone pilot defected to the rebels? Damn that's the third one this week!

You think the shit has never hit the fan here in the states?

It was anarchy rules in New Orleans for 4 days after Katrina hit landfall.

Doesn't take much for the house of Cards to clasp and society stops.

identify members of your own populace as "terrorists"
>militias vs M I L I T A R Y D R O N E S
>also read: patriot act

"How are the citizens supposed to form their own well-regulated militia if they don't have guns in the first place?"

if your cause is so noble that soldiers (armed professionals trained in obedience) will defect, you don't need a fucking gun to win.

"well regulated" was written in 1789, that meaning is different today than it was then. Simply look up the original 1789 meaning and their argument falls apart.

oh i'm sorry I thought we were talking about the people vs. the state not the people vs. the people

crises happen all the time, and as such we get pimples of anarchy, I understand that. What I'm saying is you can have your AR-15s and your "assault" rifles (or w.e they want to call them) but it's not gonna mean dick when the government mobilises it's forces and identifies you as the enemy.

Another fucking idiot. If supreme military power wins wars explain how the roman empire fell british got kicked out of america, explain how the nazis invaded france and explain the us in vietnam and explain the mid east today.

Better weapons dont win wars if you have inferior tactics, if anything a large army is a detriment because it requires support logistics which will always be a target of militia based tactics.

The only way to win a war against a native population is genocide, and i doubt the usgovernment will start genociding its own populace necause who the fuck is left afterwrads

Those drones have contol stations, those control stations have pilots, those pilots have families. Those control stations require power, and fuel and the gaurds require food, ammo, the gaurds have families too.

The us military cant fight 5 % of its population if they started an uprising thats 15 -18 million people, thousands of rebels in each city..

Every city would become like yugoslavia during the war, every non rebel cop, soldier and government official wouldnt be able to travel in daylight


The leftists love quotes against surveillance like "not caring about the right to privacy because you have nothing to hide is like not caring about the freedom of speech because you have nothing to say. Even if it isn't important to you now, it could be to you or a group of people tomorrow".

Why does the same not apply to our right to bear arms? I agree with them that it would be unwise right now to try and revolt against the government using guns, but you never know what will happen in the future.

I agree with you, I understand your point of view. Soldiers probably don't want to kill innocent civilians.
That makes perfect sense.
Can you explain to me why you need to have guns in order for soldiers to not want to kill innocent civilians?

Say what you want about those retarded fucking jihadi ragheads inthe middle east but nobody understands better than them that the quickest way to turn civilians against the government is to hide your fighters and soldiers in schools hospitals and churches so when the government levels em with a fighter jet they lose all sympathy.

Yo really think military soldiers want to storm a church/school/hospital to kill people that 18 months ago were their squadmates? Why do you think they send tanks and jets.

If the US government fires one shot in anger against its own uprising populace its already lost the war, it might win battles for a decade but its already lost a war.

Thats why syria is so intersting right now, the fact assad is hanging on means he really must have sympathy with a large chunk of his populace because there is no way he would have lasted this long under so much pressure if it were a clear cut civil war... all adds credence to the idea isis and the fsa are a western funded/backed overthrow of assad.

Invite them to take a grammar and sentence structure class.

Explain to them how commas work. Allow me to translate.

>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state,
>the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
the right of the fucking People with a capital P mother fucker, shall not, meaning under no circumstances ever, be infringed.

It's not negotiable. Only a retard would argue with this.


i'm all for insurrection. Not the middle east kind where they want a caliphate in which there's no bacon rolls or w.e but the kind where the masses reject the state.
I just don't think me & the lads have a stand-off with the police/military is gonna get us anywhere, unarmed i'm a martyr but armed i'm a terrorist

Does Armenia have guns?
Armenia, a Christian nation that has suffered a genocide by Turkey and also Armenians have lost their native lands, victims of ethnic cleansing.

>Can you explain to me why you need to have guns in order for soldiers to not want to kill innocent civilians?

Already explained in the thread, the idea which the founding fathers believed in is that the populace should be well armed so they act as a counterballance to any government military.

An armed populace is the ultimate significance relating to freedom, nothing says fuck you and fuck your taxes and legislation like a pissed off armed mob of townspeople protecting their community.

I can imagine why governments hate it, they lose all their power if people are armed, and they only have properganda left in the age of freedom of access to information..

Pretty much all they have now is disinformation and distraction as a weapon... distraction and disinformation are poor tools when people are hurting for jobs in and environment of instant information access.

The government is so mad and the media so anti gun and anti internet because they are losing the battle for hearts and minds.

The ironic thing is the internet is pandoras box for them, its now central to the economy and the media they cant control it without changing it.

We are living in historical times ladies and gentlemen, im starting to appreciate the significance.

You are a pussy and a fag, buy a .22 and shoot yourself with it.

m80 i understand all of that, soft power and keeping people under the thumb etc. Kind of went down a few rabbit holes too but still 10/10 would read again.

What I want to know is if you think militia vs. military = militia winning on the basis of firepower

I ask because I think if a militia is to beat the state it will win through hearts & minds and not through shooting, because the state has some fuck off big guns. As long as you can be identified as an enemy to the state (like if you start shooting back) then orders will be given for you to be terminated. All your firepower won't make a difference because the state has a monopoly on violence.

Im not in favour of insurrection, i just value freedom and the rule of law, the best tenets of humanity, that even the government should be held accountable too

Im anti violence except in self defence, people who use violent coercion against those weaker than them to get what they want are scum

Im not supporting or condoning whats hapening in the middle east, im just acknowledging it like the way the nazis were acknowledged for having savvy battle acumen.

You can appreciate and fear something without respecting or condoning it..

I could never behave like that, i love my people and my country too much, id rather leave than become privy to anything like that ever.

literally didn't think you could be more irrelevant than Denmark, but then along you come.

At least we have guns and not muslim insurgency inside our borders.

I'm not ready to go to war with the government without extreme provocation.

If FEMA and DHS soldiers kicked down my door, shot my dog, took all my guns & food, then told me to report to nearest FEMA camp I'd probably be looking to getting into the IED business after that.

m8 you are literally a ballsack

I was about to explain the difference but then I realized it's pointless because you're probably retarded.

Direct fighting is massively in favour of the government for sure.

Tbh the odds of any rebels are fraught if not insignificant in direct conflict.

The rebels would have infiltration, stealth, hit and run in their favour instead.

Where as the military would ultimately have to hold down logistics and curfew as well as raiding. The odds for a sustained military campaign against its populace are not historically favourable.

It could totally be a 25 year long campaign though.

Potentially i think another american civil war could result in 50-100 million deaths in 10 years easy. Would be potentially one if not the most bloody war in a short time period ever i think, could also be won after a few waco type events that resulted in say 20% of people essentially nationally strikng (ie not turning up for work etc) if that 20% was the most productive 20% could easily cripple america within 28 days.

Fact is nobody really knows what could happen f america heads in that direction, i guess everybodies fear is another civil war.

Hi liberal here.

You call them a moron, and you tell them that freedom is for everyone.


no, please, go on, explain.

i want to know why that poster is wrong.

Condescendingly give them a lesson on sentence structure

i agree with you, rebels would have to adopt guerrilla tactics just in order to sustain an attack over a period longer than a few weeks.

the 20% part proves my initial point, which is that there are more effective avenues of battling a tyrannical government in the 21st century than playing it at its own game i.e. violence.
Strikes and civil disobedience ultimately get more shit done than fighting fire with a smaller fire.

>the gouverment is shit and not fair
>let give the gouverment full power and control over every aspect of life
how do you even debate a liberal


Most of those deaths would be people dying from starvation.

1st world people on average think food comes from the grocery store.

A lot of people dying in Syria are civilians starving to death because the disruption in the supply train was so great. Most of the rebels there are kept alive on MREs given to them by us.


>Strikes and civil disobedience ultimately get more shit done

Maybe but its oft socially left driven union based action, instead of freedom driven.

Ie train drives striking for higher wages, rather than people striking because of tax and big government.

They are retarded, they dont think of the government as a human ran flawed entity, they think of it like an idealistic perfect power structure thant isnt bound by human susceptibility to corruption.

Most liberals once they are used to it would absolutely prefer freedom of choice and freedom of association, they are just terrified of responsibility for their own actions and affairs.

>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.

>A well-balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

People make up the militia in the first statement -- that's how they bear arms. People do not make up a well-balanced breakfast though.

People imply in the first statement that people can exercise their right to bear arms while part of the militia. The analogy doesn't hold up in the second, you can't be apart of the food or some breakfast entity, plus some people can't be part of this entity all the time but still need food. You don't necessarily need arms to live but you need food.

Either way I'm still pro 2nd-amendment, but the breakfast thing is retarded.

>Most of those deaths would be people dying from starvation.

Probably disease too, cant imagine what big us cities would be like without running water or medical aid.

U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 311.
U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 311.
U.S. Code, Title 10, Section 311.

The United States militia consists of all able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45, and all females in the Nation Guard.

i'll give you that the IRA took Ireland back through armed insurrection, and that's a pretty cogent argument for why individuals should own their own guns.
But the civil rights movement, women's suffrage, abolition of sodomy laws, established consensus on racial equality, things like this weren't achieved by overpowering the state.
IMO private ownership of a gun is solely rooted on an individual basis i.e. another person has a gun so i must have a gun.
Any argument that you need a gun in case of a tyrannical government is fucking retarded because a) you won't overpower the government with your AR-15 b)if you do overpower it it's gonna take more than an AR-15 c) even if you and all your 2A fanatic buds hole up in the appalachians you're not gonna outgun the army
can't beat the system at its own game

I tell them that criminals will always find a way to get guns.

I point out to them that guns today can be 3D printed and mounted onto a drone. If they ban law abiding citizens, gun violence will just increase.

I always make sure to use stats from Switzerland and other gun related countries whenever they bring up stats on the US. I then compare them to stats of countries where guns are banned and boom. They're minds explode. They are redpilled and one step closer to fighting for the 4th reich.

50-100 million seems rather high unless you're talking about nuking population centers or using chemicals. Are you including indirect deaths via disruptions and other events?

Tell them to diagram the 2nd amendment


Show them the authenticated version without the stupid commas.

Every citizen should be allowed to protect him/herself, that should be an unalienable right. If you can't protect yourself from a criminal, how can you trust somebody else to do it?
The second part is the one that most people get convinced by in Brazil. Our police is not very effective and full of corruption.

Here is the amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[33]

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.

And I feel very well regulated.

What's your point? I didn't contradict anything you've posted; at least I don't think so.

The 2nd amendment doesn't give us the right to bear arms. It prohibits the government from infringing on that right.

All able-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45 are automatically in the reserve militia. All females in the National Guard are also included. Regardless, everyone can own firearms because, by definition, the National Guard is not a militia.

But if I'm wrong, correct me. I'm not a lawyer.

Do you think if say an armed insurrection of even just 500k or even 50,000 change the government? Let's say they all have AR15's for example. Do you think the politicians in DC could do anything about it? Why would they try to regulate something unconstitutionally if it didn't matter?

Linked because someone usually talks about the national guard or something. That's all

Yeah i mean over a 10 year period, including starvation, disease, suicide, weather and internment camps. I beg deaths via sction would be somewhat similar to syria..

People forget how densely populated places like new york and california are.

California would be hell on earth if food, water electric logistics got fucked whilst a civil war broke out and a big earthquake happened, i could see a few million deaths alone in california.

I imagne flood defences in florida being sabotaged during a hurricane in a civil war? No food or fuel in a bad winter in some states Heatwave in texas with no ac and no water?
The US is similar in land mass to europe, with imo somewhat harsher terrain, weather etc.

I cant imagine it being much different than ww2, long term it wouldnt suprise me if 50% died in some big cities as a direct result.

50 million americans dead in 10 years wouldnt even affect global population figures at all.

Wasnt the first civil war one of the most bloody in terms of fighting age males dying. Sure it was slmething like 20% of 16-45 year olds at the time

This to the infinity, and it applies to every debate with an ideologist of any kind.
It`s not about convincing your opponent, it`s almost impossible and not worth the effort desu. It`s about undermining your opponent`s credibility in the eyes of the audience of the conversation. That`s the main purpose of presidential debates.

Florida is pretty defensible the further south you go. Hard to get major equipment in there and there are of course mosquitoes. Imagine Malaria will come roaring back easily. The cities though yes they are mostly screwed.

All Americans are the militia. A gun behind every blade of grass. Even our new friends, unless you're "racist". Pic related. They're racicst if they disagree with her.

Stop arguing via the constitution and argue via reality.
Gun laws demonstrably do nothing to crime rates.

Imagine 10-20% of californians leaving during a bad hot summer with rebel logistic attacks on highways and railways during a gas, food and water shortage, they aint going to nevada or arizona or mexico, they will probably head towards washington state, or north east.

Imagine if they get turned away at the state borders?

There are some logistical nightmares Relating to refugees and war in the us..

Now imagine the same shit in new york, florida etc Along with rioting, looting, fires..

Each populous us state is like an entire european country.

Wouldnt suprise me if people marched on dc to demand food from the government or if seperste states seceded.

Massive clusterfuck, desu.. i think its more likely a soviet union style collapse then balkanization than civil war but who knows.

Yeah you'd see disease that hasn't been around since the dark ages.

It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", not "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms".

If the liberal has any understanding of grammar that should be sufficient. In case it isn't (or you yourself are rusty), see:

>He was too good for this world, wasn't he?
One of the best Presidents this nation has ever had, unlike the Indonesian Muslim in the oval office.

Not interested in having a "national conversation" on being stripped of my rights. I will never surrender my firearms by my own free will. I am an American, fighting for freedom and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the Constitution of United States of America.