Why do Americans think their constitution grants them the right to own unlimited guns...

Why do Americans think their constitution grants them the right to own unlimited guns? It clearly mentions "well regulated militia" (i.e. the National Guard) in regards to gun ownership.

If the people that wrote the 2nd amendment could see the devastation that modern weapons can cause, they would have been even more clear, as they obviously wouldn't believe anyone needs an AR15 automatic assault rifle for hunting.

Other urls found in this thread:


constitution does not grant rights. you suck at understanding the country you are posting from shit head.

>constitution does not grant rights

The bill of rights stipulates what rights the citizens are allowed have

>Why do Americans think their constitution grants them the right to own unlimited guns?
>It clearly mentions "well regulated militia" (i.e. the National Guard)
Except for the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled time and time again that "militia"=literally every able bodied citizen over the age of 16, and given how many laws we have on the books, we're plenty well regulated.
2/10 for getting me to respond

>The bill of rights stipulates what rights the citizens are allowed have
No you fucking cuck, the bill of rights acknowledges we ALREADY HAVE these rights and that the government can't take them from us.



Shit b8 is shit OP

The national guard was actually started because the militia couldn't be trusted to follow the governments unconstitutional commands

"Well regulated" in the language of the time means "in proper working order", not government run.

A militia, even in modern language, is a civilian force - i.e average joes, not a regular army.

For the purposes of those average joes being able to form that militia and for it to be effective, they should not be restricted from being able to keep and use guns.

Furthermore, as their stated purpose is national defence, they should not be restricted from being on equal footing with their potential enemies - i.e standing armies both foreign and domestic.

You wrote that into your constitution so that someone like us would find it difficult to reconquer you.

It's clear as day what they meant.

I understand that you don't like guns and think that they cause more problems that they solve, but you will not find much traction in trying to play word games with the constitution.

It says what it says. Either respect it or change it.

people don't have any rights

Even if any jagoff is a militia, still leaves the 'well regulated' part.
Whats the general opinion of background checks and actual training to make sure dudes buying guns aren't total dipshits with them?

Thats like your opinion man, now fuck off slave.


fuck you, study your own history.

You're right, that's why they need guns to defend those rights in case some cucks like you try to take them.

>it says "well regulated"
Language is a funny thing because sometimes the meaning of words can change over time. Regulated these days means something is controlled whereas in the days of the constitution it used to mean functioning.

Ironically enough this is also why English is the worst language to enjoy Shakespeare in. Just take this quote:
>Wherefore art thou Romeo?

Obviously Juliet is not a retard, why would she be standing on an balcony to ask an empty garden where Romeo is? Meanwhile in every other language this is transleted to "Why are you Romeo?" because that's what wherefore actually used to mean and it actually makes sense that way.


Militia is the whole people, well regulated means well equipped. The case is settled on the wording. The Supreme court has already ruled on it. The founders were clear in their writings what they meant.

>The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.



The 2nd amendment doesn't grant you the rights to guns, it acknowledges that you already have that right and that the government cannot take it away, hence "shall not be infringed"

If you're going to bait then at least fucking put some research into it, 2/10.

It would be unconstitutional, but is not to say that it wouldn't be sensible.

This is the problem with being bound by rigid and (notionally) unchangeable laws.

Behold the tragedy of a state education and the polution of the english language when terms like well regulated cease to me things like "disciplined" and "practised" and simply means state regulated.

Freedom ceases to mean the freedom "to" and degenerates into the freedom "from." So that ones frredoms are provided by the state rather than ackowledged by it.

Hence we get the modern left.

The latter is honestly one of the bigger cancers in our entire government.

Because that's fucking retarded to let our militia to be ran by the people we would be revolting against

In Norwegian, you can directly translate "wherefore" to "hvorfor", which means exactly "why" in Norwegian.

Nice explanation

Lewis and Clark took a gun capable of firing 22 rounds without reloading on their trip west with them. I am 100% sure Jefferson knew about it.

This is what would really happen if the founders knew what guns we would have.


>non govt militias allowing govt to control their stock pile

You are retarded.

Huh, I didn't know that. Thanks.

On a random note in Japanese the word viking, yes the English word viking means buffet (like all-you-can-eat buffet for example, for context). Clearly this means that Britain between the years of 793 and 1066 was invaded by a Snack Attack... or the Japanese are just funny in their way of using English loanwords. I'm pretty sure there's a few more examples like this.

The Japs get pretty goofy with their English loanwords. My grandpa used to travel to china and japan alot for work in the 80s and 90s and he would always tell me that Japan liked using English words for brand names. The one I remember most was in the 90s, Japan apparently had a Gatorade type drink called Sweat.

The constitution, especially the BOR is a limiting document. It states that humans have inborn natural rights, and that the govt cannot take these rights away and must defend said rights of the people. This is why America remains free compared to other nations. Because our rights where not granted by a king or congress, but rather the one true God.
Ur a fgit

>the one true God.



When the constitution was written private citizens owned fully functional and fully armed warships. Private citizens owned long guns with rifled barrels that were vastly superior and infinitely more accurate the british brown bess. Private citizens comprise a militia . organizations such as the National Guard are government controlled military organizations. The second amendment empowers the citizenry to resist or counter tyranny. The constitution is clear and concise on my right to own whatever i fucking want. If i want to shoot tannerite targets from a 1/4 mile with my AR50 i will if I have to blast a nigger at 2am with my colt 45 because he picked the wrong house to burgle i will . what i will not do is turn in my weapons because some limp wristed faggot thinks no one should own them because because they look scary.

It was an air rifle and it none too reliable. They used it impress some injuns and it promptly faid to function after a few shots

just means not constipated.

kys or i will.

"Well regulated" in this sense means "In working order".

A well regulated militia. A militia in working order.

It says "well regulated", not "well regulated by the State". If a state becomes tyrannical, why on earth should it be in charge of handling the arms of the people?


western civilization disagrees with you. you must be a fucking immigrant from some shithole to not be able to grasp these basic concepts

The 14th states that all will be treated the same under the law.
Thus, if there is even one person who fits the definition of "a well regulated militia" then the rights guaranteed to that person will be stretched to every person.

Why didn't you just give him a (you) instead of falling for the bait

>it clearly means the National Guard, which didn't exist until the twentieth century
>but the people who wrote it couldn't see the advent of modern weaponry

Noguns logic, everyone.

>I don't know what the Bill of Rights is

Noguns education, everyone.

the bill of rights is a list of inalienable rights every human is given at birth, it is written this way so that it isn't the government or the nation that is giving you these rights. The purpose of the bill of rights for preventing the government from giving you said rights of infringing upon them. Did you pay attention in US history, m8?

>well regulated means "national guard"

No it fucking doesn't.

It means "equipped"

Fucking faggot.

in the context of a constitutional discussion your statement is irrelevant.

What is important, is what the constitution and the bill of rights says a mean in the context of its creation

>for hunting
Please stop

Where does it affirm the ability of the government to regulate firearms?
It doesn't. It only instead states that the government has no authority to infringe on the right to bear arms.

It's supposed to mean they don't have a right to make laws about it at all, they don't have a right to do background checks, etc. But the constitution is only a pseudo protection and the government knows that. Revolution is the only true protection from tyranny, not a shitty paper that the government signs.

One day when you realize you enslaved your offspring to farmers, remember this post

>every human is given at birth

by who? magic?

>full retard
The bill of rights has enumerated restrictions on the government. In no way dos it it 'list our rights'.

Our rights are not determined by the state. If you think they are, you're enslaved mentally.

By the spirit of human cooperation. Don't you remember that whole "revolutionary war."

Protip, it was a lot of death and dying, not magic, unless you consider that an alchemy.

Said it better than I could and you're not even from the U.S.

Thank you mighty bong.

Get out of America you commie bastard.

>an AMERICAN thinks the second amendment means the right of the government to make a standing army


You people who think the the Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights, you realize that with a 2/3 Majority of Congress, a constitutional amendment could be passed to repeal the 2nd amendment and then suddenly you WON'T have the right to keep and bear arms, right?

That's because your rights ABSOLUTELY come from the Constitution. Your right to free speech and free religion could be taken away. Your protection from double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and cruel and unusual punishments could be stripped.

Nothing in the Constitution can't be changed.

Well regulated in the 18th century meant heavily armed to the teeth with whatever the fuck was available at the time including attack battle sailor fortresses with nuclear cannonballs and optically obscure timbers and sail panels.

Prove me wrong, faggot.

Related doesnt mean what they think it means. In 18th century terms, he'll, even today, it means to make regular. Meaning to train militias like you train regular army soldiers.

There will literally be a revolution if that happens.

Who can be behind this post?

>2/3 Majority of Congress

Missing a couple steps there, noguns. Let me help you out.



Natty guard isn't a militia because it's formally organized. Militias are informal

The Constitution and The Bill of Rights are just stating our inherent rights, not granting them. You don't have a right to life if you don't have the right to defend it with lethal force.

If you don't have the right to life then do you have liberty? That is what the United States of America is founded upon. Though they can try to repel the second amendment, but there are so many guns out in the United States of America that it would be an unwise decision.

>He was a man of WELL-REGULATED habits, and did not like being taken unawares.
Viviette William J. Locke

Back in the days "well-regulated" had a different meaning and is archaic for "good quality", queer.

Get a load of this goyium! The militia is to protect FROM government. Thus, national guard doesn't make any sense.
Also, the rights are given BY GOD KEK. The constitution and bill of rights is supposed to LIMIT GOVERNMENT TO PROTECT OUR KEK GIVEN RIGHTS.


Maintained is the word you're looking for.

for the reading comprehension impaired:

"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."

now compare:

"A well stocked grocery store, being necessary to the feeding of healthy americans, the right of the people to grow food and have farms, shall not be infringed.

>he thinks the Constitution of the United States, written by the greatest men of their age, who were well-travelled and respected in the circles of real academics and scholars in Europe, who write the Bill of Rights, expressly noting that they were simply recognising God-given rights, can be taken away.

You think you can make a mockery of the Constitution? Take away 2A? Try it, faggot.


Explain x2

It is more than just the government. Apparently there is a militia in Arizona that sometimes patrols the borders to catch illegal immigrants. Ballsy ass mother fuckers.

Explain x3

Explain x4

Explain x5

not an argument

he 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.

Oh yes. You are one of those second ammendment nuts that cannot shoot for shit.

Fyi a smoothbore or rifled side priming musket/rifle like that will shoot better with composite materials, a bipod, and a sighted in scope.

So your example is retarded.

It is the same bullshit arguement about assault rifiles, those attachments do help, you would know that if you had any kind of serious training.

Explain x6

It is the right of the PEOPLE, not aforementioned regulated militia.



yeah nah

fuck off cunt

common sense regulations? okay how about that make everyone should eat bacon in order to buy firearms. no terrorists will ever get any. problem solved. i can't think any other common sense regulations than that.

Well regulated = well armed

It's like you don't even know your history burger

Are you fucking retarded or just dishonest. OP clearly just said "founding fathers intended only a militia to have guns" so I show quotes from letters and documents of the founding fathers saying EVERY CITIZEN should have access to firearms.

Dear dumb nigger,
When the framers used "the people" anywhere in the constitution, they meant just that...the people...not the government, not an entity (like a militia), but citizens...individual citizens.

You see the phrase "the people" all throughout the constitution. They weee smart to discern between an entity or government right and an individual right.


just fucking with you senpai

th'eir alt right with me ;^)

>will shoot better with [...] a bipod, and a sighted in scope

>It is the same bullshit arguement about assault rifiles, those attachments do help




Except that the comparison is retarded.

You need well stocked grocery stores for a functioning society. There are plenty of stable societies without guns user.


>He doesn't know about the social contract
>He's not just serving b8


Patrick Henry was the leading proponent of the 2nd Amendment. As an anti-Federalist, he was opposed to what he viewed as the poorly enumerated powers that the proposed Constitution set forth. He, and most of the other delegates, felt that the proposed Constitution provided a path for tyrants to codify their positions into law again, as was the common practice for much of human history. To garner the necessary support, a compromise was created, the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment was particularly important, as is evidenced by its position in the Bill of Rights. Most of the founders, even staunch Federalists, feared an all powerful government. It is clear that it was adopted to provide citizens with the means to defend against such a government, whether it be Hamilton's plan, or King George's. Read a book...

A militia can't exist unless private citizens own guns.

so basically, rights come from muh feelings

got it

Fuck off Texas. Why do you faggots get a flag?

You mean you didn't know the AR-15 is commonly used for hunting?

you said it yourself "Well regulated militia" but it does not say "well regulated gun ownership".

You can and you are a moron who has never shot one before.

Bipod provides a more stable platform to shoot from since .50 is pretty god damn heavy to hold.

The guns are accurate enough to hunt with dumbass, so a scope is useful as well.

Have you ever held a firearm let alone shot one?

No, rights come from God, or from simply existing if you tip your fedora.

You don't appreciate my rights to own all these guns, then come and take them. I'll give them to you when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.

>well, who regulates it
It's not like they wrote this up in an afternoon, they spent some time crafting the wording so that it would be applicable in the future, they knew weapons, technology, everything was going to advance, so they wrote up laws designed to be able to work in the future by simply being broad. Being "Well Regulated" can mean any sort of things and is up for interpretation, much like the rest of the Bill of Rights. That's what it is designed for, interpretation, not designation.

None of those items improve the pencil.

Keep trying dipshit, you make normal gun owners like me look like retards.

I like how they phrase the right panel as "mass shootings" and not "gun violence." Statistically speaking places with a high percentage of LEGAL firearm ownership have extremely low gun crime (and even actual crime). I'd like the author of this comic to explain places like Philly or Chicago, where they have very strict gun laws but tons of gun deaths.

Honestly the more I think about that phrasing it just pisses me off. It's so blatantly dishonest.

Fucking flag noob...Chile and Texas have the same flag


"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

It literally says in the bill of rights.

Constitution also specifically says all money must be gold&silver, no spying on US citizens, and no income taxes.

>Try to argue with a liberal on gun control
>Mention god


Rights come from society and your peers.

God/existence has nothing to do with it.

Thanks for posting exactly how the rights granted by the Bill of Rights can be repealed, and how the Bill of Rights absolutely grants rights rather than acknowledges rights that aren't written anywhere else.



>waaaaah I can't do mental gymastics to justify mass shootings its not fair

But thats wrong ya retard. That's not what the founding fathers meant. They literally meant that by existing (at least in America) you had these rights. The Constitutio/BoR is just explicitly stating what they are. Try again

Thank you. The troll thread can end here.

This guy has not one argument. This is a troll thread

He's talking about inherent human rights. Whether it's God, Vishnu, or simply the fact that you're human, the final result is the same.

The right of humans to self-defense shall not be infringed.

This is why we need Jesus.

>not an argument
Yes, it is. Dumbass.
They are statements, refuting an argument. Thus, it's a fucking argument.

My favorite part about the 2nd amendment is when people delude themselves into thinking that well-regulated has thr same definition today. Back then it meant well-equipped the opposite. Someone post the breakfast one.

Suppressing a right doesn't mean the right doesn't exist.

You're basically saying

>you people who have read the documents our country is based on and understood their premises as the authors intended are stupid because I was poorly-educated as a child

Those people are idiots.

The problem is those idiots are controlling the narrative where as second ammendment nuts just scream about it.

An entire gnereation is being raised that does not understand the second ammendment. And instead of coming up with solutions and helping, you dumbasses act like neckbeards and hicks.

The NRA used to be a good organization, now it is seen as an evil lobby, and it is their fucking fault.

When I look through some amount of the history of the world I think I would rather have a few shooting sprees rather than what the government is capable of.


"I don't know what the Enlightenment movement was because im a drooling retard."

Rights are inherent.

what does the 9th amendment say, faggot?

>It clearly mentions (words) in regards to gun ownership.

Wowee that's a convincing argument.

I'm not justifying anything. People break the law, wow. My purpose was pointing out the dishonesty in the author when they ignore all other gun crime and context to just single out deaths that represent a fraction of a percent of gun deaths which in turn represent a fraction of a percent of total deaths just to push an agenda. Literally standing on the graves of children.

Not even American and this annoys me.

The Second Amendment has no place in modern society. When America got organized as a country, they wrote a fairly radical Constitution with a radical Bill of Rights, giving a radical amount of individual freedom to the radical American masses. There’s too much personal freedom. When personal freedom’s being abused, the State, the only entity deserving of power, has to move to limit it. The National Guard fulfills the militia mentioned in the Second amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.

That's the first thing I saw too, Turkroach

He said he was just messing with me.

Rights are yours, not society's, your peers, or the government's. They are your rights to do with how you please.

Even in the absence of the constitution free men have those rights. It is a shame that so many western countries refuse to recognize what we recognized centuries ago.

It is a not-restrictive clause. Learn 2 grammar.

The bill of right is a fuck you to the king of England . Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness from the King fag of England.

It clearly mentions "the right of the people", not "the right of a state-managed paramilitary".

>Thinking well regulated means government oversight.

Wew lad this bait is terrible

In the 18th century the word "regulated" meant dressed/equipped. i.e. "regalia"

So it could either be interpreted to mean that people need to be able to own the finest weapons, or required to wear the finest clothing while wielding weapons.

I can't wait to liberate you leafs once you become the first western caliphate.

>There’s too much personal freedom.

May as well kill yourself now, my man.

Dumbest shit ever...man's natural state is not society. Society is a technological adaptation. Rights existed prior to society. 1.5 million years ago, I had the right to walk over and bash your stupid fucking head in with a rock. 1000 years ago, that right was limited to a few privileged members of society. The constitution removed that right from all citizens and then provided every citizen with the means to make it stick. Get a new cause, the 2nd Amendment isn't going away, and neither are guns.

>ctrl f SHALL
>only 8 results


There'sno way this isn't a proxyfag

>citizens no longer need to protect themselves

Famalam...this is trash.

Rights don't exist. They aren't real things. They are concepts, social constructs. This is why different cultures have different rights.

Women didn't have the right to vote until it was given to them. Blacks didn't have the right to own property until it was given to them. The colonies didn't have the right to self-govern until they took it. White people do not have the right to own land in Zimbabwe. People do not have the right to own cars in Cuba.

Rights are not real things. The society determines what rights people have.

Nice one, Paddy.

Come over here and I'll buy you an Irish car bomb if you promise not to get assmad over it, then let's go to the range and empty all my 100 round clipazines into some targets.


It could also mean "in working order", like a "well regulated clock", but it was never used to mean "obeying state regulation" up until the late 1800s.


I would give almost anything to see what is described in that pic attempted on the American populace

I have a question. In Canada we were told that the constitution is a living document, and changes with the times. IS that right? It dose not feel right? How dose something that acknowledge what you already have can change with the time?



I understand that you believe that. I don't care.

>they say we'll get the Enlightenment thought next year

The britbong of truth.

And if there is no society? Does a single man have no rights? Is a solitary man not entitled to his life and the defense of it?

It is living, in that you can add amendments. Good luck changing the US BoR, though. Literally cannot happen. Amendments already have stupidly high standards in the first place, let alone the found rights of the fucking country.

Not all societies recognize fundamental human rights. Doesn't mean they're not there. These societies are just oppressive and need a large dose of freedom in the future.

This is a poorly veiled shitpost.

>buy you an Irish car bomb
Is that a thing in America? Do you guys have Irish owned car bomb makers or something?

You're allowed to amend it.

Some absolute retards think it's ok to change the meanings of words to alter the law, but they're retards.

So you can add, not get rid of or change?

Ya well, that's like just your opinion man.

And you're retarded.

Don't fall for it, Eirebro. It's a trap.

Nasty, nasty trap. Waste of whiskey.

You can add an amendment that changes or repeals an earlier amendment.

If it can be taken away, then it's not a right, it's a privilege.

With no society to protect your right to live, you do not have the right to live.

Actually, that's exactly what it means.

and gay meant happy. unlike OP which is gay.

>So you can add, not get rid of or change?
Nobody's ever gotten rid of any of them as far as i know, but I don't see why you couldn't get rid of them.

Worst case scenario you can add an amendment that denies the validity of a previous amendment.

The constitution is a living document in that it can be amended. However, its damn near impossible to do so, as it requires 3/4 support in the House and Senate, or the state governors calling a constitutional convention and 34 of them supporting an amendment.
Its honestly easier to stack the Supreme Court to (((reinterpret))) the Constitution than it is to actually make changes to it.

You can change, but not "remove". You amend a previous amendment. Such as the amendment to start Prohibition, and the Amendment amending it to end it. The Prohibition amendment is still a part of the Constitution, but it's been nullified by a superseding amendment.

However, attempting to amend any of the BoR will be met with huge opposition, because it opens the slippery slope of "what's next"?

>I'm going to insist that not understanding the authors means I'm right

>With no society to protect your right to live, you do not have the right to live.

OK, so you're completely retarded and I don't have to waste time with you. Much appreciated.

Prohibition was a constitutional amendment. Getting rid of prohibition was another constitutional amendment.

It's a shot of baileys in, usually Guinness.

Because we're retards who think joking about Protestants and Catholics blowing one another up is okay, but GOD FORBID someone make a 9/11. (That is a shot of fireball in any domestic, shitty lager)

I dunno, it's some shitty drink but apparently people in Ireland get totally assblasted if you actually call it that because of those car bombings in Northern Ireland in the latter 1990's.

man just FUCK OFF with this shit
every fucking day theres 9876872346982734 retarded anti gun fagget shill thread and its always destroyed within the first 3 posts

Before the 13th Amendment, I had the right to own people as property. After the 13th Amendment, my right disappeared because society said it should.

This means that the right was whatever society deemed the right to be, and when it decided that I should no longer have that right, then I no longer had that right.

The 18th Amendment said I no longer had the right to drink alcohol. My rights to do so had completely disappeared.

The 21st Amendment said that I once again had the right to drink alcohol. My right to do so had been returned by society.

Tell me again how rights are real things and are not created by society and cultures.

That makes sense.

Little story. In I grade 12 world politics
(2 years ago)
I had this dumb bitch bleeding heart liberal of a teacher. After the 4 months of riding Fidel Castro dick, we went on to America.

She said that since it was living it every amendment could be change to better fit the time. She then said the 1st should be change for the greater good, 2nd for no one needs guns, cuz america had police, and 6th for rape charges because she believed you always believe the victim.

That never fleet right. Glad you corrected it. Thx

oh boy i love covering this 2 word phrase of the larger issue about 2 dozen times every week

The phrase "well regulated" had a different meaning back when the constitution was written.

Back then, it mean "in good operating condition", or "effective and working well".

For example, if a stove was in good working condition, they would have said that the stove is "well regulated". That sounds strange to the modern ear, but it was well-understood back in the 1700s.

In the 2nd amendment, a "well regulated militia" meant a militia that's effective and in good condition.

Once you know the real meaning, then the wording of the 2nd amendment makes more sense.

The citizens have the right to form a well regulated militia.
Militia is made up of citizens fighting for a cause/country
Army is made up of the government.

>With no society to protect your right to live, you do not have the right to live.

Discussion is over. You're a retard and nothing you contribute is of value.

Well regulated in that time and this context means standardly equipped as a regular military unit, like British Regular.

Basically we should be just as equipped as the modern infantry unit.

The militia is all the people, not the NG or reserves or whatever. It is literally random people who chose to fight. Completely unassociated with the official military.

Additionally the part "a well regulated militia being essential to the security of a free state" was a supporting after thought for why "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" in Madison's original address when he laid out the bill of rights.

There is also a second part that states that no one who has a religious or moral issue with violence should be expected to participate.

Essentially it was expecting and almost demanded that all people should have to actively be part of the militia and fight hence the reason he added that you don't have fight if you have religious or moral issues with it.

Well said!
Even if the assholes still wont get it.

Sounds like you've run out of bullshit so you're taking your toys and going home.

Well regulated also meant standard in arms and equipment, see British Regular or much later Vietnamese Regular.

Well regulated also implied we should be equally armed and equipped as the standard infantry soldiers.

Extant US gun laws, state-by-state, are the regulation of the militia that the 2nd amendment has identified.

>the constitution is a living document, and changes with the times

What you're learning up there is progressive propaganda from the far left down here.

I'm very familiar with this issue as I've been following it closely over the years.

The US Constitution is considered the Supreme Law of the Land, but right in the text are the laws about how the Constitution can he changed.

It's not a simple process, and it is not meant to be. The entire purpose of the document is to:

1 Establish a federal government
2 Enumerate the powers of that government to protect the People from overreach

Many progressives politicians believe those limits prevent them from passing more laws, such as complete gun control, in the name of "helping the People."

>Because it is so difficult to change the US Constitution, it is easier to claim that it can merely change with the times, by itself.

>This concept goes against EVERYTHING the Founders stood for

>The idea is the Supreme Law of the Land can change purely based on how a small vocal minority feel about it.

>This is the buzzword "living, breathing document "

tl;dr Libs can't garner enough support from citizens to change the Constitution, so they just say it means something else now

This reminds me of some muzzle loaders I saw in a Cabela's I went to.

All tacticooled and shit, was bizarre to look at.

Why is anyone even arguing about the "Well regulated militia" part, and how it should be parsed. It literally doesn't matter - it's unessential to the amendment. It's simply a justification for the amendment, but the amendment itself is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's the end of the conversation.

Well said, bingbong.

>Liberals: Guns are for hunting and stuff hurf durf
You're retarded, they're for self defense.

>Conservatives: Guns are for overthrowing Obama, hurf durf
You're retarded, they're for self defense.

Kek that's pretty fucking funny, could I get a Nagasaki and a Boston Bomber to? Black and tan(s) could also be a pretty good name. Love to visit USA some time and learn about the gun culture and shit. Only ever shot a gun a few times in my life.

Because they they think a well regulated militia means a regular government army.

Fug I responded to myself instead of you like a retard.

We already have Black and Tans. :) Come on over, ladies love an Irish accent. Any Irish accent.

>people don't have any rights

I pray the war starts while I'm still young enough to enjoy loading you back into the ovens, kike.

Thanks Dad

I don't understand why Liberals find it so difficult to understand the 2nd amendment. I feel like they're purposefully being obtuse because they don't like it.

The government owns the national guard. The purpose of the second amendment was to ensure that the people would be able to successfully revolt against the government if it ever became too tyrannical. because it hasn't become too tyrannical, we haven't had to form a militia, but we are still ensured the right to guns in case we ever need them.

Funny how the niggerloving reddit faggots have no understanding what "well regulated" means in the context of the 2nd amendment.

Protip: "well regulated" =/= big government regulations and gun grabbing. In the context of a militia "well regulated" refers to the ability of it's members to use and maintain firearms. But I wouldn't expect the mouthbreathing nu male tumblr cuck who made this shitty image to know that.

That means fuck all in the context of OP's argument.
It was still a Semi-Automatic rifle used by the time the constitution was written, whether it was commonly used or not.

>think their constitution grants them the right to own unlimited guns

The constitution doesn't grant us rights. We were born with that right. The constitution tells the government what not to do.

>niggerloving reddit faggots
>is a trip-using namefag


>Nagasaki nuclear bomb
Yo, someone needs to make this drink ASAP.

I have a few friends I chat to online from America, they always make fun of my inability to say three correctly. Any place you'd recommend for a nice holiday in the USA?

You have to go back senpai

To me it reads like me and my buddies have the to regularly trailer out the 209 to go plinking.

>The one I remember most was in the 90s, Japan apparently had a Gatorade type drink called Sweat.
Still available throughout Asia, and pretty good too. You have no idea how much 'Pocari Sweat' I went through when I was in Borneo.
I'll even occasionally buy it from Asian grocers now I'm back home.

>AR15 automatic assault rifle

Fuck all of you for not seeing this post as the bait that it is.


No, guns don't need a purpose. Guns are for whatever the fuck I want. Putting a hole through an old CRT is a purpose. Putting holes through paper down range is a purpose. Blowing my own brains out is a valid purpose. It doesn't matter how I use it. It's my right to own it.

t. retard

The right to bear arms is the second amendment right after free speech because it is foundational to the governmental system we have. It's a part of the checks and balances system that regulates our government.


>"well regulated militia" (i.e. the National Guard)


"Sister, put on this hat, turn around and bend over so I can take a picture for the Internet"

>An Irish Car Bomb is an American bomb shot cocktail, similar to a boilermaker, made by dropping a shot of Irish cream and whiskey into a glass of stout.

>AR15 automatic assault rifle

Nothing wrong with saying tree.

Honestly, I would just avoid places with a lot of blacks/mestizos and a lot of Irish Americans. The former for obvious reasons and the latter because I think you'd have a better experience. Not because there's anything wrong with Americans of Irish descent, but Chicago or south Boston or whatever just aren't as fun.

The northwest is really nice. Beautiful country, lots of opportunity to shoot, etc.

More like Nagasake aaaay lmao

>being this new

Fuck you New Zealand I almost spilled my drink.

(it's only 10 o'clock AM and I'm already drinking someone pls send help)

By the way, my dad went to high school over there and has always wanted to go back. How is life over there?

>oh look, this tired and debunked argument again

Must be a newfag.

When the time comes, I will enjoy caving your skull in with a brick while passerby cheer.

>Avoid niggers
Pretty solid advice. I've met some plastic paddies before, I don't mind them too much, but the accent grinds my gears pretty hard. I'll look into the Northwest for a possible holiday, thanks Ameribro, keep on being free.

>in-line .50 caliber muzzleloader

Pick one faggot

You are a idiot for comparing a modern in-line with a flint lock or percussion cap.

An in-line shooting pyrodex with saboted or skirted rounds is not the same as a Kentucky or Hawken rifle shooting patch and ball with traditional black powder. They do not allow modern muzzleloaders in traditional shooting competitions. Why? Because an in-line will give more consistent groupings and is less prone to inconsistencies. this has to do with the way the action is set off and the round shout out of it. The delay with a flintlock and impurities in the casting of a lead ball has a lot to do with how accuracy is effected. And that's not even touching on the abilities of the shooter.

Both modern and traditional muzzleloaders accurate to hunt with, but unless you are really good with one the farthest shot I would take with a flintlock is 75 yards, and that is pushing it. Same with a percussion cap.

Try putting a scope on a flintlock without damaging it or the rifle and tell us how that goes. A bipod would be useless because it would effect the tuning of the barrel. The stock and barrel are seated so close to each other that it would make a noticeable difference in how the weapon shoots.

What kind of tool is used in this pic to analyze the sentence? That is really cool.




amended that for you.

Also, you don't need to be a marksman to be enthusiastic about preserving consitutional rights.

I don't want to live in a pink house, and I don't live in a pink house, but it's important for me to have the right to paint my house pink if I choose to at some point.

might is right

that's why we have guns

What does a well regulated clock mean to you?

A clock controlled by government regulations?

It's called a sentence diagram. Bit of a lost art because it's rarely taught anymore even in private schools.

Sorry you had such a shit teacher user

My favorite part of the Constitution is where it says "All men."


What makes you think we want this faggot

Armed gays don't get bashed