Apparently gun owners have poor reading comprehension

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

this asshole had poor reading comprehension
he just posted about one word as if there wasn't anything after that

what if I told you that playing violent video games and thinking that owning a gun for regular retard citizen such as yourself is not a good idea

Attached: 1513110690520.jpg (400x388, 71K)

What if you watch you watch mainstream movies at your local big cinema and own a gun?

What if you watch NBC/ABC/FOX crime drama's and own a gun?

>what if i gave as hit argument
could of saved you a lot of typing

A well regulated militia is necessary if needed, therefor, the government cannot take away arms from the people.

Daily reminder that governments kill more people than private citizens

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide

freemansperspective.com/death-by-government/

Congratulations. You found the terms "militia" and "well regulated" on the same page from a document dated 1788. Nothing on that page, nuanced or otherwise, detracts from 2nd amendment enthusiast arguments or enhances yours. I have never owned a gun and don't plan to own guns, but the bullshit constitutional arguments are the legal equivalent of Nostradamus predictions. You read into it what suits your own beliefs.

And by the way, your source was advocating for the systematic murder of indigenous peoples with "well regulated militia." It's disgusting that you chose that. Racist xenophobe.

So leave for another country that espouses your liberal beliefs. I hear Canada is open.

well regulated just mean well armed (with modern weapons), well trained, and well supplied. why don't you people understand that, why are you so dense?

Here are some of the original forms of the Second Amendment:
>A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people...
>A well regulated militia, being the best 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.
Which shows that the original intent was that every US citizen was the militia. All of the correspondence regarding the issue backs this point.

SCOTUS rulings on the Second Amendment:
>Second Amendment has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government.
>The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias.
This has been upheld, repeatedly. There have been some cases where the specifics of a "well regulated militia" has been argued, but it was more of a state's rights issue, rather than an individual's issue. The militia is every citizen. The militia is meant to protect against the tyranny of government. Literally every weapon that the US government possesses, that can be reasonably used to fight the US government, should be available to the militia, as long as such weapons are well regulated.

McDonald v. Chicago (2010)
>the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is "deeply rooted" and "fundamental" to the American ideal of liberty
So every feasible self-defense weapon should be legal, with no large burdens in the way of ownership or operation.

1/2

2/2

The only solution for this issue:
>clarify this right in a new amendment, banning the unreasonable obstruction of arms ownership by any government entity
>once this is established, overhaul the system
>arms safety and use should be required in public education
>semi-auto handguns, shotguns, and rifles should require a basic license: literally a guns must be registered to a license, with ballistics test records taken for each firearm
>illegal ownership of guns (unregistered, etc.) would be severely punished
>automatics should be widely available, with classes and more stringent licensing
>artillery and such should be available to organizations, with very stringent licensing for the organization
>tanks, ships, aircraft, etc. should all be available in the same way, with further scaling requirements
>large scale bombs/missiles (city-level destruction) should not be available, as they are not used in defense
This would:
>reduce crime: more people would be armed, which is an effective deterrent
>help catch criminals: all firearms would have ballistics records to track down ownership
>make the government fear the citizenry again, reducing corruption
>make it basically impossible to invade the US
More arms are better, as long as the system is set up properly.