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

Do you not understand how commas work

Spoiler alert:
OP is being disingenuous

>Dred Scott v. Sanford
>Korematsu v. United States
>Plessy v. Ferguson
Because the Supreme Court has NEVER gotten anything wrong before, right?!

Just like in Australia right? and Sweden? and the UK? and all those other countries that don't have guns everywhere?

It wouldn't be well regulated though

Except George Washington himself led efforts to confiscate post-Revolutionary war militia weaponry, particularly from angry farmers.

>Well regulated

so what?
idgaf if you want to kill niggers in your defence of the second amendment.
seriously, do not care.
everyone here is a fucking retard anyways

OP is gone, now
I shot him w/ my AR-15

Attached: Gun 4 every1.jpg (592x2540, 551K)

The Supreme court has reversed some of its own decisions.
Also the Constitution was designed to be able to be edited.

>Literally anyone can make a militia
Not according to Merriam Webster..."the organized armed forces of a country" does not mean you and your cousin, Cleetus

>NYC rate of homicide increased 3 times faster
NYC's gun laws showed a massive reduction in gun crime over the years, this graph is just not true.

Legally speaking, their interpretation is currently correct. Also, perhaps "well-regulated" meant something different when this amendment was drafted? Maybe paddle your big brain over to a search engine to figure that one out

lol kay.
Go make a milita, see how well uncle sam likes having people with these options in their back yard.

According to the Supreme Court, it does. The people ARE "the militia". "The people" is everyone, and the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms is extended to each individual citizen, not a collective organization.

>cUrReNtLy CoRrEcT
Tell that to the mothers of the dead children. Nothing about this is "correct"
>b-b-b-but it was different back then bro!!!
Non sequitur. Something most be done

Amen brother

Attached: 1549913397282.jpg (333x493, 57K)

okay.
if you're such a big man, go do something

/pol ----->

Which is what the guys who wrote and signed the Constitution make clear in their other writings.
Everyone saying they were talking about a national guard or something are full of shit.

Again, you're arguing that the Supreme Court is never wrong; and that just makes you look silly

Attached: ddff5a95dc0174ab40591606cfbe87e9.jpg (640x960, 84K)

>they're wrong because I say so
Absolute nope

LEGALLY SPEAKING. Dipshit. Learn how to read.
>Non sequitur. Something most be done
At least try and be subtle when you move your goalposts a couple hundred yards

Attached: 1566097303280.jpg (259x194, 11K)

"those who would exchange liberty for security deserve niether". My man Ben Franklin said that. You're crazy to think that I'd give my right to protect my family up... I'll die on my feet

Attached: 1565147376689.jpg (480x475, 38K)

We are talking about changing the laws, not the specifics of the current ones. Friendless shitbreath mongoloid, go sit at the kids table

Actually, that's a complete strawman, and you deserve to be imprisoned or worse for threatening to strip innocent people of inalienable negative rights

> A well-regulated militia,
A goal being sought
> being necessary to the security of a free state,
Ascribing purpose to the former,
> the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
The subject being considered,
> shall not be infringed.
The conclusion that was reached.

Rephrased without changing meaning:
> Our security as a free state depends on the common person having guns so that in an emergency they can respond. For this reason, your right to own guns shall not be infringed.

>muh constitution
What is an amendment?

What we’ll regulated militia are you a part of?

The constitution was basically an angry letter to King George by a bunch of landed gentry upset they didn’t get a seat in the British House of Lords.

It’s just a piece of paper.
The people that wrote it were just some political aspirants.

You treat the constitution like a bible, and the founding fathers as saints....neither is either

>without changing meaning
>>adds "common person shavings guns"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

>not the specifics of the current ones
That is in COMPLETE contradiction to the intent of the original post, specifically with the retarded definitions. If you would oblige yourself to perform the grueling, laborious task of scrolling up a little to confirm this, you'd figure that out.

that

Gun rights transcend the constitution. Got it?

Guns aren't the problem. 400 million guns in private legal ownership.

Attached: guns.jpg (600x750, 115K)

You’re right.

There are other countries with higher levels of gun ownership than Ameritard.
And they don’t have daily mass shootings.

The problems is Amerifats... they are dumb and shouldn’t be allowed outside without supervision

What is the point arguing about it, especially here?
Most of the anons couldn't care less what you think so I don't see why you even bother.

Welcome to the wonderful age of 14

We memes trump to the Whitehouse.

We can achieve anything

The vast majority of "mass shootings" are by the negro. If the negros disappeared from the USA all of a sudden, the murder rate would drop 90%.
The Jew media only broadcasts mass shootings by who they believe are white people, then quietly drop coverage and "outrage" broadcasts when they find out its a black, hispanic or nutcase Tranny LGBTQ person.

Attached: elliot-rodger-1.png (1000x750, 671K)

Look, a random libtard that thinks it knows better than the people that are elected to govern our country and have all agreed on the current interpretation of our second constitutional amendment. This has been visited and reviewed for decades and it has always come back to the same answer for decades. The most annoying thing about liberals is they think they know better than everyone else.

assault gun,,like all lies spoke by Dtards for the benefit of the base,,they merely want them banned to the general population,,,when they got down to tacks & write the new eleven page law,( already on the books are Ks of pages in every state in the union,,penalties for crime with guns)
at the bottom 3 paragraphs the definition fits a 10 round glock,= handguns,,,,
every blue city mayor appoints a prosecutor,a career democrat from some damn place,who blames all others except the black or latino punk who has ten years of arrests behind him,judges who let him out every time,prosecutors who bump down the charges to minimum time.
then expunge the record when jamil or
lashawn get to age 21,clean slate awarded,,goof gets let out again,

you boys who want berny ,warren or some other cuck to move into the whitehouse,,out here in small towns like cowpatch Mt pop 350,, nogales Az. , lotta mexes there for 200 years) gun clubs have mass target shoots boys,,they are all,decent law abiding, wear big hats, checked shirts,some skinny as rails,some with a pot,young girls who can ride ,shoot,the kill animals to eatem off the spit after painting them with mustard honey tomatoe paste and some jaegers,,boys work with farm equipment,,a million small towns like these,out in grasslands,you boys do NOT want to see them really pissed,,they will eat you up & spit out the bones

Attached: 89131505021a2179ba3ca2530a6d88d978b7eff6f14ae6e9b3b575fa2aadd283.jpg (407x405, 43K)

What if I told you that the idea of what guns represent is more important than the dead children?

It wouldn’t work because liberals operate on emotion Instead of logic

Attached: C94F5755-9CBD-4EDA-AB50-9B0C084C093E.jpg (407x405, 38K)

>You're gun is ONLY for when we the people need.
>You don't get to have semi-modern guns for when we need you to have them
>Trump is literally Hitler
>Give Trump you're only way to defend yourself

When will you brainlets ever learn.

Attached: 1565821315483.jpg (785x731, 101K)

Then I would respectfully disagree, as you clearly don't have kids of your own and couldn't possibly understand. The freedom you so pedantically ascribe to firearms is nothing compared to how you'll feel the first time you hold your son or daughter. Best wishes friend; stop playing with your Glock toy and get a real life

You fucking moron. First they take the guns, then they take away the other freedoms cause you can't fight back.

>it's logical to care more about a boomstick than a human fuckin being
No need to learn social grace when you can FREEDOM, right?

I have 2 kids of my own. Them dying because a mentally ill kid decides to play cowboy and lay waste to a bunch of 6th graders doesnt mean that I hate the gun or blame the gun that shot them. It's at the fault of the shooter. I'd be devastated for sure, but it is a freedom we as a people mustn't give up

>can't follow a simple instruction
>calls others moron
Still waiting pimpledick...just one example to support your thesis

warriortimes.com/2011/04/24/what-happens-when-governments-disarm-their-citizens/

Not the guy you were arguing with but here

If your argument against something is "THINK OF THE CHILDREN" more or less, you need a better argument.

Also saying someone needs to get a "real life" when they get the tools necessary to protect themselves or others is idiotic, no? It also means you consiously allow you and your kids to be at the mercy of anyone who even knocks on your door. If anyone needs to grow up, it's you.

Other countries have negros yet no mass shootings.
Other countries have guns, yet no mass shootings.
Other countries have violent vidya games, yet no mass shootings.
Other countries have immigration and multi-culturalism, yet no mass shootings.

America has daily mass shootings.

>blame the gun
I'll never understand why right-wingers unironically regurgitate this phrase...like apathy is a reasonable approach. Come up with a better argument than ***shrug***

It’s too difficult to change anything about America’s mass shooting problem.
They don’t have the resources to do anything about it.
They don’t have the infrastructure to do anything about it.

“We should just give up because it’s too hard!”
America 2019

The argument goes something like this;

Right wingers:
Guns aren’t to blame, inadequate access to mental health care is to blame!

Leftists:
So, socialised healthcare?

Right wingers:
Nope

End of conversation .

*golf clap*

Attached: 28BEC74A-5FE2-4293-9239-C4357B25C837.jpg (335x563, 40K)

No, what you don’t get is mass shootings aren’t a big issue. The only reason you’re being such a dipshit about it is because the liberal news outlets publicize every.single.one. If every single murder in the US was on the news you’d be shitting your pants about police not doing their job. Everything you libtards think has an inherent bias because you only get your info from liberal media and twitter.

Insults aside, it’s a statistical fact that liberals get most of their information from sources that just parrot their own views, try to stop being such a sheep.

Well I'll regurgitate another phrase for ya

>blame the car in a drunk driving accident
>ban all assault vehicles that can maintain speeds over 35mph

Such a small fraction of our population actually suffers from gun violence so let's ban it for everyone since some people do some things

>guns aren’t the problem
>mass shootings aren’t a problem
>people get shot every day
>not a problem

You seriously need to travel my poorfag friend .
Got out. See the world.

Daily shootings are not normal, you fucking weirdo

>it’s a statistical fact that liberals get most of their information from sources that just parrot their own views
>statistical fact
What statistics?
What “facts”?

Citation needed.

What study .
How many participants?
What control method?

Cmon faggot. Put your “facts” where your brain should be.

>muh bias

I'm not the one that brought up mass shootings kiddo. Every single murder committed by a gun is a travesty. Every. Single. One.
If you're arguing that murder isn't wrong, then...

>Shall not be infringed.

Attached: 1502853339146.png (439x290, 172K)

I’ve went o right wing websites and routinely have my accounts banned or deactivated for not falling in line with the right wing group think and for having an opinion that falls outside of what they consider “politically correct”

You are moronic in the extreme if you actually believe what you just wrote, and don’t think you are not also a sheeple bias filtering retard

>shall not be infringed
Buy a nuke.
See if you are infringed already .

Moron

Sorry, but it is a right. It's my right to carry armor and arms. Our constitution was written with purpose. The wording was chosen to allow for advancing technology, we're meant to have modern capable weapons. You're not gonna take them away, and we're not gonna give them up.

Attached: unnamed.jpg (480x360, 31K)

you missed the part where insane bloodthirsty pedophile occultists rule america

>anecdotal evidence
>calls others moron

Attached: 1334329164853.jpg (366x380, 19K)

Ac well regulated bot, being necessary to gauge the pule of Yea Forums, the right of the government to monitor and analyze data, will not be infringed.

Take this shit to reddit

Attached: RP.png (500x320, 126K)

it's illegal to have a weapon of mass destruction lol, not quite the same as what we're talking about kike

Attached: 126.jpg (900x900, 234K)

>>blame the car in a drunk driving accident
That's not even apples to oranges. We would blame alcohol in that analogy, not cars
>>ban all assault vehicles that can maintain speeds over 35mph
You're trolling. MPH has nothing to do with BAC and you know it.

Definitions change over time, numbskull. It's similar to how Fascism is now strictly defined as right-wing.

Take the word "secure," for example. In one case it means to acquire. In another, it means to keep out unwanted people, or to keep in unwanted information or goods.

At the time of the writing of the Constitution, well-regulated meant supplied and trained.

A militia is, and always has been, armed citizens.

The security of a free state:
What's a free state? Not one where the minutiae of peoples lives are dictated by the government, that's for sure. Not one where the people are slaves to taxes.

So let's look at this with the correct definitions:

An armed populace, being necessary to keep the government from overgrowing its limitations, means that the right of the people to possess and carry any sort of weapon SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

See? It's that easy.

The NFA is unconstitutional. The Hughes Amendment was passed illegally, and is also unconstitutional. Background checks are unconstitutional. Bans of any sort, on any type of firearm, are unconstitutional. Laws making it criminal to carry any sort of knife are illegal.

The people used to own the canons and ships which the government leased from them in times of war. The founding fathers did not want a standing military, knowing that it would be used against the People at some point, and used to keep the populace at bay.

Fuck your authoritarianism.

>anecdotal

But falsifiable you abject retard.

Go to a prominent right wing website, create an account with them (unless you already have one) and then start espousing liberal viewpoints in the comment section.
You will be banned.

You won’t because you don’t want to prove me correct and prove yourself an idiot...
Look who’s bias now?

>it’s illegal to have the ultimate firearm
>illegal
>infringed

Only if you arbitrarily decide it is.
Just arbitrarily decide to include “assault weapons” in your “it’s illegal” argument.

And there you go.

Got any examples?

You think “it’s unconstitutional” is the ultimate slap-back.

I don’t give a fuck about the constitution,,, it’s a dusty old relic from a bygone era with no relevance in the modern world.

So using “it’s unconstitutional” is not an effective argumentative tactic. You will need to qualify each assertion with actual facts and data - not “FOR IT IS WRITTEN!!!”

Attached: BB759611-3278-4174-95BE-2ACA43B212AE.jpg (201x201, 12K)

There you go libtard, twisting my words and thinking with emotion rather than logic. Mass shooting aren’t as big a problem as the media makes it out to be, car crashes shouldn’t cause deaths either but they’re one of the leading causes and people die from them daily.

You aren’t going to go door to door and take away guns, if you can’t take ALL guns then rifles will not make a difference.

Omg every car death is bad too, every death from fireworks is bad, every death from machinery is bad, every death from extreme sports is bad.

You’re an idiot.

>muh more car crashes
Cars have a utilitarian function outside of causing road deaths, retard.

Assault weapons do not have a utilitarian function that could be replaced with a modest hunting rifle.

You simply don’t mind the trade off - thousands of preventable Ameritard deaths per year vs Your right to stroke a powerful gun.

Just admit it to yourself that your motives are purely selfish and you are unconcerned about the public safety issue

George Washington himself was a weed farmer, and enjoyed his bounties, as per his diaries they never told you about in school.

We be keeping our guns, ese

>You aren’t going to go door to door and take away guns
Who says?

The way it works is.
Period of amnesty - where law abiding citizens can hand over their guns.
Then anyone in possession is ipso facto an armed criminal, and can be taken out lawfully.

Within a year, problem solved - and far fewer retarded right wing gun nuts making the world a worse place to live.

2 birds with one stone

>the founding fathers said/did/would have/did not etc etc

Not an argument.
Appeal to authority logical fallacy

That’s not even the point. The point is you try to argue with “meh I went to a conservative website and they banned me” and you proved me right.

Not to mention Reddit is an entire website that circle jerks liberal ideals.

>That’s not even the point.
Only you said it was anecdotal, and I said my example was anecdotal but also falsifiable , and you could literally test out for yourself if it was a true statement or not, and you are unwilling to because you would prove me right.

You are a bias retarded sheeple incapable of recognising your own hypocrisy.

Be gone, foolish child

Wow, smart guy here!

Who said it was an argument?

Fuck you and your combative narrative. You are the reason political conversation can't happen. Fuck outta here, prick...

Dear lord you’re dense, has this idea not been debated to a nauseating degree already? The answer is always the same. NOBODY is turning in their guns just because liberals want them to, and NOBODY is knocking on doors to take them.

Also, not “conservative wesbsite”
Conservative websites , plural.
All of the major , prominent ones anyway.
Have been banned from them all simply for not falling inline with their “politically correct” group think.

Your counter is “but reddit exists”
And /thedonald exists on reddit.
Your argument is null and void

I’m not the guy that said it was anecdotal, I made the original comment. There’s that libtard smugness.

So your counter argument for “actually doing something proactive against gun violence” is “nu-uh you is a dumb dumb”

Ok.

>that’s not the point
> not even the guy
Then how do you know what “the point” is, you faggot retard.

Lol no shit, Reddit allows people to make subs, but if you look at the amount of lefty subs and the amount of people on those subs, it’s overwhelmingly liberal. Any sub that isn’t inherently political is always filled with liberals, it’s a liberal website.

>Who said it was an argument?

The convention of language.

Because this entire conversation about news sources started from my post dipshit.

Every American should be guaranteed a pony and an AR-15 anything less is spitting on the graves of the founding fathers

>it’s a liberal website.
Ok.
Can you prove that “the majority of liberals” get their info solely from reddit?
Because otherwise, how is it relevant?

For example, I am lefty. I have never been reddit.
Actually that’s a lie, I have been to /thedonald and been shouted at and downvoted for not falling in line with their politically correct group think.

Pretty hard self own you got going there

No, my counter argument is your sensitive little feelings don’t matter. If you’d actually read it instead of acting like a faggot you’d know that.

The point is ITS NOT POSSIBLE and it’s been debated a million times.

O wasn’t responding to YOUR post though, was I, you retarded faggot.

You were responding to mine.

QED

>ITS NOT POSSIBLE
Then why are you so afraid of it happening, and constantly spread rumours that it will be happening soon?

Are they lying ?

Attached: OP is a faggot.png (897x565, 39K)

What does well regulated mean?

I never said they only got there information from Reddit? I said they get their information from left leaning sources.

The entire point of bringing up Reddit was because you were talking about right wing sites, it’s just an example of how there are more mainstream sites with a ‘hidden’ liberal bias, it’s just as easy to get banned on Reddit subs for right wing views.

When did I say I was afraid? Do I have a secret job working for Fox that I was never told about?

It’s the same shit the left does with their media, incite outrage.

You’re a fucking idiot pretending to be a troll to save face. Yea you fucked up and you’re a dumbass.

Remember “faggot” is hate speech and verbal assault, wouldn’t want your trap boyfriend to get hurt.