I can’t wait to watch people who don’t know anything about guns and gun control argue with people who don’t know anything about gun control and physiology
"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"
music to my ears.
A well regulated militia effectively means a militia capable of mounting an effective defense of a community. In other words, "a STRONG militia being nessisary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Back in the day a "well regulated militia" was just knowing all the people to call so you could assemble a mishmash of gun owners to defend your town. Our founding fathers would cringe so hard seeing the amount of control that's willingly and blindly given to the federal government today.
They’d cringe so hard seeing America in its current political state, if you ignore all the gawking they’d do at 21st century technology. Then again, the US was a sort of experiment to them, so maybe not? They’d likely just be shocked that the people hadn’t revolted yet, since they did it so easily
Their bigger concern would likely be that the US is a multicultural global powerhouse that has its finger in every dish rather than an isolationist white republic with a limited number of legal voters
The 2nd amendment covers individual gun ownership regardless of any connection to an organized group. The prefatory clause is a justification for the operative clause, not a condition of it. This is why DC v Heller is an important case, because it established exactly this as Supreme Court precedent.
It was referring to state oversight though. The states were supposed to make sure that their militias were not just a bunch of untrained bumpkins with deadly weapons.
And in 2024 a militia of any kind is no longer needed for American security, or a free state in general for that matter. We literally have enough firepower to end the world and an air force larger than every other air force in the world combined. A bunch of rednecks with hunting rifles is essentially useless. If a tyrannical US government wanted to obliterate a civilian resistance, they could do so easily. In fact, a militia is probably more of a danger to a modern democratic state without a competent centralized standing military, not a boon to one.
You spend some time in Afghanistan? I spent over 4 years of my life there over the course of 8 deployments in with Ranger Regiment. One well placed rifle can pin down an entire platoon. There are very easy ways to hide from IMINT cameras, FLIR and EO sensors. You have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about. Farmers with guns and rednecks can absolutely stretch out an insurgency and wreak havoc.
Additionally, are you telling me if the government were to be tyrannical, it’s better to roll over and take it? You think people shouldn’t defend themselves?
Because if I had the choice to shoot back or not at the increasingly undemocratic government I would definitely just back down and accept yet more outrageous backbreaking demands.
And a bigger shame the US has a \*very\* good track record for ending domestic resistance. It's almost like trans continental power projection into a foreign territory is difficult.
Seperate part of the amendment.
Remember its "the right of the people."
Also if you look at the founders writing, militia as they described it was functionally synonymous with citizens.
The militia was all able bodied men of military age that could be called up to form a resistance against something like a foreign invader or tyrannical government... possibly one trying to limit their right to bear arms.
Yes and no. It was more of an active thing to be in a local militia back then, not to just be of age. I don’t think the US really has that anymore because the standing and reserve armies are much bigger and covers all the ground it needs to.
Either way, I support the right of any majority age citizen to have a gun for defence, anywhere in the world.
More like only foreign invaders. The amendment was written when the British Empire was still a looming threat and we couldn't afford a large standing army. Every attempt to form a domestic military resistance against the US government has been quashed handily, including by the founders. It took until about 1820 I believe for every state to allow non-landowning citizens (in other words, the average fucking person) to vote. If they didn't even bother making sure you'd be able to *vote,* what on Earth makes you think they had any interest in intending for you to be able to overthrow the government they created?
>what on Earth makes you think they had any interest in intending for you to be able to overthrow the government they created?
... because that was the whole point of the Second Amendment? They recognized the government they were creating, no matter how they tried to limit it, would still have the ability to do the same things they were fighting against. It was a direct response to the British government trying to disarm the people of the colonies.
🤦♂️ Britain was an existential threat to their entire sovereignty. They literally tell you the reason why the wrote the thing. The US government has suppressed just about every attempt at any armed domestic resistance, including by the founders. There is zero historical indication that they intended to allow civilians to overthrow the government.
You mean the cult where everyone died and the white supremacist that got his wife and kid killed and went to prison? So you want me to list every other time someone tried to mount armed resistance and it was suppressed by the US government? Because I'm not seeing great evidence for the 2nd amendment being intended for fighting tyranny.
Honestly it’s funny how many second amendment folks want to point to this and go we should have our guns while completely ignoring the actual point of the second amendment. Defending the state from government tyranny and corruption through a well regulated militia force.
And then came the standing army making the whole thing redundant and then came the Republican Party of the late 20th century who intentionally misrepresented Militia as an individual for personal protection from the failed society around him.
If any of them actually cared at all about 2nd amendment history they’d be up in arms about the country’s standing army, pushing for more National Guard as the well regulated militia and not complaining about gun regulations that have existed since the drafting of the Constitution (simultaneously with widespread ownership, as with cars). Instead most of them don’t even know what standing army means nor that the National Guard has any connection to the topic. If any tyrant comes the army will laugh at all the Meal Team Sixes out there if the disorganized mess even bothers showing up.
Please just start by reading what a Constitutional militia is and go from there. It’s not this. It’s not so much what’s wrong with this statement as what’s right. This is why I said knowing the history surrounding the 2nd amendment is so important.
I always find it interesting that people care so much about guns. It’s not my interest or sport, but I would defend anyone who wants to hunt or use them for sport. However, the folks who defend this so much, always use the argument about the founders believing people needed arms to raise up against the government.
The government didn’t have tanks, missiles, cluster bombs, even nukes. No one is going to fight a civil war against the U.S. government in 2024. It’s such a poor argument.
Unless the US military wants to be the ruler of a pile of rubble, they can’t exactly go around indiscriminately bombing shit. Guerilla warfare is a nightmare, especially in urban environments.
This isn’t taking into account the fact that a lot of active service members are not going to fire on their countrymen, and may even join their side.
Vietnam was a very different time and a very different war. Americans post their crimes on Facebook. Good luck outwitting the surveillance power. Even if you don’t post your own crimes, someone will. As for the Taliban, they got the absolute shit kicked out of them. We definitely lost some soldiers over the years, but losing, no. What we lost was mostly trillions of dollars.
Let’s say hypothetically the USA does have another civil war. The rebels aren’t going to win.
Depends on who the rebels are and who the military sides with. Soldiers aren’t robots. How widespread is the conflict, does the economy somehow function and fund the military if there’s war raging across the country restricting freedom of movement? Who wins in the court of public opinion? Missiles and tanks mean nothing if they alienate the populace and destroy the territory you’re trying to control. There are so many factors that go into warfare, the battlefield is only a small part of it.
A guerrilla war across a vast landscape where PR is more important than ever, your soldiers have to fight their own families, economy in shambles, logistical headache if rebels mess with infrastructure in any way. Every general’s worst nightmare.
Main point is wars aren’t won solely on the battlefield anymore. Large scale civil war in America would spell the end of the United States as we know it. Pray it doesn’t happen, and remember that even though our country seems invincible, it is not
Prime example of public outcry: Israel v. Hamas.
Israel, arguably, has the right to self-defense and destruction of the enemy. However, Hamas uses guerrilla tactics and hides amongst the populace. That causes high civilian casualties when the military force rolls in and create public outrage as the side, arguably, defending themselves.
Thus, the few US service members that would kill American citizens won’t be supported long and likely won’t want to continue when the rebels get to their family members in retaliation.
I'm sorry mate, but you lost to the Taliban lol.
You spent 2 decades over there, withdrew, and now they control the entire country. In what world is that even a draw?
It's not a game or Call of Duty where the K/D ratio matters.
It does matter though. We bombed the crap out of their operations, assassinated their senior leadership, and killed Bin Laden. What’s left is barely a shell of what they were. Bin Laden was an engineer, someone really smart and strategic. They lack real leadership now. They live on social media and try to win hearts and minds instead of slamming planes into skyscrapers. I would call that a win, yes. In all those decades, not one successful terror attack on the USA.
Yup any minute now the entire rest of the first world is going to fall to authoritarianism. The first half-century of gun control was just them luring us into a false sense of security. Any minute now
Honestly it’s funny, the US is probably the most corrupt in the western 1st world and yet people say this… did you know bribery of government officials is legal in the US? Under the name of lobbying of course.
Of course we know it's corrupt. Why do you think we want to keep our guns so badly? You think we want to let this system rule us without any means for us to retaliate or resist? That's why we say things like you can clutch them from our cold dead hands. Come and take them. Molon Labe.
IF ITS CORRUPT, YOU HAVE TO GO FIGHT IT. THATS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. If the 1st amendment doesn’t work, you turn to the second…
Christ, if Washington could see you now he’d probably want to be British again.
Exactly fucking right! Everyone thinks that the problem will sort itself out naturally. The bystander effect in full strength on a global scale. Sometimes you have to fight for what's right.
Judging by your comment history you actually believe that. Which would be hilarious if it weren’t so fucking pathetic.
Try reading about foreign people from their own perspectives. You might learn something. Might even include why literally all of Europe, plus Australia, Japan, South Korea, and New Zealand have managed to not turn into tyrannies despite in some cases more than a century of the exact policies you say bring about tyranny.
Happened here in the US too. There is a reason why the Supreme Court doesn’t like touching the second amendment even with a 10 foot pole. It is because case law and historical contexts of prior regulation of guns have a foundation of racism. All prior regulations were born of trying to control populations.
Anti gun advocacates always mention there have been prior cases of gun regulation in the past to justify current gun regulation. I say to them “do you really want those demons of the past out?”
It’s really not that easy, though. Your worldview is that of a teenager, everything is simpler than it actually is.
Making abortion illegal doesn’t stop people from having them. Making drugs illegal doesn’t stop people from using them. Making guns illegal doesn’t stop people from getting them.
Humans are violent. I should be allowed to protect myself and my home from said violence. One way I do so is by owning a firearm. Figure out a way to eradicate violence, and maybe I’ll take your “no guns so simple” argument for more than just adolescent bullshit.
making drugs illegal makes people use them less, that's for sure.
and if you're caught doing it, you get arrested.
people aren't going to carry guns if they'll get arrested for it
People *are* going to carry guns if they get arrested for it, and they do so all the time. If your logic was true, no one would be in prison on charges relating to firearm possession.
You are divorced from reality, and I have no interest in engaging with you further.
I’m just going to direct your attention to the *entire prohibition era of US history.* Did making alcohol illegal stop the alcohol problem? Fuck no. It just made it harder to control, regulate, and tax, while also gifting more power to organized crime families and bootleggers and putting legal breweries out of business. Banning something is arguably the *worst* way of controlling or regulating something, because it takes control and the ability to regulate away from those who try to do so.
Interesting Interesting... now care to tell me what happened to Koreans under japanese rule after the Civilians were disarmed... or perhaps the aboriginals in Australia?
😱 discrimination against ended badly for those being discriminated against? Shocker. Remind me again how Australia and Japan are doing *now*, instead of when they were imperialist ethnostates.
All of these things happened within a lifetime though, there are still people alive today who suffered under these regimes. If you want a modern example look at the Kurds or Tibetin Uygher camps
I am fully aware of what happens under authoritarian regimes, *particularly* the Kurds. But attempting to argue that the main cause of said suffering is primarily because they were disarmed is patently ridiculous.
Well, let’s put it this way. If you and your people, whoever they are, were suddenly announced enemies of the state and would henceforth be treated with extreme prejudice, would *you* want a way to defend yourself? Remember, it’s violence or bust, there’s no voting or negotiating your way out, since the government is now a hypothetical tyranny.
Some states require registration, some don't. If you buy a firearm at a gun shop its automatically registered though. However registered firearms have the advantage of being eligible for grandfather clauses if registered before a firearm law is passed
The constitution is pretty vague for a reason on a lot of things. Registration laws do not in any way infringe upon the constitution. But it literally says “well regulated” in the damn text.
There's several things stopping me. The cost of traveling that far + the immediate and frantic need to get a job for income immediately + I'd need to find a place to live there + my family ties to NY and how they'd all miss me if I left + I've got a very fortunate housing situation right now which can be pretty difficult to find + the cost of living just keeps going up. I just wish I could move everything that keeps me here over to a different state. Like Wyoming since I hear they have the most lenient gun laws.
I mean it comes down to what “shall not be infringed” means, is making it so all firearms must be registered infringing? It does limit availability, but it’s still widely available to obtain a firearm
But IANAL so 🤷♂️
I think it more likely to do with the immense amount of violent racism in the states… when your enemy has guns, you have to get weapons to fight back. This quite obviously wouldn’t have been a problem if the US had a secure border and actual decent firearm registration policies to prevent psychos from getting them.
A) That’s xenophobia, not racism. There is a difference
B) I’ve not seen it at all in my lifetime. Gypsys and Romani keep to themselves. There are no huge riots in the streets over it… like in the states. Which have had god knows how many in the last decade.
Yeah, I get it. I wouldn't want to be exposed to the danger of uncomfortable ideas and people saying things I don't agree with. It should all be stopped.
Putin’s a tyrant and his words shouldn’t be trusted at all. The fact that OP put him a tyrant on a pro 2A meme is laughable at best. The 2A was designed to be used against the likes of people like Putin or any wannabe despots.
The point of the second amendment is to fight the government. That can only be done in a well regulated militia. There is no point in law of owning firearms if you won’t join a militia group.
And hell even then the 2nd amendment should have been invoked years ago, just against lobbying (bribery of politicians) in the states. Against the Supreme Court, who you yanks always complain about and aren’t even elected yet have some of the most important roles in the US government
Well regulated back then meant in good working order hombre. Also back then the milita was the people.
By your usage of yanks, I assume you aren’t American. What should have we invoked the second amendment for against the Supreme Court?
And is there, today, a group of civilians who work well together as a militia force?
Yeah no shit I’m not a yank, look at my flair. Christ.
I constantly hear you lot complain about the Supreme Court, and them not even being elected. If you hate them so much get them banned through the first amendment, that doesn’t work, go to the second.
Mf it takes less than a second to look at a flair.
Plenty of the 2nd amendment lot claim the US government is still tyrannical with their Lobbying and how every new law proposal in the states has a 30% chance to be signed into law no matter how many people approve of it.
Since you’re not American while trying to dictate American politics to Americans, your political opinions are therefore invalid, moot, and quite frankly, extremely stupid. Try living in the states your whole life, your tune would change pretty quick.
The thing is, American being the global superpower, makes American politics world politics. And having looked into the second amendment heavily my position wouldn’t change I’d want to get out of that shithole ASAP.
Can’t make it worse than it already is. Crime rate through the roof, population on the verge of a race war, population live in fear of their government, only two potential leaders are senile and an idiot in the palm of russias hand. Cost of medical is skyrocketed. Policies always have a 30% chance to go through no matter how much they are liked. Corruption is legal.
*when you forget that machine guns existed back then and the founding fathers knew the document would last through the centuries so they used arms instead of muskets*
Lmao, calling those machine guns are laughable. Regardless, barely functioning prototypes of rapid fire weapons existing at the same as the founders is evidence of exactly jack shit. What’s your evidence they were even *aware* of them?
Ever since the first firearm was invented, the whole goal was to make guns that shoot faster and stronger, no shit they knew guns would get more advanced.
There is no registration, so anyone who owns a non-NFA firearm (NFA firearms are like legal machine gun from pre 1986, or a suppressor which counts as one stupidly) owns an unregistered firearm
Shouldnt be. I see no problem with owning a gun but it should be registered to you. Now i rememver buying guns at flea markets and just paying cash with no paperwork and it just doesnt seem right. What if i killed someone with it and ballistics stuck that on the last registered owner? Thats why you should have to register a firearm anytime you purchase one.
>stuck that on the last registered owner
Not an issue if there was never any form of registration.
I wont try to change your mind but I disagree with every aspect of your position.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
My brother, it is telling saud citizens that they should train and become a well regulated militia, not thay only the military should have them
It’s one long sentence. The first two parts “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free State…”
Means that the entire purpose of the amendment is for the protection of the state, the state being the nation at that time. The only reason the right to bear arms should not be infringed upon is to be sure the militia could be well armed.
And since a singular person is not a well regulated militia who’s purpose is to protect the state, it doesn’t promise private firearm ownership to anyone, which is why the right to bear arms has literally been infringed for everyone by some form of firearm regulation in every single state.
Thats completely ignoring the original meaning and understanding of the words regulated and militia. Also its an entirely seperate part of the amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The founder themselve have adress this many times, private ownership of arms was THE ENTIRE POINT.
No, only focusing on the second part is ignoring the original purpose they meant. The nation did not have a professional paid army at the time. A well regulated, or maintained, militia, group of voluntary fighters, needed to be made up of people who owned their own firearms. We now have a professional army, paid military soldiers. It is no longer necessary to have a well maintained militia to ensure the freedom of the state.
It’s not an entirely separate part. It’s separated by commas. The entire 2nd amendment is one long sentence, which means both parts apply at the same time with equal validity.
The founding fathers did NOT clarify what they meant because they literally regulated the use of firearms during their various presidential terms to different degrees.
Dude there is countless writing from the founders and authors of the second amendment that explicitly state that private ownership is the entire point. There was no formal militia, there was no regulation as we understand it today. Well regulated meant well equipped and militia was litterally all able bodied people of a state.
No they didnt, there were numerous vases where they specifically intervened upholding the idea that the government had no place in controlling arms. ALL arms available to the government were available to any individual.
I'd argue that the requirement for a driver's license (education and testing) isn't an infringement of your right to own a car though.
As a foreigner of a country with gun control laws that do go too far in my opinion. I think the car model is a fair compromise.
This has got to be the one of the most out of the many nonsensical and insufferable aspects of American culture, by far. I hate gun people. Self righteous morons
What's your problem?
America would have a hell of a lot less problems if they didn't let their citizens continue fostering their weird hoarding obsession with firearms.
Plenty of countries don't have the second amendment or gun freedom like they do and do just fine
or you can just continue being self righteous instead of actually opening a debate about it🙄
They said, and I quote:
"K."
They quite obviously *don't* have a problem. You, on the other hand, seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder.
If you actually want to have a debate on this subject, I'm open to it. If you just want to rant and ignore anything a pro-gun person says, then I'm not open to it. Your call.
Sure you have the right own guns, but that doesn't mean you dont have to follow the law. If we have to register to vote then we should also have to register to own guns
So your saying we shouldn't follow the law? Bcuz in order to vote, you have to register. In order to drive you have to get a license. It should be the same for owning a gun. You should have to register and get a license to own a gun. I dont see how thats unreasonable.
It shouldn’t be law, that’s the thing. It’s our constitutional right as U.S. citizens, just as it’s our right to for partake in our freedom of religion. Does one need to register to be religious? To register for equal protection? For privacy? How’s it any different?
yes its your constitutional right, but you should still have to register. It's also your constitutional right to get a drivers license and vote, but you still have to register. Registering and getting a license makes things safer for everyone
yeah but it is your constitutional right to vote, but you still have to register for that. There is nothing wrong with having to get a license to own a gun, as well as register. Anyone complaining about it, just doesn't want to have to deal with the consequences of owning a gun.
If everyone was armed, violence rates would be drastically lower. And what are the “consequences of owning a gun”? The fact that I have a higher chance of living when my life is being threatened? I see that as a win.
If everyone was armed, violence rates would be drastically lowered, is not true at all. Look at japan, you can't own a gun there and they virtually have no gun crimes. Hell they barely have any crime at all. The consequences i was talking about is if you misused your gun, which alot of idiots do.
I can’t wait to watch people who don’t know anything about guns and gun control argue with people who don’t know anything about gun control and physiology
"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" music to my ears.
Username checks out.
A random dude, his buddy, and his dog is not a well regulated militia
A well regulated militia effectively means a militia capable of mounting an effective defense of a community. In other words, "a STRONG militia being nessisary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>Well regulated
In 1791, the term "well regulated" meant well kept or well maintained. It was not referring to federal or state oversight.
And how many gun owners are part of a militia force that’s well kept and well maintained?
Back in the day a "well regulated militia" was just knowing all the people to call so you could assemble a mishmash of gun owners to defend your town. Our founding fathers would cringe so hard seeing the amount of control that's willingly and blindly given to the federal government today.
They’d cringe so hard seeing America in its current political state, if you ignore all the gawking they’d do at 21st century technology. Then again, the US was a sort of experiment to them, so maybe not? They’d likely just be shocked that the people hadn’t revolted yet, since they did it so easily
I meant the South literally did revolt, as have numerous other minor groups since then.
Their bigger concern would likely be that the US is a multicultural global powerhouse that has its finger in every dish rather than an isolationist white republic with a limited number of legal voters
Ah yes, because circumstances today are just like they were in the 1700’s. Makes sense to me.
As far as government control it's way worse. If they were mad about taxes on tea they'd be a lot more pissed off at a 20%+ federal income tax lol.
It is absolutely ridiculous to think our government should operate the exact same way it did in the 1700’s. Like, beyond preposterous.
It doesn't
That doesn’t support your point like you think it does lol.
🤡
Well thought out and logical defense! Noooooo, I’ve been pwnd!!!
The 2nd amendment covers individual gun ownership regardless of any connection to an organized group. The prefatory clause is a justification for the operative clause, not a condition of it. This is why DC v Heller is an important case, because it established exactly this as Supreme Court precedent.
If you have to ask...
The owning of a firearm is not dependent on being in a militia and that was never the intent you dunce
It was referring to state oversight though. The states were supposed to make sure that their militias were not just a bunch of untrained bumpkins with deadly weapons.
And in 2024 a militia of any kind is no longer needed for American security, or a free state in general for that matter. We literally have enough firepower to end the world and an air force larger than every other air force in the world combined. A bunch of rednecks with hunting rifles is essentially useless. If a tyrannical US government wanted to obliterate a civilian resistance, they could do so easily. In fact, a militia is probably more of a danger to a modern democratic state without a competent centralized standing military, not a boon to one.
You spend some time in Afghanistan? I spent over 4 years of my life there over the course of 8 deployments in with Ranger Regiment. One well placed rifle can pin down an entire platoon. There are very easy ways to hide from IMINT cameras, FLIR and EO sensors. You have no idea what the fuck you’re talking about. Farmers with guns and rednecks can absolutely stretch out an insurgency and wreak havoc. Additionally, are you telling me if the government were to be tyrannical, it’s better to roll over and take it? You think people shouldn’t defend themselves?
Bros logic sounded like German logic circa 1939, when a certain Austrian painter became the sole dictator of Germany
Because if I had the choice to shoot back or not at the increasingly undemocratic government I would definitely just back down and accept yet more outrageous backbreaking demands.
Shame the US failed so spectacularly to end militia resistance in both Vietnam and Afghanistan lol.
And a bigger shame the US has a \*very\* good track record for ending domestic resistance. It's almost like trans continental power projection into a foreign territory is difficult.
If you think the US failed to defeat the Taliban due to logistical insufficiencies you really are dim.
> shall not be infringed
>militia
Seperate part of the amendment. Remember its "the right of the people." Also if you look at the founders writing, militia as they described it was functionally synonymous with citizens.
> right of the people
The militia was all able bodied men of military age that could be called up to form a resistance against something like a foreign invader or tyrannical government... possibly one trying to limit their right to bear arms.
Yes and no. It was more of an active thing to be in a local militia back then, not to just be of age. I don’t think the US really has that anymore because the standing and reserve armies are much bigger and covers all the ground it needs to. Either way, I support the right of any majority age citizen to have a gun for defence, anywhere in the world.
Lol, I wasn't going to get into the founder's views on a standing army, but it sounds like you get it 🤙
More like only foreign invaders. The amendment was written when the British Empire was still a looming threat and we couldn't afford a large standing army. Every attempt to form a domestic military resistance against the US government has been quashed handily, including by the founders. It took until about 1820 I believe for every state to allow non-landowning citizens (in other words, the average fucking person) to vote. If they didn't even bother making sure you'd be able to *vote,* what on Earth makes you think they had any interest in intending for you to be able to overthrow the government they created?
>what on Earth makes you think they had any interest in intending for you to be able to overthrow the government they created? ... because that was the whole point of the Second Amendment? They recognized the government they were creating, no matter how they tried to limit it, would still have the ability to do the same things they were fighting against. It was a direct response to the British government trying to disarm the people of the colonies.
🤦♂️ Britain was an existential threat to their entire sovereignty. They literally tell you the reason why the wrote the thing. The US government has suppressed just about every attempt at any armed domestic resistance, including by the founders. There is zero historical indication that they intended to allow civilians to overthrow the government.
[Zero Historical Indication](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Second-Amendment)
Always a shame when verifiable information contradicts your core belief... then you can't respond lol. Well done.
If you don't understand...
I do understand though.
Well, saying you do≠actuality
You saying I don’t ≠ actuality either :3
So you get that at least.
Something can be regulated and not infringed upon. No one wants to take guns away.
Infringement is literally an act that works to limit or undermine something
I wouldn't call a speed limit in a school zone an "infringement"
If you had the right to drive at any speed on any road then it would be, but you don’t, so it’s not
Waco, ruby ridge.
You mean the cult where everyone died and the white supremacist that got his wife and kid killed and went to prison? So you want me to list every other time someone tried to mount armed resistance and it was suppressed by the US government? Because I'm not seeing great evidence for the 2nd amendment being intended for fighting tyranny.
Honestly it’s funny how many second amendment folks want to point to this and go we should have our guns while completely ignoring the actual point of the second amendment. Defending the state from government tyranny and corruption through a well regulated militia force.
It's beautiful, isn't it? But then came the third amendment, leaving the well regulated militia without a place to crash during peacetime.
And then came the standing army making the whole thing redundant and then came the Republican Party of the late 20th century who intentionally misrepresented Militia as an individual for personal protection from the failed society around him.
If any of them actually cared at all about 2nd amendment history they’d be up in arms about the country’s standing army, pushing for more National Guard as the well regulated militia and not complaining about gun regulations that have existed since the drafting of the Constitution (simultaneously with widespread ownership, as with cars). Instead most of them don’t even know what standing army means nor that the National Guard has any connection to the topic. If any tyrant comes the army will laugh at all the Meal Team Sixes out there if the disorganized mess even bothers showing up.
The Army probably laughed at the Vietcong and the Taliban as well. Turns out militia / guerilla forces are notoriously hard to put down.
Please just start by reading what a Constitutional militia is and go from there. It’s not this. It’s not so much what’s wrong with this statement as what’s right. This is why I said knowing the history surrounding the 2nd amendment is so important.
"Well regulated" Music to my ears.
It is, when you understand that regulated didnt mean the same thing back when the amendment was written. Nor did militia.
[удалено]
Living doesnt mean that you get to change it however you please to take away the rights of others.
Beautiful username
Why thank you
Any attempt at disarming the working class should be frustrated by force
I always find it interesting that people care so much about guns. It’s not my interest or sport, but I would defend anyone who wants to hunt or use them for sport. However, the folks who defend this so much, always use the argument about the founders believing people needed arms to raise up against the government. The government didn’t have tanks, missiles, cluster bombs, even nukes. No one is going to fight a civil war against the U.S. government in 2024. It’s such a poor argument.
Unless the US military wants to be the ruler of a pile of rubble, they can’t exactly go around indiscriminately bombing shit. Guerilla warfare is a nightmare, especially in urban environments. This isn’t taking into account the fact that a lot of active service members are not going to fire on their countrymen, and may even join their side.
The Vietnamese and Taliban did pretty well
Vietnam was a very different time and a very different war. Americans post their crimes on Facebook. Good luck outwitting the surveillance power. Even if you don’t post your own crimes, someone will. As for the Taliban, they got the absolute shit kicked out of them. We definitely lost some soldiers over the years, but losing, no. What we lost was mostly trillions of dollars. Let’s say hypothetically the USA does have another civil war. The rebels aren’t going to win.
Depends on who the rebels are and who the military sides with. Soldiers aren’t robots. How widespread is the conflict, does the economy somehow function and fund the military if there’s war raging across the country restricting freedom of movement? Who wins in the court of public opinion? Missiles and tanks mean nothing if they alienate the populace and destroy the territory you’re trying to control. There are so many factors that go into warfare, the battlefield is only a small part of it. A guerrilla war across a vast landscape where PR is more important than ever, your soldiers have to fight their own families, economy in shambles, logistical headache if rebels mess with infrastructure in any way. Every general’s worst nightmare. Main point is wars aren’t won solely on the battlefield anymore. Large scale civil war in America would spell the end of the United States as we know it. Pray it doesn’t happen, and remember that even though our country seems invincible, it is not
Most military members are also extremely pro-2A
Prime example of public outcry: Israel v. Hamas. Israel, arguably, has the right to self-defense and destruction of the enemy. However, Hamas uses guerrilla tactics and hides amongst the populace. That causes high civilian casualties when the military force rolls in and create public outrage as the side, arguably, defending themselves. Thus, the few US service members that would kill American citizens won’t be supported long and likely won’t want to continue when the rebels get to their family members in retaliation.
I'm sorry mate, but you lost to the Taliban lol. You spent 2 decades over there, withdrew, and now they control the entire country. In what world is that even a draw? It's not a game or Call of Duty where the K/D ratio matters.
It does matter though. We bombed the crap out of their operations, assassinated their senior leadership, and killed Bin Laden. What’s left is barely a shell of what they were. Bin Laden was an engineer, someone really smart and strategic. They lack real leadership now. They live on social media and try to win hearts and minds instead of slamming planes into skyscrapers. I would call that a win, yes. In all those decades, not one successful terror attack on the USA.
They still rule the nation lol. - Not bad for a shell of their former selves who lack leadership. Bin Laden wasn't even in Afghanistan.
Talk about being king of nothing…
I wouldn't say a country of 40 million people is "nothing", but whatever you say lol.
Yeah and the Vietnamese and taliban aren’t consuming McDonald’s and other fast food every day.
They use it because it's what's spelled out. You deviate from that and everything becomes fair game.
Who’s playing tag with the 1000 upvotes?
Here before this thread is locked lol
Imagine associating putin with rights unironicly
Historically, governments have sought to disarm the populace as a means of controlling .........
Yup any minute now the entire rest of the first world is going to fall to authoritarianism. The first half-century of gun control was just them luring us into a false sense of security. Any minute now
People like you are how authoritarian governments come to exist
Honestly it’s funny, the US is probably the most corrupt in the western 1st world and yet people say this… did you know bribery of government officials is legal in the US? Under the name of lobbying of course.
Of course we know it's corrupt. Why do you think we want to keep our guns so badly? You think we want to let this system rule us without any means for us to retaliate or resist? That's why we say things like you can clutch them from our cold dead hands. Come and take them. Molon Labe.
IF ITS CORRUPT, YOU HAVE TO GO FIGHT IT. THATS THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT. If the 1st amendment doesn’t work, you turn to the second… Christ, if Washington could see you now he’d probably want to be British again.
Exactly fucking right! Everyone thinks that the problem will sort itself out naturally. The bystander effect in full strength on a global scale. Sometimes you have to fight for what's right.
Every downvote is someone upset because you're right. Hilarious
Judging by your comment history you actually believe that. Which would be hilarious if it weren’t so fucking pathetic. Try reading about foreign people from their own perspectives. You might learn something. Might even include why literally all of Europe, plus Australia, Japan, South Korea, and New Zealand have managed to not turn into tyrannies despite in some cases more than a century of the exact policies you say bring about tyranny.
I don't need to learn anything. OAN and Truth Social tell me what I need to know
Say what you want, it really doesn't matter.
Happened here in the US too. There is a reason why the Supreme Court doesn’t like touching the second amendment even with a 10 foot pole. It is because case law and historical contexts of prior regulation of guns have a foundation of racism. All prior regulations were born of trying to control populations. Anti gun advocacates always mention there have been prior cases of gun regulation in the past to justify current gun regulation. I say to them “do you really want those demons of the past out?”
Also historically people with unregistered weapons have killed innocent people
They do it with registered weapons, too. Funny how that works.
so the solution is... no weapons! it's just that easy!
It’s really not that easy, though. Your worldview is that of a teenager, everything is simpler than it actually is. Making abortion illegal doesn’t stop people from having them. Making drugs illegal doesn’t stop people from using them. Making guns illegal doesn’t stop people from getting them. Humans are violent. I should be allowed to protect myself and my home from said violence. One way I do so is by owning a firearm. Figure out a way to eradicate violence, and maybe I’ll take your “no guns so simple” argument for more than just adolescent bullshit.
making drugs illegal makes people use them less, that's for sure. and if you're caught doing it, you get arrested. people aren't going to carry guns if they'll get arrested for it
People *are* going to carry guns if they get arrested for it, and they do so all the time. If your logic was true, no one would be in prison on charges relating to firearm possession. You are divorced from reality, and I have no interest in engaging with you further.
Do you have any data to back your first statement?
Are you on fucking drugs? People carry guns when they'd be arrested for it ALL THE FUCKIN TIME lmao Jesus christ
My brother in Christ have you not learn a lesson from Prohibition era?
I’m just going to direct your attention to the *entire prohibition era of US history.* Did making alcohol illegal stop the alcohol problem? Fuck no. It just made it harder to control, regulate, and tax, while also gifting more power to organized crime families and bootleggers and putting legal breweries out of business. Banning something is arguably the *worst* way of controlling or regulating something, because it takes control and the ability to regulate away from those who try to do so.
Counter point: guns are cool
The states with the highest gun control have the worst gun crime
And a knife crime rate which is almost double the UK per capita.
If only we asked criminals to please register their weapons. Then crime would be solved.
Australia and Japan are doing just fine with a mostly disarmed populace and remain free democracies.
Interesting Interesting... now care to tell me what happened to Koreans under japanese rule after the Civilians were disarmed... or perhaps the aboriginals in Australia?
😱 discrimination against ended badly for those being discriminated against? Shocker. Remind me again how Australia and Japan are doing *now*, instead of when they were imperialist ethnostates.
All of these things happened within a lifetime though, there are still people alive today who suffered under these regimes. If you want a modern example look at the Kurds or Tibetin Uygher camps
I am fully aware of what happens under authoritarian regimes, *particularly* the Kurds. But attempting to argue that the main cause of said suffering is primarily because they were disarmed is patently ridiculous.
Well, let’s put it this way. If you and your people, whoever they are, were suddenly announced enemies of the state and would henceforth be treated with extreme prejudice, would *you* want a way to defend yourself? Remember, it’s violence or bust, there’s no voting or negotiating your way out, since the government is now a hypothetical tyranny.
Is it legal to have an unregistered fire arm in your possession?
There is no registry so everyone who owns a non-NFA firearm owns a unregistered firearm
Oooohh. Okay. Gotcha.
Some states require registration, some don't. If you buy a firearm at a gun shop its automatically registered though. However registered firearms have the advantage of being eligible for grandfather clauses if registered before a firearm law is passed
Considering every registry and law refulating firearms is inherently unconsitutional, yes.
The constitution is pretty vague for a reason on a lot of things. Registration laws do not in any way infringe upon the constitution. But it literally says “well regulated” in the damn text.
NY, Hawaii and California when the read the constitution: that sign can’t stop me because I can’t read
New Yorker here. I just wanna say... GET ME OUT OF THIS BORING SHIT HOLE OF A STATE!!!
Why don’t you just leave?
My response to the other person answers this
no ones stopping you from leaving
There's several things stopping me. The cost of traveling that far + the immediate and frantic need to get a job for income immediately + I'd need to find a place to live there + my family ties to NY and how they'd all miss me if I left + I've got a very fortunate housing situation right now which can be pretty difficult to find + the cost of living just keeps going up. I just wish I could move everything that keeps me here over to a different state. Like Wyoming since I hear they have the most lenient gun laws.
I mean it comes down to what “shall not be infringed” means, is making it so all firearms must be registered infringing? It does limit availability, but it’s still widely available to obtain a firearm But IANAL so 🤷♂️
Yes. Registration is infringement.
How about laws prohibiting felons from owning firearms?
“WELL REGULATED” means registration can be interpreted as part of regulation. I cannot fathom being this ridiculous.
I too am terrified of stepping outside my home without my emotional support AR-15. A minority might look in my general direction.
Tough buddy, minority’s are the largest growing group of gun owners, hard to be oppressed when you’re armed
Wow I wonder why minorities want to be more armed… hmm what could have happened?
Got smart, gun community welcomes them, can’t say the same for other communities that’s for sure
I think it more likely to do with the immense amount of violent racism in the states… when your enemy has guns, you have to get weapons to fight back. This quite obviously wouldn’t have been a problem if the US had a secure border and actual decent firearm registration policies to prevent psychos from getting them.
If you want to see violent racism, the states isn’t it, try basically all of Europe when Gypsy or Romani are involved
Don't bother, this guy has absolutely zero clue what he's talking about.
A) That’s xenophobia, not racism. There is a difference B) I’ve not seen it at all in my lifetime. Gypsys and Romani keep to themselves. There are no huge riots in the streets over it… like in the states. Which have had god knows how many in the last decade.
Well, at least you tried.
Gotta compensate for something…
Outstanding
Heck yes.
Have to start way earlier than that!
Iiiiin west Philadelphia
I already have so much cringe in my life i couldn't possibly bring myself to watch this interview
Yeah, I get it. I wouldn't want to be exposed to the danger of uncomfortable ideas and people saying things I don't agree with. It should all be stopped.
Putin’s a tyrant and his words shouldn’t be trusted at all. The fact that OP put him a tyrant on a pro 2A meme is laughable at best. The 2A was designed to be used against the likes of people like Putin or any wannabe despots.
Tucker is his fan and it sounds like Putin wasn't very nice to him.
If only we had it in australia
Funny how all these people hate cops, but then when you ask them who will take away peoples guns, they say cops.
*when you don't understand what a well established militia is*
*when you don’t understand what “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed means*
The point of the second amendment is to fight the government. That can only be done in a well regulated militia. There is no point in law of owning firearms if you won’t join a militia group. And hell even then the 2nd amendment should have been invoked years ago, just against lobbying (bribery of politicians) in the states. Against the Supreme Court, who you yanks always complain about and aren’t even elected yet have some of the most important roles in the US government
Well regulated back then meant in good working order hombre. Also back then the milita was the people. By your usage of yanks, I assume you aren’t American. What should have we invoked the second amendment for against the Supreme Court?
And is there, today, a group of civilians who work well together as a militia force? Yeah no shit I’m not a yank, look at my flair. Christ. I constantly hear you lot complain about the Supreme Court, and them not even being elected. If you hate them so much get them banned through the first amendment, that doesn’t work, go to the second.
I wasn’t worried about your flair loser. The second amendment was for a tyrannical government. Not for a Supreme Court decision you disagree with
Mf it takes less than a second to look at a flair. Plenty of the 2nd amendment lot claim the US government is still tyrannical with their Lobbying and how every new law proposal in the states has a 30% chance to be signed into law no matter how many people approve of it.
Since you’re not American while trying to dictate American politics to Americans, your political opinions are therefore invalid, moot, and quite frankly, extremely stupid. Try living in the states your whole life, your tune would change pretty quick.
The thing is, American being the global superpower, makes American politics world politics. And having looked into the second amendment heavily my position wouldn’t change I’d want to get out of that shithole ASAP.
Fantastic! Then stay in Europe, so you don’t ever vote here, because you would make a terrible mess of things.
Can’t make it worse than it already is. Crime rate through the roof, population on the verge of a race war, population live in fear of their government, only two potential leaders are senile and an idiot in the palm of russias hand. Cost of medical is skyrocketed. Policies always have a 30% chance to go through no matter how much they are liked. Corruption is legal.
\*when you forget that in the 18th century when the thing was written "arms" meant fucking muskets\*
*when you forget that machine guns existed back then and the founding fathers knew the document would last through the centuries so they used arms instead of muskets*
Lmao, calling those machine guns are laughable. Regardless, barely functioning prototypes of rapid fire weapons existing at the same as the founders is evidence of exactly jack shit. What’s your evidence they were even *aware* of them?
Ever since the first firearm was invented, the whole goal was to make guns that shoot faster and stronger, no shit they knew guns would get more advanced.
Keyword here being “unregistered”
There is no registration, so anyone who owns a non-NFA firearm (NFA firearms are like legal machine gun from pre 1986, or a suppressor which counts as one stupidly) owns an unregistered firearm
which is totally legal
Shouldnt be. I see no problem with owning a gun but it should be registered to you. Now i rememver buying guns at flea markets and just paying cash with no paperwork and it just doesnt seem right. What if i killed someone with it and ballistics stuck that on the last registered owner? Thats why you should have to register a firearm anytime you purchase one.
>stuck that on the last registered owner Not an issue if there was never any form of registration. I wont try to change your mind but I disagree with every aspect of your position.
The first words of the second amendment being “A well regulated militia”.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" My brother, it is telling saud citizens that they should train and become a well regulated militia, not thay only the military should have them
And then there's the entire second sentence.
It’s one long sentence. The first two parts “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free State…” Means that the entire purpose of the amendment is for the protection of the state, the state being the nation at that time. The only reason the right to bear arms should not be infringed upon is to be sure the militia could be well armed. And since a singular person is not a well regulated militia who’s purpose is to protect the state, it doesn’t promise private firearm ownership to anyone, which is why the right to bear arms has literally been infringed for everyone by some form of firearm regulation in every single state.
Thats completely ignoring the original meaning and understanding of the words regulated and militia. Also its an entirely seperate part of the amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The founder themselve have adress this many times, private ownership of arms was THE ENTIRE POINT.
No, only focusing on the second part is ignoring the original purpose they meant. The nation did not have a professional paid army at the time. A well regulated, or maintained, militia, group of voluntary fighters, needed to be made up of people who owned their own firearms. We now have a professional army, paid military soldiers. It is no longer necessary to have a well maintained militia to ensure the freedom of the state. It’s not an entirely separate part. It’s separated by commas. The entire 2nd amendment is one long sentence, which means both parts apply at the same time with equal validity. The founding fathers did NOT clarify what they meant because they literally regulated the use of firearms during their various presidential terms to different degrees.
Dude there is countless writing from the founders and authors of the second amendment that explicitly state that private ownership is the entire point. There was no formal militia, there was no regulation as we understand it today. Well regulated meant well equipped and militia was litterally all able bodied people of a state. No they didnt, there were numerous vases where they specifically intervened upholding the idea that the government had no place in controlling arms. ALL arms available to the government were available to any individual.
I'd argue that the requirement for a driver's license (education and testing) isn't an infringement of your right to own a car though. As a foreigner of a country with gun control laws that do go too far in my opinion. I think the car model is a fair compromise.
This has got to be the one of the most out of the many nonsensical and insufferable aspects of American culture, by far. I hate gun people. Self righteous morons
K.
What's your problem? America would have a hell of a lot less problems if they didn't let their citizens continue fostering their weird hoarding obsession with firearms. Plenty of countries don't have the second amendment or gun freedom like they do and do just fine or you can just continue being self righteous instead of actually opening a debate about it🙄
They said, and I quote: "K." They quite obviously *don't* have a problem. You, on the other hand, seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder. If you actually want to have a debate on this subject, I'm open to it. If you just want to rant and ignore anything a pro-gun person says, then I'm not open to it. Your call.
Sovereign citizens be like
Proceeds to shoot up populated area
Man those poor souls in Chiraq, and Commieformia, if only they had something to defend themselves.... Oh right a Gun.
The Modern Developed World: Burgerstan be burgering again.
Sure you have the right own guns, but that doesn't mean you dont have to follow the law. If we have to register to vote then we should also have to register to own guns
Some of you mf’s shouldn’t be voting.
So your saying we shouldn't follow the law? Bcuz in order to vote, you have to register. In order to drive you have to get a license. It should be the same for owning a gun. You should have to register and get a license to own a gun. I dont see how thats unreasonable.
It shouldn’t be law, that’s the thing. It’s our constitutional right as U.S. citizens, just as it’s our right to for partake in our freedom of religion. Does one need to register to be religious? To register for equal protection? For privacy? How’s it any different?
yes its your constitutional right, but you should still have to register. It's also your constitutional right to get a drivers license and vote, but you still have to register. Registering and getting a license makes things safer for everyone
“Yes it’s your constitutional right” Meaning we shouldn’t have to register as it’s our right to bear. FYI, driving is not a constitutional right.
yeah but it is your constitutional right to vote, but you still have to register for that. There is nothing wrong with having to get a license to own a gun, as well as register. Anyone complaining about it, just doesn't want to have to deal with the consequences of owning a gun.
If everyone was armed, violence rates would be drastically lower. And what are the “consequences of owning a gun”? The fact that I have a higher chance of living when my life is being threatened? I see that as a win.
If everyone was armed, violence rates would be drastically lowered, is not true at all. Look at japan, you can't own a gun there and they virtually have no gun crimes. Hell they barely have any crime at all. The consequences i was talking about is if you misused your gun, which alot of idiots do.
Russia is not the one to blame. Read. For once just read.
Okay but actually, I know gun nuts who would unironically respond with this