feel free to explain why "right to keep and bear arms" should be interpreted as "right to keep and bear all arms" instead of "right to keep and bear some arms." Is there something that says that when something ambiguously doesn't specify which, one should infer it means "all," i.e. "all arms"? Otherwise, everything can theoretically and legally be taken from you except one or two things considered an "arm," and your right to "keep and bear arms" has not been infringed.
>inb4 brainlet interpret this as an anti-gun post, feels threatened, and screeches "come get them shill"
This is a serious question, to which if you don't know the answer, the possible legal implications of which, should concern you, especially if you habitually vomit "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Any limit on the keeping and bearing of arms is illegal ("shall not be infringed.")
Anthony Cook
Arms are weapons. All weapons. The early precedents that the founder set show this. The freedom to bear arms included cannon and private warships, not just rifles and hatchets and pistols.
Lincoln Butler
Did you read the post you idiot? That is only true if "right to keep and bear arms" means "right to keep and bear all arms."
Austin Butler
Because the original intent was so that the American populace could protect themselves, whether from a foreign threat or a domestic one. America was founded through rebellion, and there were disputes on the reach of the government from the very beginning. The possibility of needing the people to fight again soon was very real.
They didn't specify because they thought it was obvious; they thought the people should be as well armed as possible.
David Smith
>there were disputes on the reach of the government from the very beginning. This.
The point of the right to keep and bear ALL arms was to defend our new found freedom from anyone who may accost us, up to and including our "government". >They didn't specify It is not hard to find places where they did specify.
Wrong. Infringement is any weakening of the right. en.wiktionary.org/wiki/infringe >Borrowed from Latin infringere (“to break off, break, bruise, weaken, destroy”), from in (“in”) + frangere (“to break”).
Alexander Gray
FUCK OFF LOSER, THE WORLD YOU WANT LOOKS LIKE THIS AUSTRALIAN MOVIE FROM THE 80s pic related
THE US CITIZENRY HAVE THE RIGHT TO LASER WEAPONS AND THATS ALL THERE IS TO IT
Had the Founders meant for your retarded argument to be law, they would have written "shall not be forbidden" or similar.
Eli Robinson
I don't need any stupid piece of paper to tell me whether I am allowed to own guns or not. I will have them always no matter what. If you don't think the same, you are the problem.
Xavier Thompson
There is no stipulation against people owning cannon in the constitution of the usa, nor pickle boxes, nor pepper boxes, nor blunderbusses, nor bombs.
Blake Hall
And if it means anything but "right to keep and bear all arms," e.g. "right to keep and bear some arms," your rights have not been "weakened," i.e. infringed. You fucking monkey.
John Campbell
>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED >why can't we infringe tho get gassed kike
Samuel Diaz
>the possible legal implications of which, should concern you, so this guy is goal post moving, if they can't disarm the public and they can't they want to restrict the laser weapons to police and military which should never be tolerated
in case you're like WTF last week Putin unveiled his laser rig because Trump didn't renew a treaty
so now it's time to show off who has the better more powerful lasers
we have them but China and Russia are close behind
>specificity of all or some is retarded What the fuck does shall not be forbidden mean? So if this were brought up in court, before they knew requiring specification of all or some is just "retarded," is that the argument you would use in defense? >hurr they'd have said forbidden >no i don't know what that means >just glad you don't have to pass an IQ test to be a lawyer derp
Adrian Young
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to be a deterrent to total government tyranny, so the level of arms allowed should be as such. Imagine reading Orwell's 1984, but suddenly every character in the book has an AR-15. I think where we're at right now is about right, although I think we should be allowed heavy machine guns as well but I would draw the line at highly explosive weapons. If we were to do some stupid shit like, >Oh you can have black powder rifles for hunting! That's all you need right? While it wouldn't totally render it all pointless, it would significantly diminish it, and 100% certainly lead to full disarmament and subjugation later. People complain about our shit in nogunz countries but they don't realize that us having these guns indirectly prevents the Jews from going full on boot stomp on them simply because we would bare witness to it and not like it and our own government can't do the same to us quite yet.
Remember if it's 12 gauge or under and has less than half an ounce of explosives it's NOT a destructive device
Nicholas Baker
The point of the post is that it might some day be legally interpreted as "right to keep and bear some arms" in which case, stripping you of everything but some arms (some means at least one) does not infringe upon anything. Nor does raising a valid concern mean I'm a kike, you fucking brainlets. I'm leaving now.
That's literally what it means you retard. Stop denying an answer to your question because you don't like it well enough. The FFs wanted citizen parity with government and wrote that into the document, just accept that you didn't know this before it was pointed out to you ITT rather than attempt to play semantics like some slimy kike.
"Shall not be forbidden" would mean the right to keep and bear arms could not be wholly eliminated. "Shall not be infringed" means it is illegal to in any way reduce that right.
Blake Russell
Kill all Jewish and israeli children. In minecraft
>does not infringe upon anything You're a literal fucking retard
Jose Wood
Eh, if by "highly explosive" he means blockbusters and nukes, I can get behind that. Nukes especially not just for their killing power but their capacity for rendering areas unlivable. Something like that needs to be held in check rather than at the whim of anyone.
David Fisher
Personally I don't want to be hit with a stinger missile by some lolsperg while I'm flying because he believes in chem trails.
>having these guns indirectly prevents the Jews from going full on boot stomp on them It doesn't really, we have the worst demographics of any human country outside Africa.
Carson Ward
Again: if it contains less than half an ounce of explosives and is under 12 gauge or under it's not a destructive device
You can own micro grenade shells legally.
Grayson Gray
>Flying on an airline without anti-lolberg gear Poorfag
Samuel Thomas
>when your "concern" is so effectively debunked that you call people names and storm out in a rage
Isaac Russell
>stripping you of everything but some arms (some means at least one) does not infringe upon anything. no see
>Eh, if by "highly explosive" he means blockbusters and nukes, I can get behind that No you're a faggot to. No compromise. I should be able to get anything the military has.
Joseph Rivera
Then blow him up first nigger
Christian Brooks
>justify to me why you should keep your constitutional rights goyim.
Nathaniel Gonzalez
The right to own and carry weapons is to protect the security of a free state. The Founders didn't believe that the ability to be secure should be isolated to the state only, and they certainly didn't believe power should be solely in the hands of the state. Balance of power is a clear theme in this nation's organization. Arms ensure that that balance of power extends beyond the state to the people, so should the state ever turn on the people they won't be left unsecure.
You on the left say it best: >Hurr ya can't win a insurgency with small arms. Ok, so we need more than small arms to ensure our security. After all, in the times this nation was founded, they indeed did have automatic weapons, cannons, and warships in the hands of private citizens. People back in the day had the ability to own a fucking cannon which could destroy an entire building at once, or a warship that could terrorize the sea. I don't think the Founders would care about a shooty-too-fasty 'salt rifle. That's bare minimum what we'd need to fight a tyrannical state or foreign occupation.
Xavier Thompson
Listen you tried your best to make a troll thread and it didn't work. Try again tomorrow.
Nathaniel Anderson
Feel free to sage and hide
Owen Nguyen
How about you explain to me how we will defend ourselves from a potentially tyrannical government without any guns? It's not like Germany, Russia, Cuba, China or North Korea's governments ever killed their own citizens.
Yeah but we're still relatively much more comfortable than in comparison to conditions in any European revolution in history. When I say full boot down on the neck, I mean something like full Gulag Archipelago total physical slavery. People like to compare right now to Wiemar Germany and while the degeneracy is definitely there, the financial conditions are no where near as bad. Either people would have to start missing meals or the non-white violence would have to get orders of magnitude more bad for people to actually lose their shit and revolt en masse, and the 2nd Amendment provides that ability to do so. For example, if everyone knows a friend/family member that was raped to death by ooga booga migrants, then I'm sure you would see some serious shit pretty quickly.
>warships this. Warships were the 1700s equivalent of an aircraft carrier or WMD. If they allowed private ownership of those, they'd definitely allow assault rifles
>why doesn't a document that prohibits the confiscation of a thing for the purpose of a free state, list every single specific thing that it is referring to? Are you really this stupid, or are you trolling? Laws almost universally specify things they prohibit, not things they permit, because unless you live in a totalitarian communist shithole, more things are permitted than prohibited. It would be absolutely retarded to list every single "arm" that the government cannot infringe upon the ownership thereof. What happens when a new one is invented, you update the constitution every single time?
Michael Russell
The US Constitution's Bill of Rights is not a list of rights that the government grants, they are natural rights given to man by the Creator, who or whatever you believe that to be. It is a list of rights the government is forbidden to restrict.
Limitations of press, assembly, religion are not to be imposed. Nor are citizens to be subjected to cruel or unusual punishments. In times of peace, the people cannot be forced to board soldiers. Your home is not to be searched without warrant.
Your bootlicking type is weird and finicky. You are always for infringing the rights of those you don't agree with for the good of society. When its your rights being infringed for the good of society, the tune changes and you show your hypocritical colors.
When it comes to arms, the current hindrance is operational costs. Tanks, planes, and boats are expensive. Modern infantry tools like NVG and body armor are usually prohibitively expensive, despite being legal. Buying and training with a service rifle is fairly affordable, and has uses outside the militia.
Right, it's gotten so bad because we're comfortable, and by the time it gets really uncomfortable we'll probably be doomed - we're probably doomed right now. Reminder, there are still white liberals in South Africa.
Camden Gutierrez
You wouldn't happen to be of Jewish descent would you?
The Shall not be Infringed part is the most important.
If it was just "people have the right to bear arms", I think there would be a case to say that as long as some guns are legal that right still exists. But infringement is not denial, so by saying SNBI it means it cannot be at all limited.
Although I do think an amemdment for nuclear weapons would be fine
Evan Bailey
Careful there, you're using facts while talking to a liberal, wouldn't wanna trigger them!
Kevin Bell
loling at op's childish rebuttals in his failed troll thread, suck a few more dicks and try again guy
Lucas Hughes
Founders would have specified if the 2nd amendment wasn't all encompassing
Sebastian Barnes
You are not taking any of my guns. Bitch about it all you want but I'm keeping every single gun I own and I'll buy many more before it's over. I don't need to explain anything to you, OP.
Ayden Peterson
This, people just arnt thinking free enough.
Carson Parker
"B-b-but they couldn't have predicted we would make scary black guns!" - OP, probably
I don't care what you say my rights are, or what you think the constitution says, or what you think "legal ramifications" are. I'm not being arrested, I'm not standing in front of a judge, I'm not going to prison.
You can go ahead and kill me, but you're going to have to decide how many dead cops or feds you're willing to give up to get me. Then you can go ahead and determine on a larger scale how many thousands you want to give up -- just so you can take my SBR. Not going to happen -- I'll give your teams gut and groin shots with above 90% accuracy, guaranteed. I won't just kill you, I'll make sure you die screaming, covered in your own blood, guts, piss and shit. If you tell me this is how far you want to go if you don't want me having "certain guns", then you are admitting it's not about legality, it's about total gun confiscation on the precipice of demonic tyranny and any attempt at it's enforcement sentences you to death.
>just so you can take my SBR Not sure if this is a pasta, but I don't see too many "vote from muh rooftops" types shooting anyone over the slew of blatantly unconstitutional laws (eg. the NFA) that already exist.
Austin Rivera
The second ammendment justifies itself by stating that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed in order to facilitate the existence of a well regulated millitia (the millitia being all fighting capable adults not a part of the millitary). For this reason, we can infer that it must cover up to and including millitary grade arms. How could a millitia properly function with tools inferior to those of millitaries?
Landon Peterson
It has already been infringed, and nobody did a damn thing about it.
Brayden Sanchez
Unironically, come get them shill. Why is it taking so long?
Thomas Wright
>same pilpul argument posted 400000000000000000000000000000000000000000 times before and that has been debunked every time the founders were clear in their intention and their wording. and yes, we know current gun laws are unconstitutional and that our kiked government doesn't care.
i honestly think anyone in america should be able to own whatever gun they want. excluding feolns with violent records or gang affiliation. i grew up learning to shoot hunt etc. and shoot my first full auto when i was ten. if proper respect training and firearm are knowledge are taught properly it shouldnt be an issue if the police are allowed to have firepower like this and organized crime already does then we all should. the last thing any of us wants is so much gun control etc. that if our country ever gets bad enough that we cant protect our freedom and stop corruptness before we become the next nazi germany soviet russia etc. the way things are i can definitely see a similar situation down the line the way things are going. and aside from from that just the pure enjoyment and fun it is to shoot and stuff is amazing in itself.
Ian Cook
Previous federal gun control, illegal as it is, targeted guns which were unpopular at the time. Not these laws shouldn't be repealed, but there is good reason why they were not more strongly opposed ay the time.
Parker Cox
I just don't see it happening at the pace people are waking up. They'd have to shut off the internet or something. I don't even think that would work at this point. You might be surprised if you talk to other randos. Like when they talk about white Americans being a minority in 25 years, I cannot possibly imagine there being still a great mass of bluepilled whites after all the shit that is inevitably gonna go down by then, at least not in the United States.
There hasn't been any significant infringement in my lifetime, and all the NFA and other 'assault' style item infringement is relatively before my lifetime. But it doesn't even matter, because this country is a different place now, this is no longer a country of laws, there is no order or justice; our "justice" itself a satanic perversion, the courts are a carbon copy of ancient juden kritarchy, borne out of the vicious lies during and after WWII.
I wouldn't care if 50 million Americans perished overnight. If another "9/11" occurred today, half the country would not care. War is coming, whether anyone wants it or not. Bolshevik pukes that constantly "infringe" hold the delusional position that their ideology is 'absolute', they believe their alien ideology and infringements are natural so any resistance to their infernal advancement is unnatural - it has and always will be the complete opposite. If there is any kind of afterlife, I am not leaving this world having said I never butchered bolshevik demons. The known universe and the works of all known creation all abide by the rules of separation and biodiversity, with all due respect to boundary and hierarchy. All that attempts to enforce biological or ideological homogeneity is alien and unnatural. Even in the works of the bible, with special attention to the 'tower of Babel', where it's alleged God destroyed it as being profane; >God confused the languages of humanity so that they could no longer communicate with each other. The result was that people congregated with other people who spoke the same language, and then went together and settled in other parts of the world. God confused the languages at the Tower of Babel to enforce His command for humanity to spread throughout the entire world.
We are not meant to be 'unified', pacified and homogenized - this is not life, either now or in the way it was ever intended to be. This is an ancient war, and you are part of it whether you want to be or not.
