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.
ITT: We will discuss at what threshold would the 2nd Amendment to be a justifiable defense in court?
Note to glow in the dark niggers: This is a board of peace and all opinions within this thread are are within the parameters of legal debate.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
>the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Straight forward. Government walks the streets with automatic weapons and criminals the people should be able to as well.
Right, but what line has to be crossed, so that you can legally defend yourself that it was within your right to use that weapon that we all agree you are free to own?
>Debate
There is no debate, the bill of rights is clear.
Explain it to me, user?
What would have to happen in America that you would feel justified to tell a judge that it was within your 2nd amendment right to use the weapon that I agree that you are free to own.
t. brainlet
What?
It is justifiable to own any weapon
Imminent danger of death or severe bodily injury to yourself or others
Of course not, but that’s not the question I’m asking. This is not the question of should be allowed to OWN guns. That part is clear. We are free to own guns, however there was a Jew in the room when they snuck in “well regulated”part.
The question is, at what point are we free to take up arms. Does the president have to authorize it? I guess I’m struggling to define “the necessity of a free state”. It’s subjective language.
What should be the "limit" is CBRN (chem bio radiological nuke) arms because of their inherintly uncontrollable nature.
A machine gun, for example, is going to damage only what it's pointed at, but someone playing with biological weapons could kill hundreds of thousands or even millions just by dropping a test tube with a weaponized virus. An artillery piece is going to absolutely devestate anything in it's effect zone, but unlike chemical weapons a sudden unexpected change in the wind isn't going to carry artillery shrapnel miles away to the next town over. A stealth fighter-bomber is an absolutely lethal weapons system, probably the pinnacle of mankind's art of war, but accidentally crashing a jet won't ruin the land for decades and contaminate the water supply of an entire region. Weapons of mass destruction aren't practical for one or a handfull of men to keep, because even if you do everythig right, things could still go very badly and many people could pay the price without having any real recourse.
Organizations like large private military companies or other groups however, can be sued for millions of dollars, and more importantly, have the dough to pony up when they make a mistake. Bob and Jim making Sarin in the garage can't really do anything but get lynched or sent to jail when they accidentally gas they neighborhood, but a large organization with a 12-figure budget? They can be held properly accountable.
You are a retard I should be able to own any weapon
If we have a well regulated militia we can have stockpiles for the Militia. The right to bear arms should only be enacted in times when it's necessary
If you live in a ghetto I think that counts
Minimal weapons should be kept in the home, but maybe everyone shouldn't have a stockpile of weapons and ammunition at their houses
Either you're an absolute brainlet or this is pilpul.
"Well regulated" in 18th century parlance meant "in good condition, proper working order", etc. A well regulated militia does not mean a militia that has filled out the proper permission slips, it means one well-stocked with arms and munitions and the knowledge to use them.
If the founding fathers knew about things like machine guns and anti-tank missiles, they'd immediately throw a shitfit because the citizenry didn't have access to them.
Whenever you feel that it's justified. Obviously the government isn't going to legalize violent action against it. So perhaps more to the point: you may take up arms when you're ready to accept the consequences of doing so.
none of Bill of Rights is worth paper its printed on.
Each contains sly wiggle words that make them useless.
BATF regulates what is legal to own. Get a tax stamp from them or register as a class 3 dealer and you can own all kinds of fun. Only keep in mind that they have the right to inspect the property where the items are kept.
I think that this is the answer I was looking for. Thanks, friendo.
Ironic that possession of this image file on a modern computer or smart phone is protected by the first amendment, but manufacture or ownership of it somehow isn't protected by the second.
His may have been pilpul but this is kitman, the phrase most likely meant both
I do not think the Jews are the reason our government wanted to regulate it's citizens. It's their job
Based
Bippty Bammpity Bump
Here's an actually useful one.
Also check the state and local laws. BATF is more liberal than many blue states.
Possible honey pot but I'll bit. without the second we have zero rights. Its coming Gentlemen
t. vet
Nah, It was totally the Jews. “Well regulated” literally translates to “just kidding” in Hebrew.
You
type
like
That being said, you and I agree. Would buy you a beer. 7/8 My state is "make my day". I'm happy to drag your dead body across the doorstep if you deserve it.
nobody should fuck with me. I'd be happy to bury you in the cow pasture..
When the government won't/can't do its job.
Pic related.
Our government hasn’t been doing its job in a long time, yet it wouldn’t fly in court as a defense. You would be hung instantly. A deeper answer is, that it also gives them the right to shoot back.
It's hanged, yank. Hung is what your mother calls me, hanged is what politicians should be. Get it right.
>debate
No
>The question is, at what point are we free to take up arms.
whenever you think things are bad enough you are willing to die for change
My bad on the reddit spacing. It’s just how I type. Never typed a word there in my life. I swear.
Would drink that beer with you, user. I guess with all the bullshit going on and all civil war threads, it sparked the sparked the question in my mind. I’ve always looked at the 2A superficially as in regards to ownership. Never really thought past that. I think i have a better understanding of the answer.
Gentlemen we should hang together, or we shall hang seperatly
en.wikipedia.org
1909 was the last public hanging. It's more likely I find the address of your mother and cut her tongue out and mail it to you, than you carry out your threats.
Thanks for the life lesson friendo. I’m truly a better person now.
I don’t care what the rest of them say, grammar Nazis are truly the most caring of Nazis.
Thomas Jefferson said that, we either come together and overcome ((their)) programing or we all get the our heads cut off
I'm
apparently
pissy
It's all good user. Most likely I'm dealing with my shit and deflecting. this is a shit thread, so i'm going to poop in it.
8/8 would buy you a beer
Kek
Fuckin BASED
>We will discuss at what threshold would the 2nd Amendment to be a justifiable defense in court
none of them
the 2nd amendment has no real application other than owning guns. It does not and has never protected anybody from being prosecuted for using said guns on the government or police even when completely justified
Sure its all fun and games, Ill be hereafter it happens look me up, 17777777
SCOTUS is finally taking a 2A case, if they enforce a strict scrutiny principle then gun control is completely over
you do know that you can sign up for a PACER account and browse court case opinions and the resulting decisions on constitutional issues just like what you are asking about here, right?
>when completely justified
Who makes the judgment there, comrade? Should police be judge & jury?
Should it be justified when citizens rebel? Do you just want to disarm any opposing postion? Do you even own a gun, faggot?
The minuteman project was arguably, very (((well regulated))). Their actions were/are justified. Why do you think dubya got his panties all twisted? Why did (((they))) tighten border security?
There’s plenty of self defense cases that fall under the protections of the second amendment. I’ve kinda always looked at it as a right to self defense.
But many also make the argument that the 2nd Amendment is there to keep the government in check. The logical conclusion to that theory is that if you use your right against the government, you better be prepared to win, or die.
No, i didn’t. And I probably don’t have the time or know how, to do so. I’m content with the understanding I’ve gained from this thread. Right on though.
I am the only other person here who knows how to read and I'm trying to quit. You got lucky this time but don't count on it happening again any time soon.
I’ll look into it. I don’t know about the minutemen. W was a period of time where the effects of the red pill began to sink in. Wasn’t too in to politics then.
Seeing the way republicans reacted was probably my first redpill.
Shit... never knew. Thanks for the link. I have no idea why these people aren’t recruiting heavily in today’s climate.
Because we're winning.