>muh Second Amendment
Reasons why it was created:
1. There was no standing army at the time. Militias were necessary.
2. Slave owners needed guns
3. To fight off Indians / Expand west
All of these are now irrelevant. Nobody needs guns. And to suggest that you need guns to fight off the government is just delusions.
>inb4 Shall not be infringed
Other urls found in this thread:
>bill of needs
Molon labe, blue helmet
What
Incel retards ill take ru guns and throw them away before you kill somebody jesus christ
If governments can't be fought off with guns...
...why aren't we the Thirteen Colonies anymore? : )
SHALL
NOT
I'll hone my aim while you hone your baiting
BE
INFRINGED
>People actually dumb enough to reply to bait that is this shit
Don't bump or reply to any memeflag threads, it's fucking stupid.
GET
Fuck yourself, memeflag
FUCKED
COMMIE
Bluehelmets get the AP.
Cuck
>replying to garbage
>not saging
ITT: cancer and children
So children and more innocent people need to continuously die just so you can have a gun to LARP at a range and wait for two thing that will never happen: Someone attack you/ Government goes crazy
"what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. the remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. what signify a few lives lost in a century or two? the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. it is it’s natural manure."
-Thomas Jefferson
The government is set up and designed to not be totalitarian. He, and all the other quotes, are referencing England
To shoot you when you try to take them.
See You are liberty's natural manure, remember that.
I have the right to defend myself from existential threats.
Guns are the best means of doing so.
sage
yes, this is right. I get my home arsenal, I get to LARP at the range and in my dreams and kids get to die at school and grandmas get to die at church
Thankfully I live in Massachusetts and I don't have to live around all these fucking retards with 20 guns in every house.
you ignore the no.1 reason.
To check a tyrannical government
It's funny how the anti-gun nuts always forget half the founding fathers never expected the american government they created to last longer then a generation or five. They believed the fires of liberty and freedom needed to be stoked with the blood of patriots who rise up and overthrow a tyrannical government. Their belief was all governments tend toward tyranny and eventually need to be destroyed by the people; which is one of the main reasons they baked into the bill of rights the 2nd amendment. So that the people will forever remain a credible threat to the government to rise up and overthrow it.
And before you say "technology has made that impossible (tanks/jets/drones), remember the people pulling the triggers will be citizens of the same country. Most civil wars work because members of the military revolt as well. Those high tech weapons will basically be negated by the high tech weapons the rebels bring with them.
His ideas on the Second Amendment's purpose are this, and arms are a right in America so that the government fears its people and respects them.
Which is why the US is the last place where true free speech is pritected, and why Europe has fallen and won't exist in 50 years.
Why hide flag then traitor?
>need
The government was specifically designed, through checks and balances, to not be totalitarian You are a retard and it's quite ironic that YOU are calling ME nuts whilst you suggest you need guns to fight off the government.
False.
this quote came midway between these two milestones, in a letter he wrote in 1787.
At the time of the letter, two salient events had just occurred. The brand new United States Constitution had been written in Philadelphia. Meanwhile, an armed uprising, called Shays’ Rebellion, had been suppressed in Massachusetts. Jefferson, away in Europe, was learning of these events by mail and from European newspapers.
By the quoted sentence, he meant that he was not terribly worried that a rebellion had happened, because a rebellion is a sign of a people trained to guard its rights and liberties. Even if the cause they fought for was wrong, he reasoned, their ignorance could be corrected by better communication. But lethargy would be worse, because it cannot be easily corrected.
Again ill post this, as it indeed is regarding the importance of the 2nd amendment despite the risk of rebellion. He is talking about Shays rebellion:
>Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted.
So a rebellion necessitates they they are defending their rights and liberties? Or perhaps maybe they are defending their self interests that may or may not be consistent with morality. Like when the South rebelled against the U.S. were they were defending their right to enslave people. You are a loony!
Again. I posted Jefferson's reasoning on the 2nd Amendment. Why it is important, and gave you context that proved you wrong.
Cope.
But realize this. Anything short of an Amendment to the Constitution used to attempt to disarm me will not be complied with. Have a good day.
Is tyranny extinct? Come and take them, kike.
Yes.
I would rather personally see to it that every man woman and child be shot and drown to death in a pool of their own blood than have the government take my guns away.
Us Americans believe LARPing in shooting ranges is more important than reducing the risk of mass shootings in schools. It’s called freedom, commie
I'm not willing to trade my God-given rights in exchange for security. Especially when school shootings are actually quite rare as are any shootings with a rifle. There are literally more people killed in fistfights every year then with a rifle
This is called being a sociopath
Shut the fuck up attention whore.
>Reasons why it was created:
Reasons why you cant take them
we say so
>your move faggot
yes, it was designed to not be totalitarian, which is not surprising considering how much the founders worried about a tyrannical government, you could say their goal was to make as ineffective as possible while remaining as effective as necessary a government.
However they never believed it would always remain such. hence the 1st and 2nd amendment. 1st amendment you ask? Well there is a clause that the government may not restrict "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
The first amendment, had baked right into it, a peaceful answer for a totalitarian government. A way for the people to pressure the government without it turning bloody.
The second amendment was added in the event the first couldn't resolve the tyranny. "being necessary to the security of a free State" the founders had to write it this way because encouraging the citizens into violent revolution in the founding documents probably wasn't great, however if you read the federalist papers, you'll find the way that line should be read is "firearms are necessary to ensure the freedoms of the States from a tyrannical federal government" furthermore the phrasing is specific the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, specifically names the citizens of the country as having the rights to bare those arms.
This amendment is designed purposefully for the people to carry weapons, and it's purpose is in defense of the state from the tyrannical federal government
Fpbp
this is a fucking tourist
>get off my board nufag
Nice ad hominem to avoid the point you got btfo on. Its called being a Patriot and a man.
Only a coward and a weak minded simpleton ignores the facts or hides behind children and emotions. Unless you are an authoritarian tyrant, which I suspect is the case unless you are a larp.
All I have done is prove you wrong. Why are you so scared?
Reasons why it was created:
>To resist govt tyranny, you illiterate retard
Define a "man"
No us Americans just believe you shouldn't ban things if they hurt your feelings because media lied to you and made you believe Jamal shooting his homeboys at the basketball near a school counts as a mass shooting
Exactly. And here Jefferson's quote is very relevant:
The 2A is a big larp and should be abolished to reduce gun crimes considerably.
All those conservatives talking tough about what their guns do for them are just a big bunch of larpers getting their shit pushed in by Antifa patriots on a weekly basis.
This is called being a 10 year old with no concept of how reality actually works. You cause pic related in your blithe ignorance.
Slippery slope
Sure, but you are legally liable for any crimes committed against me by anyone. If I get mugged/robbed/home invaded/murdered you go to prison.
What are you even talking about, faggot? That's a photograoh of an ACTUAL MASS GRAVE created by an ACTUAL GOVT. 100+ million people were murdered by govt in the 20th century alone. And you have the gall to say "slippery slope"? You are less than scum.
Just call the cops
If you need someone to define it for you I feel sorry for you. I'll tell you what isn't a man:
He isn't someone who uses emotions rather than facts and reason to make important government/societal decisions.
He isn't someone who out of fear and cowardice surrenders individual liberty over something that kills less people than hamburgers or fistfights.
He isn't someone who is disloyal to his Nation and People.
He IS someone who believes in something bigger than himself and what respects what better men than himself fought, bled, and sweat to build.
If you must be emotional, be emotional that people occupying Massachusetts don't want their children to grow up in a safe free society surrounded by others who share his values and dreams. Recreating the rest of the horrible world here will only bring you endless war and strife.
May you live in interesting times user.
nigger
The Second Amendment exists to allow citizens to kill traitors and invaders.
YOU RETARD. ITS TO DEFEND YOURSELF FROM YOUR GOVERNMENT. FUCK OFF.
Its for shooting people like you how want the guns you racist bigot
Justify why that is what a "man" is
the bait always works
do you even know what a slippery slope argument is? what the phrase means? Identifying the argument type (if x happens then y will happen) correctly as a "slippery slope" argument doesn't refute the truth of the argument
For example, if a slope is slippery you will fall on your ass and slide down the slope. True, there is a chance you may not fall on your ass, however there is a high likelihood that you will. By simply saying "that's a slippery slope" argument doesn't actually REFUTE the argument. All you're doing is correctly labeling the argument.
There is nothing inherently wrong about a slippery slope argument, they're usually sound logically. The actual way you argue against them is how i did in the slippery slope example. This is a predictive argument based on "probability" and while in the past every person who tried to walk down that slippery slope fell on their ass, I might not because I might have made preparations for the slippery slope. In essence a high probability of something happening isn't the same as something happening. But you're too stupid to bother to make this argument, so you simply lazily say "slippery slope" as if that proves your point. which it doesn't you fucking idiot.
Jefferson was a faggot whose retarded ideas were ignore by normal americans
Is this supposed to mean something?
whine all you want all you gonna get is dead faggot
sounds more like your ass need to die faggot
Sure that's why they elected him president.
This clearly proves that the 2 amendment is useless and clearly showed the american ideology to be just a bunch of shit created by a bunch of delusional idiots who spend to much time in european coffee shops and masonic lodges
Fuck off UN cuck
It's not bait, we like to do this.
LISTEN TO THIS ------- THE VERY FIRST SECONDS
youtube.com
>Jefferson was a faggot whose retarded ideas were ignore by normal americans
one of the greatest enlightenment figures outside of France, probably the second greatest enlightenment figure in the Americas (Franklin has to take no.1 on that list), one of the most well educated men in the history of the planet, and you call him an idiot? What are you 10? What the fuck have you done with your life?
Lol being such a victim
They literally ignore all his ideas about society after his death
Hellfire club
A slippery slope is when you suggest that when X occurs, Y WILL follow. Your argument is a slippery slope because you are suggesting that if we take away guns, the government will go and kill millions of people. It's perfectly acceptable to argue over consequences of events and affects they may have but to suggest an assumption on behalf of an initial action such as you did then that is indeed a slippery slope.
A c c e l e r a t e
OP is a lying faggot, and we've heard his bullshit arguments thousands of times.
2nd Amendment was not created for people to fend off bears or defend against a home invasion. It was created in case it ever became necessary to fight against a tyranical government. Shills want you to forget this more than anything.
>1. There was no standing army at the time. Militias were necessary.
What is the continental army?
>2. Slave owners needed guns
Yes
>3. To fight off Indians / Expand west
Yes but this is many years after the 2nd was put in to effect
You're completely missing the point of an armed populace. The guns are there as the final check and balance between the populace and those who occupy positions in government. So if they do become tyrannical the populace is prepared to deal with them and their collaborators and restore order.
>one of the greatest enlightenment figures outside of France, probably the second greatest enlightenment figure in the Americas (Franklin has to take no.1 on that list),
this is not exactly helping you point
>ne of the most well educated men in the history of the planet
what? his education is on the level of a average european bourgeois he was just a larper who talked about freedom and equality while the only reason why he had everything he got was his plantations
see, you're learning, of course I had to tell you what a slippery slope argument was so you could propperly refute the base claim.
The problem is, totalitarian governments around the world, as one of their first actions upon taking power is to remove the people's firearms. This is so people can't fight back. While it's true, there are constitutional democracies which have removed a people's right to weapons which have not turned totalitarian, this is not ALWAYS the case. Example no.1 would be Germany, prior to WW2, when the Nazi party took over legally in a legal election they took away the people's firearms.
Doesnt matter, bills dont change with the time. Deal with it.
STOP REPLYING TO SPAM
REPORT ALL TROLL THREADS ON SIGHT
OP is obviously a low level troll, sage and hide.
>Example no.1 would be Germany, prior to WW2, when the Nazi party took over legally in a legal election they took away the people's firearms.
this is not true stop watching Alex Jones , Hitler actually made it easier for Germans to own guns because he and Himmler believed the Germans should be a rural people and for that they need guns to hunt