SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED NO EXCEPTIONS

Your wrong: Here is why.
Article 2 is about securing the state, not securing the people.
Citizens need to be armed because the state is the will of the people, so securing the state comes first.
Citizens need arms for when the states ability to secure itself fails. This happens in a small way often enough.
This is the spirit and intent of Article 2.
Now if you can create an argument that would support the state by the control of nuclear weapons, explosives, and other tools in the hands of the citizen. Then and only then would Article 2 support it.
No state military would be such and argument.

Of course not. But we still need background checks to prevent retards and crazy people from shooting up walmarts and schools.

>Article 2 is about securing the state
Wanna know how I know you're not American?

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
- Justice Antonin Scalia, Heller v. DC

Because he understands the letter and spirit of the constitution?

Really the only people that would have the funds to buy weaponry like that are big corporations and I trust them about as much as I trust our own government. (See: not at all)

Wanna know how I know you're also not American?

Because I understand the letter and spirit of the constitution?

>Article 2
????????

Dear Silly user,

Article 2 has nothing to do with conversation, any American would know this. I will refrain from putting a written memorandum in your personnel file, but let this embarrassment be a lesson. In the future, please research your position before spouting bullshit.

Thanks,
Literal Hero user

Just standing around in peaceful public with a rifle in your hands is weird and threatening and would have been considered as such in the 1800s as well. Open carrying a pistol is a lot different than these sperg-looking nerds going out in public holding rifles. Seeing that is an understandable reason to call the police. It's suspicious as fuck. I remember being at the OFASTS machine gun shoot in Oklahoma and seeing this fat sperg nerd walking around with a loaded ar pistol on a sling, was high-key sketchy. People there were shooting hundreds of different full-auto weapons of war, literal howitzer artillery cannons, mortars, a minigun, a recoiless rifle, grenade launchers, etc etc. All of that was fine. But that autist with his finger on the trigger of his loaded gun walking around behind us sketched me out.

But, "Its legal" "Its his right" so fuck common sense. If there's a visibly mentally odd individual walking around with a loaded weapon in a chest rig with his finger on the trigger safet on or off seeming so sketchy hes making the multitudes of normal seasoned gun owners nervous, "thats his right" "hes not breaking any laws" etc

Man, I wonder how much they paid him to say that and betray the American public.

Oh shit, we have a time traveling gun grabber here.

DOOR STUCK

Obviously transporting a rifle between locations, bringing one out of your car or truck when you expect there potentially may be violence, etc is normal and understandable, but these OC fags carrying rifles in their hands in public just to stand around with it is stupid and the laws that allow them to do it allows EVERYONE to do it. Why don't we just carry guns in public for necessity and emergencies? Not walk around with a rifle in your arms simply because it hasn't been made illegal to do so? It's weird and it's bad optics that are gonna make them crack down on carry laws in general.

I met Scalia once. He was a genuine originalist regarding the Constitution; the Heller v. DC decision lays it all out including a decent discussion on why the framers of the Constitution did not intend for the right to bear arms to apply to private citizens outside of the purview of maintaining a ready militia. He felt the average American was too dumb to be trusted with a vote, let alone a firearm.

Can you imagine any non-security guard regular civillian at anytime in history anywhere just walking around in the public square with a rifle in both hands ready to go and it being okay? Imagine a cowboy strolling into town clutching a lever action looking around at everyone. All the normal men would be clutching their guns cuz that guy's obviously not just carrying around like that for everyday self-protection. These people who call cops on single or small groups of OC demonstrators that aren't visibly political activists are not necessarily crazed liberal cat-ladies. Thats a sketchy thing to see in public for seemingly no reason. It's an understandable reaction.

You think niggers in Detroit and Baltimore should be allowed to legally posses nukes lmao retard

Private citizens have proven time and time again they cannot be trusted with
>assault weapons
>machine guns
>explosives
>armed military vehicles
>nuclear weapons
While I do not advocate for a blanket ban on (some of) these items, it is clear that the current established means of keeping these items out of the hands of irresponsible and unwell individuals is insufficient.
The background checks must be more intense, reasonable justification for purchase must be established, and individuals must be extensively trained to properly handle their weapon and care for it, as well as secure it and to use it appropriately.

I'm not saying ban guns. I'm saying teach people to control their guns and prevent the nutters and the school shooters from getting their hands on guns.

>inb4 "you trust mr gobment to decide who can and cant have guns?"
Alexa, define independent? It's possible to establish an independent third party that does not answer to the government, or even several, that serve the purpose of determining eligibility to have a firearm.

>inb4 "unconstitutional! everyone has a right to a gun!"
Then the constitution needs to be changed. Amended even. If only that were possible somehow.... oh wait it is! And it's been done at least two dozen times!

>inb4 "stfu leftist/rightist/somethingist"
=P

>inb4 "europoor"
k, and thats relevant how?

Looking forward to the countless (You)'s telling me how wrong I am

The government are the ones who shouldn't be trusted with firearms, not the citzens.
>implying they could afford them

>The government are the ones who shouldn't be trusted with firearms, not the citizens.
Meanwhile, in 2019, we've had over 200 mass shootings, committed by American citizens. Not government employees. Not government officials. Not the POTUS. By citizens.
How blind do you need to be in order to see a common denominator, and yet completely disregard it and make some anti-government statement instead? Or would you rather all manner of individuals, many who either do not possess the mental capability to be responsible with a firearm, to be walking around with weapons, answering to nobody when they choose to draw that weapon? When they choose to load it? When they choose to pull the trigger. Who do they answer to? Sure you can drag them to prison, but there are not enough prisons to house every citizen of the united states. At least when a police officer uses a firearm, they have to answer to a chain of command. The military? Same deal, when they fire their gun they do so under the order of their superiors or face punishment. And these people are (or at least should be) trained, neigh, indoctrinated, to obey the chain of command.

But no, the government can't be trusted with guns.

fucking stupid...

If the niggers somehow gather enough money and increase their IQ to make one, properly maintain and manage it and avoid getting alphabet soup'd, yes I do think that.

>Meanwhile, in 2019, we've had over 200 mass shootings, committed by American citizens. Not government employees. Not government officials. Not the POTUS. By citizens.
>How blind do you need to be in order to see a common denominator, and yet completely disregard it and make some anti-government statement instead?
How's about I don't give a single fuck, I just hate the govt and love guns and freedom, and don't give a solitary fuck what happens unless it hurts me and mine. Go be a bitch in the UK, the US clearly isn't for you.

Homicide rate has been in decline for thirty years faggot. Good policy is based on big boring statistics not the actions of crazy people. You need to stop letting the media do your thinking for you.

Attached: Homicide Rate vs Gun Ownership international.png (1558x1006, 105K)

>Private citizens have proven time and time again they cannot be trusted with
>nukes
Lmao 0/10

>The government are the ones who shouldn't be trusted with firearms, not the citzens.
The government is an organization comprised of American citizens.

Are you literally retarded?

In addition to the $4.8 million cash seizure in Novi, Michigan, additional narcotics and currency seizures associated with the Quasand Lewis organization include the following:

a. In May 2004, Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents executed a search warrant at a warehouse located on Fitzpatrick Street in Detroit, and seized approximately four thousand (4000) pounds of marijuana from the warehouse.

b. In May 2004, Oklahoma Highway Patrol conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle driven by a co-conspirator and seized several duffle bags containing approximately $1,768,069.00 in narcotics proceeds.

c. In August 2004, Ohio State Patrol conducted a traffic stop on a vehicle driven by a co-conspirator and discovered approximately $1,456,492.00 in narcotics proceeds in an elaborately constructed hidden compartment and inside the spare tire.

dea.gov/sites/default/files/pubs/states/newsrel/detroit072005.html

This is the kind of person who's going to mass report gun owners when they pass red flag laws. cw2 soon stalkers

>homicide
>somehow equals mass shooting
t. brainlet

that was an intentional lmao, because of OPs post. Great to see humor flies over people's heads still.

No. If you can demonstrate you are responsible with your guns, I don't mind you having them. It's the fuckwits that think that its perfectly acceptable to use their weapon threateningly for stupid shit (as opposed to serious, life threatening shit)

>i dont care because it doesnt affect me
and in 8 words you've demonstrated you are part of the problem. Shoving your head in the sand because you think if you don't acknowledge the problem, it will go away.

Hows that worked out for you so far? Compare it to the rest of the world... your country collectively ignores this issue or pretends its something else... and yet there are so many massacres... to the point where it's almost daily! Australia had a single mass shooting. They clamped down gun laws. Boom! The closest Australia has come to a mass shooting was the Lindt Cafe siege, and only two people died. New Zealand? Yeah, he got a few dozen kills. But what did they do? Clamp down gun laws. Lets see if it happens again.

How many more mass shootings does america need before they realise whatever it is they ARE doing about it, isn't working? A smart man learns from their mistakes the first time. An idiot repeats their mistakes for eternity.

Are you an idiot?

fuck im getting distracted, im only half-completing thoughts.

The rest of my post was going to be "It's the fuckwits... ... that I don't want having easy access to firearms."

>oh no, these select few deranged citizens that barely make even a fraction of the country are doing illegal things with guns
>well let's just remove everyones rights! Cleary no citizen can be trusted without supervision from the Government!

>Soccer mom swerves in front of you and takes you out
>Take soccer mom and half of a metro area with you

Truly the greatest outcome

>select few
>more than 200 in a single
>fucking
>year
>each one taking more than 3 lives
also
>make guns harder to get if you are mentally unstable or refuse to be trained
>this somehow translates to "take everyones guns away"
Nice strawman you got there. Did you make it yourself? haha just kidding i know you didnt you god damn baboon.

>How many more mass shootings does america need
All of them. Get fucked you leftist shitheel, just because some pyscho motherfucker kills a bunch of people somewhere else does not give you the right to infringe upon on the rest of the responsible people that do no wrong.

Predator was so cool

>No. If you can demonstrate you are responsible with your guns, I don't mind you having them.
>If you don't bend over and let me have my way with you, you are dangerous and forfeit all rights to defend yourself!
Who the hell do you think you are? You are not God, therefore you have no authority over me except what I give you.
>Look at these countries! They have North Korea-tier censorship, but at least they don't have shootings!

go to SHOT show and immerse yourself in the wealth of firearms lobbies and billions that flow through channels in the US and try and convince yourself again that a gun ban is coming.

Attached: 26b440455954e9e134e81938565a89b2d2d18f04bc7e1bb0faf71e273cd5f419.jpg (562x561, 26K)

Why are mass shootings different from homicide, you fucking retard?

Amendments can be repealed. 2A will be repealed too.
And then what?

And 199 out of these 200 were niggers in the hood shooting other niggers. I say that's a net positive for the country

>No. If you can demonstrate you are responsible with your guns, I don't mind you having them
Who the fuck are you to judge me and determine what I can and cannot have to defend myself, nigger? Go fuck yourself.
Because it doesn't fit the narrative obviously. These fucks don't care about the victims deaths they just care about the fact that they died from "muh ebil guns". Deranged fucktards the lot of them

>2A will be repealed too.
Get 36 states on board, then we'll talk.

Again, I'm not proposing we infringe on the rights of existing gun owners. At no point do I want to take a person's guns away from them. What I WANT to do is put up additional hurdles for new gun owners to receive guns.

I want to make sure a potential gun owner knows how to handle their gun. I want to make sure they will treat it with respect and care for it responsibly. I want to make sure they know how to secure it, and prevent it from being used by unsavory individuals who would seek to infringe on other people's right to live.

If you are a stable individual, and know how to use your gun correctly and safely, by all means, here's your gun.

If you have a history of violence, aggression, or even substance abuse, I'm sorry but I don't feel safe knowing you can end my life in seconds without effort and without second thought.

>who the hell do you think you are
A person who has the right to live. A person who wishes to not have that right infringed upon.
Also...
>>If you don't bend over and let me have my way with you, you are dangerous and forfeit all rights to defend yourself!
Missed the point by a mile. What I said was that I want gun owners to demonstrate they are responsible enough to have a gun. It's like having a pet. Are you going to feed it, care for it, make sure it doesnt go out and harm native wildlife or be harmed by native wildlife? By all means have that pet. Got a history of animal abuse? Sorry, I don't want you having a pet, you will likely abuse it.
also
>north korea-tier censorship
logical fallacy, and you know thats complete bullshit too. It's only United States-tier censorship, in that the media only report on what they are paid to report on, as opposed to north korea where the media isn't even paid or told to report on something, they are given a script and told "say it like you mean it or your family will get it".

Again...
>INDEPENDENT
>PARTY
and also see Does it matter what color their skin is, you fucking dickhead? Go shove your dick in a meat grinder, save the gene pool please.

>and convince yourself again that a gun ban is coming.
money's irrelevant. all that matters is demographics and public opinion.
Total gun ban is about 10-15 years away. It's inevitable.

>Get 36 states on board, then we'll talk.
In 10-15 years, there will be 36+ solidly blue states.

public opinion is swayed by mass media, which is manipulated and paid for by... well ill let you figure that part out. Shouldn't be too hard.

And then the boogaloo begins. What you fucking communists do not understand is that the constitution does not grant anyone the right to bear arms. That is a NATURAL right of EVERY human being, whether you prefer to justify that as God-given rights or through property rights (which gun rights are a part of) doesn't really matter. And most people don't like having their rights infringed.

what happens when a person shoots a gun outside of a range near other people...forfeit their gun and proceed to be questioned and answer to police. If they didn't get shot by said police.

Yeah that's 200 out of a population in the hundreds of millions.

who all know who ((they)) are.
CW is inevitable, I agree, but your latter point is not shared by the changing demographics.

Murder is already illegal. That is as much protection as you'll get of your "right to live". Gun ownership being completely unrestricted does not infringe upon that right in any way.

doesn't matter what the color of their skin is, it's the rest that's brought along with said skin color.

>>Again, I'm not proposing we infringe on the rights of existing gun owners. At no point do I want to take a person's guns away from them. What I WANT to do is put up additional hurdles for new gun owners to receive guns.
>no no see what We don't want to take your guns friend. What We want to do is make it extremely fucking difficult for you to even have one in the first place so that you give up on it all together! See, we can't take your guns away if you can't buy them in the first place teehee:^)
Nah, you and any other " I'm pro guns but" faggot can get strung up from the nearest tree.

>At no point do I want to take a person's guns away from them.
Everyone who says this is flat-out lying, no exceptions.
>A person who has the right to live.
Same here. But unlike you, I have to stomach to use deadly force to stay alive. Then again, self-defense is a right that you categorically deny, because people like you love defending the guilty and punishing the innocent, and therefore, you'd be down a client if I defended myself.
>What I said was that I want gun owners to demonstrate they are responsible enough to have a gun.
Who gave you that authority? Answer: nobody. You claim it for yourself because you are a wannabe Stalin with an insatiable lust for power.
>and you know thats complete bullshit too.
The UK puts people in prison for internet memes and unsecured gardening tools.

An investigation should be initiated into whether the use of that firearm was justified. During that time unfortunately the gun owner must be assumed to be unfit to bear arms until proven otherwise, however due to the infringement of said process it should be treated with maximum priority. Maybe a maximum of 1 week forfeiture, after which point the gun owner is granted their rights again until such a time as its deemed necessary by due process to revoke them again.

A drop in the ocean, yes, but an unacceptable drop at all.
Will it only be a problem when it rises to 1000? 2000? How about 5000? Still not enough? How about 25,000? Or instead of counting the incidents, why dont you start counting the victims.

Gun ownership enabled people to effortlessly and thoughtlessly take my life, with little chance for another person to intervene. We should ensure that the person carrying the gun is responsible enough to use that gun only when absolutely necessary

Again, and i need you to pay attention here, because you might get confused again.
I don't want it to be any harder than it currently is for an individual to get a gun. But I do want the process to be more in-depth, essentially deeper background checks etc. I don't want people to go through any more stuff than they already do, I just want the gun stores etc to do a tougher job at vetting bad customers. Perhaps even offering to train the potential gun owner.

>everyone who says this is lying
except me. I actually hate Australia for it's tight gun restrictions, they could be a little more relaxed.
>You'd be down a client
I'm all for self-defense. If your life is in danger, by all means pull out your gun. As long as you only use your gun as a last resort, I feel like you are using it responsibly.
>Who gave you that authority?
I don't want that authority. I want that authority to be given to an independent party, one that does not answer to a government or church.

Continued because i hit char limit...
>uk puts people in prison for memes and anything with a sharp edge
I mean, the UK has it's own problems. I'm 99% sure their government is ran by actual tards. I wouldn't know for sure because the only person I know from the UK stays inside all the time because the one time he left his apt he got stabbed by some rando. The dude lived, the guy got caught, but like i said I don't know enough about the UK to say you are wrong, or right.

Yeah, see the thing is, a “mass shooting” involves three or victims, so guess what? Everytime some low life gangbanger hits 3 people, it goes into the statistics, just like suicides and gun violence

It's still lives lost. It's still a gun in the hands of an irresponsible individual.

Guess again, fag

Attached: 1550789023209.jpg (717x717, 80K)

We're going to take the right to vote of states not making a net contribution to the Treasury away. Screencap this if you don't believe me.

But what you fail to understand is that these gang members, you know the actual number one proprietor of these mass shootings if we go by , almost never get their shit legally. So strengthening already retarded laws for people who don't follow them anyway is fucking unnecessary and a waste of resources since for every Dayton shooter you "stop" jamal and pablo have already doubled his score in an afternoon, not that they'll report any of that.

>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED NO EXCEPTIONS
what a crock of shit.

In the last 5 years we've lost so much.

NY Safe Act
Colorado mag ban
Washington universal background checks
Connecticut AWB
Russian sanctions (5.45, Sigas etc.)
2013 AWB house/senate vote
Florida (21 to buy a gun law and unconstitutional seizures law)
Massachusetts
Vermont
Illinois
Bumpstock bans
California prop 63 (can't buy ammo online)
POTUS saying that cops should be breaking the Constitution and kicking the "doors of bad guys"

I know I'm missing some too.... please expand if I missed some.

All gun laws are infringement, fuck the fed.

Attached: Tyones Bizarre Adventure.png (1500x959, 3.21M)

Forgot about WA i1639

>being this mad about being btfo

Attached: anoymousimageboard.png (1354x467, 71K)

Guess what? He's fucking wrong

SHALL NOT

>Hey guys what if we actually went out and showed we weren't crazy
>NAH KEEP SPAMMING SHALL WHILE FEINSTEIN RUBS HER HANDS TOGETHER
I'm convinced the only gun owners are in the generals and everyone here are Jow Forumstards

>WA i1639
thanks user. that's a particularly nasty bill.

SHALLfags are noguns user

>Not knowing all the SHALL posters are either noguns or lefties trying to turn the board culture away from actually organizing
Not gonna make it

Attached: 1565237743996.jpg (1600x1066, 313K)

>w-w-we should have l-l-limits
>you don't NEED that
>n-n-no guns!
Fucking pathetic. Post your fucking guns so I can see the shit tier taste of such a tasteless faggot.

>Keeps forgetting at least a third of this board is shills disguising as Jow Forumsfags to change the board culture into lazy faggotry
I mean SHALL NOT

Attached: 1564207158827.jpg (376x359, 23K)

Keep spamming SHALL, I'm sure that'll stop the Violence Against Women Act and everything coming up.

Attached: 1565230265614.jpg (434x434, 128K)

>no guns
Post them faggot.

SHALL NOT POST GUNS

Reminder that there is no compromise and SHALL is a quick shut down to conversations that will go absolutely nowhere but you conceding ground for the children. Literal no guns are doing more than (You) preening faggots.

shall
Also why do you reply to him and not the other two? Because you know you're a leftie?

Attached: 1565238352737.png (639x360, 511K)

Been a big uptick in you shills calling everyone a lefty and leftpol today. Tell your masters and disco friends to dilate.

Governments used guns to kill around quarter billion people in the last 100 years or so
That too is "lives lost"

>SHALL shuts down arguments that will go nowhere
Soooooo why is the violence against women act still a thing

Yeah well unless you want to start a civil war I don't think that's changing.

>Entire board is shills screaming SHALL and gun control
Alright I'm going to play vidya

Attached: 1564726780606.jpg (251x252, 21K)

Imagine thinking you arguing with people on the internet about guns will stop bills.

Make sure when you kill yourself it's not with a firearm.

>unless you want to start a civil war

Attached: 1.png (768x614, 17K)

I mean, I'm down to do it. Hbu?

I think we should definitely do these things as well as put these "I'm a gun owner but" kommandos against a wall, in minecraft.

Well hold on now, lets focus on one thing at a time.

No we don't. People need to take responsibility for their own lives instead of relying on the state.