What people don't get is that the 2nd Amendment isn't even necessary for a person to have a right to own and carry a...

What people don't get is that the 2nd Amendment isn't even necessary for a person to have a right to own and carry a gun. It is simply recognizing that fact and stating it so the government knows the people will be armed. Even without the 2nd, I would still have an absolute right to have firearms that could not justly be taken from me. Why is this not obvious to people?

Attached: 0f8.png (680x486, 473K)

Muh feelins

Rights are granted by those willing to use force, mr. bigbrain.

ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR

Which is gun owners. People who don't own guns clearly are not willing to use all necessary force.

I always read it as a law restricting government from taking arms rather than allowing militia to own arms.

In principal, sure. Principal is completely useless though.
Don't end up like the boomer memes.
>at least I still have the constitution
Yes.

WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS

Attached: 1513526483872.jpg (901x960, 106K)

I'm not saying you're wrong, satan.
I'm saying you need guns and those willing to use them to protect those rights.

Because that's literally how it is worded/what it is. "Shall not be infringed" is the actual operant phrase. If those words were replaced with "Shall be allowed by the government" it would be there other way. So you're right.

Because that is what it is. The Bill of Rights does not grant rights. It explicitly restricts the government from violating a few that the authors thought were most likely to be violated. A major argument against the Bill of Rights was that people would misunderstand it as a list of all their rights, or as a granting of rights.

Look how well England fared without a Constitutional Amendment even though firearm possession is a guaranteed right in the English Bill of Rights 1688

This reminds me of a quote from a documentary Teddy and FDR where I think Ken Burns said something along the lines of
>Both of their presidencies would push constitutional limits, and both would see the Constitution not as a list of what the government *could* do, but what it could *not* do.

Attached: 59670196_1087491948113242_7413804856126460850_n.jpg (1080x1349, 251K)

>principal
Learn how to spell words or don't expect anybody to listen. A principal is a person. A principle is an ideal.

wow you sure got him user

Attached: 501.png (735x541, 27K)

>Why is this not obvious to people?

Because the citizenry having an untouchable right to own a gun is not politically expedient to certain political parties and people.

I don;'t care about his "argument", since it doesn't exost. I care about him actually educating himself, since he clearly is not. Neither are you, considering you took the time to save that image for use specifically against those who tell you how fucking dumb you are.

*don;t
*exost
Welp, guess I'll just fucking kill myself. Even though there is a difference between a typo and a basic lack of understanding of how words are spelled, no excuses.

The god that you claim to have given you gun rights doesn't exist either though

It's legal to own firearms in England

This. The god-given is a literary shorthand to explain the emphasis given to those rights, the rights dont actually exist if you aren't willing to personally secure them, either by force or aggressive litigation. People get so bogged down in the "god-given", as if god is going to come save you once your rights have been infringed into irrelevance, its a dangerous mental cul-de-sac to get stuck in.

>government knows the people will be armed

The government already knows that, which is why we have FBI sniper teams and SWAT units, to put your dumbass in the dirt if you start waving that shit around

this is much. People never bother reading the actual bill of rights, so they never understand its true intent. They only read the version in their school textbooks that twist it into saying the government is temporarily granting the rights to the people.

The FBI and SWAT teams that took over 50 days to take down a tiny group of cultists in Waco? Yeah, ok bud.

They weren't overly militarized back then and they didn't initially want to kill the Dravidians, only make an example of them. Its only when things became excessively embarrassing that they gave up and burned them to death. If you use Waco as a gauge for what the feds are capable of in 2019, you're gonna have a bad time.