you voted for smooth brain idiots.

it is nothing but your opinion that "the right to bear arms" means its furthest logical conclusion, and includes anything up to dynamite, tanks, machine guns, and nuclear bombs. just like it is an opinion that impeding the sale, ownership, and transfer of firearms is a violation of 2a. these aren't facts, and those who's job it is to be arbiters of opinion (supreme court justices) don't agree with people against any and all gun control.

due process does indeed protect the removal of a right unless one's actions forfeit it, but the 4th amendment doesnt define the 2nd one, caselaw does. the founding fathers didn't have a clear and exact vision of the second amendment, they created it as a control on tyrannical govt, they didn't define it either specifically or infinitely. but what they did create with crystal clear vision was a system of laws with 3 branches of govt that would define the constitution for them moving forward. they didnt know what they didnt know, and were smart enough to include that.



who did i vote for in literally any election?

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 20 2022 12:58pm

It is not an opinion. It's called the Second Amendment. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." There is no post script. There is no limitation. It's not an opinion, it is what is written. If you support 2A, then you cannot support gun control, or any other form of weapons control. You may believe that you support it, because you think that semi auto should be legal, but you oppose it, because you believe I shouldn't have dynamite, or a machinegun, or a nuke. The idea that a government out-arms it's people is the truly frightening idea. As long as the people can retaliate against the government when the government abuses them, the government tends to keep the people in mind before doing stupid things. The moment the people can no longer retaliate, the government, EVERY government, goes more and more authoritarian. The Second Amendment is there to insure that we, as individuals, can all live our lives free of tyranny. Whatever form that may take. I challenge your assertion that you are a libertarian the moment you start supporting anything that says, "You can not have this thing that I have. If you make/buy/steal one, we will come and take it away from you, using the very thing we won't let you have."

imagine speaking a language as dynamic as english as a native speaker and still naively thinking that a phrase that vague means EXACTLY what you think it means with zero other viable interpretations.

you can challenge whatever you want, your inability to understand not the nuance im employing but the fact nuance exists renders your conversation useless to me. maybe try back in a month or so.

It is not a vague phrase in any way, shape, or form. There is no nuance. "The right of the people shall not be infringed." It's a very clear statement. Do you know what infringement means? Here, take a moment and stare at it: "act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on."

Every limitation on arms is an infringement. Perhaps it's the definition of "the people" you disagree with? Let me help you with that as well: "the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group."

Maybe it's "arms" that's confusing you? Here: "weapons and ammunition; armaments."

Maybe, maybe you're having some issues with the first part of the 2nd amendment. So here's some clarification: The "militia" was every able bodied male 16 and older. To be "well regulated" meant to be well trained or disciplined.

My suspicion is that if the founding fathers of our nation were to write the second amendment based on today's language, it would read: "A well trained populace, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Now, if you go back to the history of 2A, and realize that private citizens quite literally had all the same exact weapons as the government that wrote 2A, including wonderments such as cannons and warships, and when the militia was called up (aka all able bodied males) they typically provided their own weapons and armor. If it was the government who called upon their service (more often it was fire brigade duty, flood control duty, or a host of other things) then the only thing the government typically would provide was uniforms so the militia from different towns could identify each other.

There is quite literally no argument regarding the clarity of "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is absolute. And the fact that you call yourself a libertarian while trying to make this argument is completely laughable.

Rather than saying, "Well axshually!" and claiming there's nuance where there's none, why not just be honest? Tell the simple truth: "I do not trust my neighbor and believe he should not be able to keep or bear a lot of types of Arms, for my personal sense of security."

It'd get the point across, be honest, and be a great starting point to a conversation. But it would engender the immediate response of "Who gives a fuck what you think?" which is exactly why you refuse to be honest.

You do realize the constitution guarantees nothing, right?

Boy tell me what makes a weapon defensive or offensive? You dumbo are aware that any currently legal weapon can be used offensively and defensively?

This post was edited by FantasyWorldII on Jun 20 2022 02:00pm

go on.

If you are going to take that far, then go all the way.
What is a weapon?
Is it anything I hit you with?

I am unsheathing my couch pillow right now.

fukn eh a nuke for home defense. how many jabs are you on?