Was 2nd Amendment a mistake ?

Nah

The idea of use of a specific type of technology being a fundamental right doesn't make sense. Every other instance of fundamental rights deals with the intrinsic human condition and as long as we remain what we would understand to be 'human' these wouldn't change. The idea that a person should be free to express themselves, to associate with others, etc would be true for all people in all places and in all times. Technology on the other hand evolves and changes rapidly, and is a means. We know that for the foreseeable future, being a human will be the same thing regardless of technology or changes in environment, but what a 'weapon', a 'firearm', or an 'armament' will be 300 years from now, we can hardly imagine or even clearly understand how we will make the distinction from 'non-weapons'. We're already there when it comes to things like nuclear weapons for example, which are surely armaments but what sane person believes that having one should be a fundamental human right?

Muzzle loaders / Kentucky Long Rifles / personal arms of the period weren't as slow and cumbersome to them as they are to us. They were seen as equivalent to military arms of an infantryman. You talk like the FF saw them as obsolete when they wrote it.

The Constitution was written soon after the Revolution. During that time the American people were banned from speaking in large numbers and communication was censored or outright banned. We are talking town meetings which were difficult to organize and mail that was time consuming to first manufacture and then send. Nothing like the internet we have today. It was on this level of technology that the Founding Fathers based the 1st Amendment: A people being able to freely exercise their speech on parchment and or in person.

There are already a lot of regulations in place. Most firearm kills in the US are done with illegal weapons.

As you points out free speech did at their time have far drom the same capicity to spread hate and lied as it does today, which gives me the conclucion the 1st one also is outdated.

It's not a specific technology being a right. It's the right to bear arms. Arms simply being weaponry, any type.

I bet you could kill 50 unarmed people in a nightclub with a saber, six flintlock pistols and a kentucky long rifle.

Obviously the idea has issues, but I wish that we would actually HAVE COMMUNITY MILITIAS and to own a gun you have to get training with the community militia and show up a few times a year to prove gun proficiency and training.

I feel like the whole purpose of the gun thing being kept was so the people had power over an oppressive government, and that's somehow turned into our gun culture.

And 'weapons' are a specific type of technology. Are you illiterate?

> if he had a black powder weapon

then he'd just made a fuckton of pipe bombs and threw them into the crowd, ormade a really big one and brought the entire place down.

Not really.

The big problems in the US like shootings are a direct result of tremendous societal ills: immense social and economy inequality, terrible poverty, corrupt government and a broken healthcare system.

Repealing the Second Amendment is pointed at as an easy solution because it is just that - it won't improve anything though. People don't care enough to actually fix the real problems.

I still can't believe there are people out there that still do not know what "shall not be infringed" means

What point do you think you're making?

Gun violence is a meme

The root cause of the violence is not the guns

The root cause of the violence is drugs and gangs

You can even look at the split through a racial lense, non-Hispanic whites do not have large drug or gang problems, and as such have a homicide rate that is pretty much on par with the rest of the developed world

But then you look at the Hispanic homicide rate and suddenly It starts getting bad because of the gangs that Hispanics are involved in throughout the Southwest

Then you look at African Americans and their homicide rate is pretty much as bad as Africa itself because of all the drugs and gangs in the Inner-city ghettos of every Major American city

Also 90% of gun murders are done with Handguns, and only 4% are done with Rifles.

These mass shootings you see in the Media - the ones that use "high powered assault weapons that were designed to kill people" - they are statistically irrelevant to the gun problem at large. These mass shootings are hyped up by the media to manufacture resentment for them so that people are willing to sign off their rights to own them with "Assault weapons bans".

It wasn't.

For the early union. The Militia = THE Army of the United States. There were very few regular units in the babby US, namely the very tiny US army, the US Navy, and the United States Marine Corps. In times of war, each US state was to conduct a general muster of all arms bearing men to form a Volunteer Regiment/Army, and lump this with other states to form the US military on the field.

The basis of this system was to prevent the existence of a standing army. To the early US, it was something to be feared, standing armies, as they were seen as tools of kings and tyrants, not to mention can enable a very ambitious general to seize power. However it had its proponents among the veterans of the continental army and the short lived Legion of the United States among USA's founding fathers, and pointed out that "hey, the rest of the world will soon have standing armies. If we dont have one of our own we'll be fucked," So a compromise was reached in that a small standing army will be kept while the mass shall be provided by armed citizens mustered and organized per state.

Anyway, if you're Eurobenis, OP, this therefore made firearms a very vital part of American culture. Ameriga's choice to have such a law should be understood and respected as America should respect the cultures of other countries.

Also I like guns.

>be American
>get shot

>be British
>get arrested for using a knife to make your toast

Pick your poison

There is a difference between a bunch of hoodrats offing each other in the ghetto and someone shooting up a bunch of white children in a school.

Fuck off with this "well their lives are just numbers in a statistic" meme, nobody gives a FUCK if niggers die, not even liberals do. But why the fuck are betacuck losers allowed to off our children? Why are FUCKING ISIS MUDSLIMES allowed to buy guns?

Because the moment you do that = the moment you start marginalizing groups of peoples' rights in a supposed system where everyone is equal and innocent til proven guilty.

>everyone is equal

it's a nice meme though

>everyone is equal

KILL EGALITARIANS

Lol you're Fucking retarded. They had something called a pickle rifle that was a repaesting air rifle used to hunt buffalo and shit. The US looked into purchasing them but they were too expensive. It's not outdated at all your just retarded and don't like having human rights. By your standards the whole bill of rights is outdated.

Why don't we ban doctors honestly they kill 300k people a year by making mistakes that's 30x the amount of people killed by guns

Why are you allowed to freely state your opinion without being imprisoned or executed.

Shall not be infringed is the point I am making

No. The private ownership of firearms is one of the few things left that separates adults from children. These last vestiges of independent adulthood in a society where people are increasingly dependent on the state, directly or not, are worth any number of deaths.

>Why are you allowed to freely state your opinion without being imprisoned or executed.

I am not.

This pretty much sums up the issue right here.

The world is a scary place, and there are dangerous things in it. You can be an adult and take responsibility for yourself, or you can be a child and beg daddy Fed to round off all of the sharp corners so you can run around blindly without fear of harm.

Before the eyes of the law. Or at least, that's how it was supposed to be.

>be Swedish
>get arrested for self defense
Fug

Ones freedom ends where anothers rights begin,With smoking bans is very easy to see how that works, I don't know why is so difficult to grasp with gun control.

Do they not teach ethics and logic in american schools?

Smoking bans are retarded and the risk of second hand smoke isn't nearly as big as you think it is.

But even if that weren't so, my owning any number of small arms does nothing to infringe on anyone else's rights.

I'd rather have public police than lynch mobs and posses commanded by the sheriff. Police are bad enough when it comes to legal arrest and they do the thing professionally.

Is the second amendment derived from Hobbes' description of the State of Nature? That in the case someone does decide to take the risk of being brutish and nasty and in short breaking terms of the social contract between the other members of society, that everyone else has the right to defend themselves as an individual?

Guns or no guns, America has some kind of dysfunction which leads to mass shootings. Gun control wouldn't fix the problem entirely, it would only be a bandaid which would lower the amount of casualties per shooting. But going the opposite way is retarded as well, the fact that some people think everyone in a civil society being armed is the way to go is just silly. It's not the guns, stupid; it's the society. If you lived in a society where respect, care, and families are thriving, you wouldn't need guns to protect yourself.

Multiple variants of weaponry can be considered multiple variants of technology, while yes, they do stem from the same source, the difference between a howitzer, a bolt-action rifle, a semi-automatic or self loading rifle, a revolver, a semi-automatic handgun, a grenade launcher and a machine gun are not one and the same. They are firearms, and all handle differently, and are all made differently, much like the difference btw Christianity, Judaism and Islam, they have different rules and regulations for each because they are not the same, although some of the things in them are similar.

sjw false flag pls go

A pickle rifle... lol.
I highly doubt the founding father's planned that the average settler in the west would have a pickle rifle.

>the 2nd Amendment is about personal protection
Wew lad

Someone's right to live or right to safety surely.

My owning firearms does not infringe on the first thing and a right to safety simply does not exist.

Either bait or your actually retarded.

>to defend the country from say, Indians
As opposed to being necessary to seize their territories. Kek

>mfw based class war

Those were the days

They could also purchase cannons and warships

The problem is that the people who need guns to actually defend themselves aren't the ones who have them. They're in the hands of those who would commit atrocities, i.e. poorly educated racist whites.

Any kind of revolt against the US government by NRA supporters would be similar to the militarist uprising that started the Spanish Civil War. Make no mistake, gun rights advocates have no interest in freedom or equality. They're only interested in justifying their hobby with those ideals. I could make a proclamation that only REAL Americans own high powered vacuum cleaners and these people would be rushing to buy vacuum cleaners.

Despite what people ITT and elsewhere may believe, the second amendment was created in order to ensure the ability of the American people to fight and overthrow a tyrannical government. It was not created for individual home protection. The founding fathers included that amendment so we could fight against them if they became corrupt.

The government doesn't grant the people rights, the people grant the government the privilege of governing. A privilege that can be taken away if the situation calls for it.

Are you retarded?
>this sheet of paper shall not be infringed
>why?
>this sheet of paper says so

>guys guys guys, I think that inbred rednecks 300 years from now may not be educated enough to interpret an ablative absolute

In my opinion no, I think that it makes a lot of sense. The major issue is that the grammar and the term "to bear arms" has been misinterpreted to mean "anyone can own any type of gun they want," which is honestly absurd. I blame the Warren court.

On the linguistics of the second amendment:
google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.english.illinois.edu/-people-/faculty/debaron/essays/guns.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj7mOTd76fNAhVGPVIKHU5TBuoQFgggMAI&usg=AFQjCNEP9aSfYxTnr9CmIDmXpFbPVJWN0w&sig2=2tN1IIk5zrX9uaHPqS2DYQ

To keep an bear arms is a term coming from English Common Law meaning "to equip for battle" not "to own a weapon" that the founders would have been familiar with and have made a knowing reference to:

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms_in_the_United_States

>muh rednecks
Try having an actual argument

The gun control debate is a red herring perpetrated by the rich to occupy the politically involved masses and keep them from taking back the wealth.

>without arms
>not stabbing burgeouse with kitchen knives

full plebeian..

>Sick of seeing borderline retarded facebook posts about banning guns
>Come on Veeky Forums
>First thing I see
Seriously, fuck you guys.

Burgers won't stop until every citizien has the constitutional right to carry around two double clip Uzis, have a Rocket Artillery in the backyard and a small Atomic Warhead right next to the propane grill..

>You can even look at the split through a racial lense, non-Hispanic whites do not have large drug or gang problems, and as such have a homicide rate that is pretty much on par with the rest of the developed world

every single part of this sentence is false

Ban assault grapeshot

>Do they not teach ethics and logic in american schools?

is that even a question? of course they don't

All the amendments were mistakes. The Constitution was perfect as intended.

What about the 19th amendment?

Reminder that only slaves and serfs were not allowed to own weapons.

Nah, they do, they just don't teach you self defense is bad as well.

>They wanted citizens to be as well armed as the army
>This was both so they could serve in the militia and as a check against tyranny
>Founders had in fact just won a war against a tyrannical government
>In part due to armed citizens
So at what point did the founders decide that people now should not be as well armed as the military? I didn't see an expiration date on the Constitution, is it in the Federalist papers?

>clips
>using ellipses

Numale detected

Well, it's a good thing he doesn't have the right to murder people.

If you think that the creators of the amendment & of the USA couldn't predict that technology would improve, you're an idiot.

protip: the correlation between firearms & homicides is negative, the correlation between people of african descent & homicide is highly positive

law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

that doesn't fucking matter what the level of technology is.

If the Syrian and Iraqi civilians were armed, ISIS would've died off before they made the news. If the germans were armed, Hitler wouldn't have risen to power and the holocaust wouldn't have happened. If the Cambodians, the Chinese or the Russia farmers were armed, the purges and genocides wouldn't have happened.

If blacks weren't armed and defended their families against KKK attacks, the KKK would have triggers a nation wide genocide.

I know a bunch of tools are gonna be like

>le constanza face le holocaust was good!

or

>but the KKK was doing God's work

Or some other predictable meme.

Either way, It's not just about tech or the government. It's about some shitty people arming shitty forces and people being able to defend themselves. The founding fathers knew technology was going to advance. They lived in an era where guns were advancing quickly and were used to take over the non-gun owning world. They were speaking on universals, and the population should be armed.

And armed population causes "small" tragedies, but prevents massive ones.

Truth: The Post

>I didn't see an expiration date on the Constitution

But hopefully you did see the fact that it was designed to be amended, explicitly for the reason that cultures evolve and circumstances change.

I actually support gun rights generally, but people who treat the Constitution like fun dies treat the Bible are REALLY missing the point.

The most effective way to stop gun violence would be deport all PoC in certain neighborhoods.

It would reduce gun homicide and homicide in general drastically. It's not a gun problem. It's a /pol/'s second favorite word problem.

right, but it's also very difficult to change. It's also impossible to change the first 10 amendments. Which shouldn't be changed anyway other than to match inflation of money, or to curtail extremes.

background checks and waiting periods are fine, but there should be no limits on gun ownership. If we want our country and people to be safe from whatever horrors the future might bring, they need and deserve guns. A repressed homosexual shouldn't be able to threaten out liberties.

I do see the mistake in what I said and I can laugh I ment puckle

>If the Cambodians, the Chinese or the Russia farmers were armed, the purges and genocides wouldn't have happened.
>Chinese.
Fun fact: they were armed actually.

In fact: their government armed them.

China's defensive policy during the height of the Mao Years was this: arm the whole fucking country. Each county/prefecture or even village in China had an armory, which is probably only guarded by unarmed policemen. Or just one guy with a bloody revolver. Oh and everyone knows where these armories are. They drilled for them in case bad America (and later on, bad Soviets) will come for their shit.

If the Chinks wanted to, they wouldve rushed those armories, killed the policemen with swords and knives, and armed themselves.

You know what stopped them?
>Political Stability.
That did. A lot of the Chinese peasantry remembered 100 years of Qing Decline, 1911-1928 Warlord Period, the Civil War, WWII, and Civil War II. The Chinese for the first time had peace under the PRC. So they were willing to put up with retarded economic policies or edgy youth militias so long as armies aren't battling within China.

I lost brain cells but if I could get some clips for my uzis that would be great all I have are these magazines

You're right, it is possible to change. So why hasn't there been an amendment altering gun rights?

Because the truth is, only a vocal minority of Americans oppose guns

You know what the bill of rights is right? The first 10 rights are the only 10 amendments that can't be changed. They are guaranteed rights that no one can decided if I'm allowed to have them or not for me

>Fun fact: they were armed actually.
>In fact: their government armed them.

wrong, their shit was taken away for years. post a source you lying piece of shit.

>China's defensive policy during the height of the Mao Years

Mao only gave guns to those who were on his side during the revolution and purges. Before mao, the Chinese government has been famous for disarming it's citizens since the ancient era.

>If the Chinks wanted to, they wouldve rushed those armories, killed the policemen with swords and knives, and armed themselves.
>Political Stability.

Then they would have? You really think they were like, "Oh, our government isn't sending us food and killing us for owning books, but we'll take it, because of the stability. Look at all this stability we have lol!"

I'm surprised you even know how to read.

>The Chinese for the first time had peace under the PRC.
>watch me ignore the 45 million killed in four years to establish this "stability".

All I'm concerned with gun control is this:
>Who oversees the overseers?

The CIA literally already does whatever the fuck it wants thanks to secret warrants that we don't have a right to know about(til it's 40 years later and they can get away with a little hand slap).

>We hold these truths to be self evident...

Surely it is a bit more nuanced than that?

Obviously only a tiny minority of Americans oppose Americans being allowed to own guns, period.

Depending on the actual policy there is quite a lot of support for various gun control measures with the support being higher for the less extreme and trending downwards the more extreme they are.

Even somewhere like Britain doesn't have a complete ban on guns.

Yes.

It should have been the First. All the rest rely upon it.

> Before mao, the Chinese government has been famous for disarming it's citizens since the ancient era.
>Since the ancient era.
HAHAHAHAHHA. Honey, Imperial China would be /k/'s paradise. The Emperors literally told you to keep weapons and help the state's law enforcers arrest bandits. There were even private military organizations of young men who performed police work for hire to government officials or fought in wars as volunteers so they could gain recognition from the court and acquire a military rank & salary without having to go into the rigours of military academy. I could count with two fingers the moments China's emperors banned weapons ownership. And lord were they short bans. 1) The 20 year Qin Dynasty. 2) Yongzheng's ban on Weapons ownership in the late 1600s.
>45 Million Killed.
Yes, American, the famine was totally intentional. It was the PRC's plan to kill millions of its own supporters.

Can someone post the article about how Modern China thinks the American phrase “Those who give up liberty for security deserve neither” is retarded due to the century of shame." is fucking retarded precisely because the Chinks have had a shitty 19th and 20th century thanks to infighting?

HEHE XD THE GENIUSES OF THAT TIME WOULDN'T KNOW THAT THERE WOULD BE AUTOMATIC OR SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES NOW EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD THEM TOO HEHE XD PLS UPBOAT

>Yes, American, the famine was totally intentional. It was the PRC's plan to kill millions of its own supporters.

To be fair, the famine was exacerbated by their policies. Killing sparrows for instance.

Yeah but to claim its Genocide is fucking stupid
LE BACKYARD FURNACES and KILL BIRDIES are a stupid attempt to boost the economy. Not to kill people.

Call Mao's gurags and reeducation camps the genocide bit of the PRC, but the GLF was an economic disaster.

>is the right for free speech a mistake? they didn't have computers or mass-media back then, they had quills & paper, everything that isn't written on paper by a quill must be banned!

>The first 10 rights are the only 10 amendments that can't be changed.

Uh, yes they can.

>implying that's a stupid question

The answer in that case is no, though.

>You know what the bill of rights is right?

You clearly don't.

You do understand what an "amendment" is, right?

No fuck off

They'll get my ammo before they get my guns

They can be violated. They are inalienable rights given to us by our Creator.

The government did not give us rights under the bill of rights.

Do they even teach Civics anymore?