Is the codification of Defense of the Self...

Guns are pretty useful for revolution.

t. Commie

I honestly don't see what's wrong with the pics statement.

because "self-defense" in this context is like saying communism means everyone gets the same share.

lol
it means nothing of the sort
the picture depicts that modern weapons shouldn't be banned and people left to defend themselves with improper tools

yeah... i get it. its pretty clear.

my point is although the concept seems fair, it's always used to defend the worst cases. like communism, which had horrific atrocities.

the scenario of a crazy robber storming into your house at night threatening to rape your family and stealing the thousand of dollars in money you have under the bed is a nice narrative or propaganda, i'll give you that. but in real life no situation can be moderated with the use of a gun by any regular person.

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408953/Texas-father-beat-Jesus-Flores-death-raping-5-year-old-daughter-NOT-face-murder-charges.html

commies and beaners can't handle freedom

>inb4 no guns

deadly force is irrelevant to which weapon

Empirically it seems to be irrelevant. How well armed the average person is has no correlation with a free society.

>required to do X

Wow, what freedom. Amazing. So free.

Can someone explain to me what "t. _____" means! I've liked for years and I still have no clue what it means.

>Is the codification of Defense of the Self, Family and Property and the Posetion of Modern Firearms in the Rigths of the Citizen necessary for a Free and Democratic Society?
Fucking English I Swear To God...

it means "Sincerely, ________" as a way to label a post as being stated by _________

Thanxm8

>I want the state to be able to commit genocide without consequence

We don't want to take away your guns, we want to arm the proletariat so that they can rise up.
t. Commie

What's wrong with anarchy, statist shill?

if you think hillbillies with guns and technicals could stop a state-funded and armed military unit you are daydreaming

Except communism is a very real example of people butchered because only the government can have guns, because they're better than you. Also when has gun rights been used to justify atrocities?

Then why do you want it to go further? And they can certainly help, it would be a shit load harder to pull off then if they didn't have guns.

no you don't

STALIN TOOK THE GUNS
MAO TOOK THE GUNS
HITLER TOOK THE GUNS
1 7 7 6

People making this argument really annoys me. It's like they don't know about Afghanistan or Vietnam or literally any other example of guerella soldiers beating or lasting against much more advanced militaries. Not to mention, do you think a volunteer citizen military will carpet bomb their own cities? Do you think an air force pilot with press fire while aiming at his old neighborhood? Jesus.

>be yugoslavian
>import a few pistols and rifles
>capture weapon arsenals
>win the war in 10 days
>be slovenian

americans are just a bunch of pussies to be honest

>think of the children
Uncovered swimming pools and household chemicals kill more kids than firearms.

The Swiss are not required to have guns. Swiss men are conscripted and they have an OPTION to purchase their service rifle (which is converted to semi auto) upon completing their conscription.
If you have not been conscripted for whatever reason you can file for a purchase permit (they just run a background check) and then you can buy any gun you can find in the store with no hassle.

>Not to mention, do you think a volunteer citizen military will carpet bomb their own cities? Do you think an air force pilot with press fire while aiming at his old neighborhood? Jesus.
Uh... since when have standing armies ever shown the slightest hesitation destroying "rebels" (or whatever the government calls them)? History is rife with militaries rounding up their own people. Of course they would bomb cities.

>Uncovered swimming pools and household chemicals kill more kids than firearms.

Holy fuck, as if the massive firearm death rate wasn't enough, even swimming pool regulations are so shit in USA?

>silently ambushing a squad of armed and armored soldiers with a melee weapon
スリープウェル子供

>swimming pool regulation
Dipshit parents are frequently charged with negligence for failure to keep their kids safe. Retards that can't keep their unsupervised children out of their pools aren't the types to obey (or bother learning about) all the legislation on the books.

Isn't there supposed to be a lifeguard at most pools and coupled with a good kindergarden/primary school program for swimming should ideally prevent such a massive incidence of drowning fatalities?

>lifeguard
Silly Europoor. People in America have enough land that many middle class folks have a private pool on their property.

Well in China, it was the government, and bands of fanatical civilians *with guns* who support one dude in the government.

Mao gave guns to the red guards you dumbass.

>Vietnam

Stop with this shit please, the guerilla war in Vietnam was a spectacular failure and Vietcong got completely destroyed so much that NVA regulars had to step in.

Well to be fair, the NVA walked up to them an went
>You guys should totally join our conventional offensive versus a superior force.
The Vietcong almost got destroyed overnight during the tet.

What a free society needs is a clause that establishes the nullity of a citizen's rights while he is in the act of committing a felony, retroactive so that someone murdered while b&e'ing will not cause an innocent house owner's demise.

I don't know who's more retarded between the people who think their rifles will help them stop the government and the people who think the army will stop a popular revolt.

...

>implying armies can't stop popular revolts

>people who think the army will stop a popular revolt.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shays'_Rebellion#Rebellion

Of course. It is of course implied by the right to life.

You cannot be denied your right to self-preservation against lethal aggression.

>what is ISIS vs the Iraqi Army

you rank idiot.

>the scenario of a crazy robber storming into your house at night threatening to rape your family and stealing the thousand of dollars in money you have under the bed is a nice narrative or propaganda

all of those things literally happen.

the funny thing is when they take your guns when you aren't home.

>in real life no situation can be moderated with the use of a gun by any regular person

you don't know the first goddamn thing about real life.

>Is the codification of Defense of the Self, Family and Property and the Posetion of Modern Firearms in the Rigths of the Citizen necessary for a Free and Democratic Society

>one country with these 'rights'
>worst gun crime in the world
>worse than third world shit holes
>more school shootings than any other nation

>IT'S A REQUIREMENT FOR A FREE SOCIETY

Kill yourself ignorant fucking idiots. The worst part about it is you fucks are worse than Christians, maybe because you are ALSO religious. The overwhelming evidence yells at you for being wrong. But all you want to to do is push harder and harder for more fucking guns.

Honestly more bizarre than ISIS. You idiots run the world, you will kill us all.

monopolization of violence =/= rights

Thats a shit example considering the Iraqi army literally gave up and ran away and now Daesh uses old Iraqi army gear left behind from when the army abandoned Fallujah in the first place

>he thinks the lifeguard will be there in time to save him

WHO NEEDS A LIFE JACKET ANYWAYS

WHAT WOULD YOU EVEN USE THAT THING FOR

DONT BOTHER TAKING PROACTIVE STEPS TO ENSURE BOTH YOUR SAFETY AND THAT OF YOUR FAMILY

JUST WAIT FOR THE AUTHORITY TO COME AND SAVE YOU SURELY THEY WONT BE TOO LATE

Which army?

>That's a shit example

special pleading

>ISIS
TOTALLY NOT STAFFED BY EXPERIENCED FIGHTERS FROM BOTH THE OUTSIDE IN ADDITION TO ALL THOSE ANGRY EX BAATHIST OFFICERS

>the cities with the highest gun violence rates are the ones with the strictest gun control laws

you are biased

>overwhelming evidence yells at you for being wrong

Nope.

sure nobody could say that wasn't also true of several other major conflicts in the 20th century, a number of which happened to go the other way.

>x situation is literally impossible in a wartime scenario

Nobody intelligent assumes it can't happen, that's how complacency sets in.

>Strict constitutionalist
>As if legal disputes and their decisions should come down to a turn in grammar and diction

Pro-gun, but not pro-stupid.

>words don't mean anything

you assume much. What leads you to believe I support the Constitution of the United States of America 1789?

Supposing I didn't, even I could not dispute the concrete meaning of those words.

...

Case in point. Thanks bud.

Hijacking this thread to ask: what particular form of autism causes people to write with random capitals like this?

...

>Can't deconstruct the "non-leftists are rednecks" narrative he's been handed by late night television

vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism

>"Suffice it to say, by the 1990s the better part of the working class wanted nothing to do with the word liberal. What remained of the American progressive elite was left to puzzle: What happened to our coalition?

>Why did they abandon us?

>What's the matter with Kansas?

>The smug style arose to answer these questions. It provided an answer so simple and so emotionally satisfying that its success was perhaps inevitable: the theory that conservatism, and particularly the kind embraced by those out there in the country, was not a political ideology at all."

>even I could not dispute the concrete meaning of those words.
Kek. It's explicitly wrong. You do not understand how semantics work and that they can be twisted to mean literally anything you want. Pick up book, Tyranny of Words is a good start.

The whole point relies on the fact that peoples which is explicitly plural, means singular. It's retarded, you are retard. Thank you for attempting to use your own ignorance as evidence to suggest you are not ignorant.

>right of militia equates to pic related
>surely not commercialism
>IT'S A BASIC HUMAN RIGHT!!!!

>you have the right to defend your life, but only by less than effective or sufficient means

SHALL

NOT

BE

INFRINGED

...

>peoples
The people. To be exact.

>You do not understand how semantics work

You were complaining earlier about how you feel as if legal cases should not be judged according to the law cause words are oppressive, and now you want to talk about how we should pay more attention to them.

>The whole point relies on the fact that peoples which is explicitly plural, means singular.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The people, not peoples.

>they can be twisted to mean literally anything you want

Twist this.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Rights are by definition not up for debate btw.

savage desu

>You were complaining earlier about how you feel as if legal cases should not be judged according to the law cause words are oppressive, and now you want to talk about how we should pay more attention to them.
Kek, no.

>The people, not peoples.
Mhm, I addressed this, The people is a group of persons, how the fuck is that individual? It's an explicit group? There is, you know, a word expliticly used for the individual PERSON.

>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the person to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

^ THAT means what you want it to, semantics work in such a way you can twist them past the original meaning, as I said earlier. That is simply what you are doing.

AND HERE IS MORE SEMANTICS FOR YOU

Specifically this part.

-

>A well regulated Militia

Here I will spam it so you understand
>A well regulated Militia
>A well regulated Militia
>A well regulated Militia
>A well regulated Militia
>A well regulated Militia

If you think anyone has a problem with this, you are wrong. If you think the current state of America and how easy it is to procure guns equates to a a well regulated Militia you are a fucking retard and there is no fucking saving you.

>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Not the point. You do not have a well regulated militia, you ave guns readily available to essentially anyone who wants them, that is not regulated militia, that's idiotic.

>The people is a group of persons, how the fuck is that individual?

It's not, they all have the same right. I'm sorry you don't understand how you can use certain words, it doesn't mean your stupid or anything.

>You do not have a well regulated militia, you ave guns readily available to essentially anyone who wants them, that is not regulated militia, that's idiotic.

Although this is beside the point given that you think words mean whatever you want them to, what the connotation associated with the term "well regulated" at the time of it's writing has to do with the completeness of a units equipment, including weaponry.

Besides, the people do not have the right to a well regulated militia. They have the right to bear arms, that they MAY form well regulated (read well equipped) militias.

Hi, I'm not American. Just popping in to tell you that 300 year old legal documents are not magic, and shouldn't really come into a discussion of whether or not something is a good idea.

...

>I'm not American

Nobody gives a fuck about you Canada.

Good for you faggot, too bad the actual problem is urban blacks shooting other urban blacks over drug money

>It's not, they all have the same right. I'm sorry you don't understand how you can use certain words, it doesn't mean your stupid or anything.
Kek. You cannot argue empirical facts, buddy.
>It's not, they all have the same right
Then why are you using an image which refers to the usage of people explicitly as an individual term? Using as an example for each person to have a gun, not a regulated well informed group of people who actually know what they are doing in regards to how to run and function inside a militia?

>Besides, the people do not have the right to a well regulated militia. They have the right to bear arms, that they MAY form well regulated (read well equipped) militias.

Oh look, now you are adding your own words into the constitution, I didn't know we could do that!

>Although this is beside the point given that you think words mean whatever you want them to, what the connotation associated with the term "well regulated" at the time of it's writing has to do with the completeness of a units equipment, including weaponry.

It's not besides the point at all, it's another point which proves your idiocy. Which you cannot deny.

>Oh look, now you are adding your own words into the constitution, I didn't know we could do that!
Have you even read the 2nd Amendment? Ever? I get that it's in an older form of English that you personally aren't familiar with, but come on dude.

>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It's literally right there

>the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Let me say that again, and break it down for you.

>the
>right
>of
>the
>people
Okay, so, the right belongs to the people, okay? They're the subject.

>to
>keep
>and
>bear
>arms
Okay, so, the people have a right to keep and bear arms.

>shall
>not
>be
>infringed.
And that right that the people have (that right being the right to keep and bear arms) shall not be infringed.

What exactly is not clear about this for you? He doesn't need to add anything, it's right there.

>posts a dictionary definition hoping it will save him from having to actually flesh out a definitive statement

sloppy work.

>Using as an example for each person to have a gun, not a regulated well informed group of people who actually know what they are doing in regards to how to run and function inside a militia?

Again, slowly this time so you understand.

The people do not have the right to belong to a regulated well informed group of people who actually know what they are doing in regards to how to run and function inside a militia, they have the right to bear arms that they may form into a group like that in addition to a plethora other purposes.

>I didn't know we could do that!

You don't even know what a constitutional amendment is, gtfo before you embarrass your position any more.

I have already called you an idiot, you're just gonna try to throw that back at me? You couldn't hit the broad side of a barn at 20 yds with that literal shit pile. Get good kid.

oops wrong infograph

>Oh look, now you are adding your own words into the constitution, I didn't know we could do that!
He was actually explaining what the phrasing meant because languages change over time and so does grammar. You seem to enjoy acting like a hysterical screeching retard about white people owning firearms while conveniently ignoring that we don't have a firearm homicide problem, we have an urban black firearm homicide problem.

The firearm homicide rate outside of the inner cities is significantly lower.

Considering the mainstay of liberal argumentation is to call conservatives dumb poopieheads and intimate that they're all christian, inbred, etc what can you expect? Liberals have been incapable of political discussion since before we were born, their strategy is to take the city center and control their precious "kultur" from within. The average liberal now gets his opinions from leftist late night TV where you are repeatedly assured that anyone who even wants a gun absolutely must be some kind of inbred Christ-loving retard who's opinion is not important. These people will then turn a corner and walk into a shop with armed guards or a concert with armed guards and not bat a fucking eyelash. They'll walk into a bank lobby where the tellers are behind bulletproof plexiglass and not ask themselves "why is this here?". They've been accepting the luxury of paid, armed defense so long they've forgotten it's even there.

I want a day where everyone who carries a firearm in the performance of their job just walks down the street together giving these spoiled commies the finger.

>2nd Amendment?
>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I didn't know this said give guns to everyone so they may one day form a militia.

>Have you even read the 2nd Amendment? Ever? I get that it's in an older form of English that you personally aren't familiar with, but come on dude.

Kek, that's pretty funny, since you know. You are only using one half of a sentence and implying that's it's meaning. That's literally not how English works.

It literally comes back to the point of it being all around a well regulated militia. You cannot form a militia if you cannot acquire weapons. That is what it is saying, it's securing weapons for the creation of a militia. That's what you don't understand.

You also believe the current state of America actually has a Militia, and not just a shit tonne of guns. Do you even know what it means to run a Militia? to be apart of one? It's an army, outside of the government which keeps the govt in check, that's the purpose of a Militia. Your law has been twisted and literally everyone in your country who is ready and able for service in law and army is considered a member of the militia. But you don't have a militia so how is that possible?

See, it boils down to simple semantics and the fact people want to be able to sell what ever the fuck they want in your country, which is literally fine.

Stop the delusion though. This is simply not up for dispute, literally everyone in the world is in agreement, except the ignorant masses that are Americans.

You actually don't know what well regulated means.

I challenge you to define that phrase in a meaningful way, as the writers of that document clearly intended it to be defined.

I am done with you see my first post.

>Honestly more bizarre than ISIS
I honestly cannot compute your retardation.

>I challenge you to define that phrase in a meaningful way, as the writers of that document clearly intended it to be defined.

Not the situation you have today, that's for sure.

Ah, so a well regulated militia is literally anything other than the situation we have today. That is the implication of your negative definition.

>Ah, so a well regulated militia is literally anything other than the situation we have today. That is the implication of your negative definition.

>A well regulate militia is not readily available guns where ever you can place them

therefore

>It's literally everything else
Kay, care to explain the logical jump you made there? There have been many examples of militias over history, many of which you could take your definition from, all of which are not the situation you have today.

>Kay, care to explain the logical jump you made there?

You just said that a well regulated militia is simply not one specific thing, suggesting that it could just as easily be a huge number of other potential things so long as it's not that.

This is fallacitical. And you do not know what a well regulated milita is.

>an apple is not a car

is not a definition of apple.

>suggesting that it could just as easily be a huge number of other potential things so long as it's not that.

Are you operating under the assumption that militias throughout history are a rare thing?

>And you do not know what a well regulated
It doesn't matter if " don't know what that means, its in YOUR second amendment which you omit, because it refutes your argument.

I like how you latch onto points that are of literal no point.

>you don't know what a militia is
>therefore no one does
>therefore sell guns to everyone!
Those are your logical jumps. This is one step away from you just simply shit flinging, you have no points. All you can argue is semantics.

It went from

>Peoples
>people
>milita

You have no point, you cannot argue. All you literally said was I don't know what a militia is, I know it's not what you have, and I know I didn't write the second amendment so it's literally besides the point.

>>an apple is not a car
>is not a definition of apple.

You do not have a civilian army, you have civilians with guns. Your country cha nged the law for that to literally mean militia.

Your country is the only one in the world whose definition of militia encompasses literally everyone, by legal definition. BECAUSE of the 2nd amendment.

Like, you have actually provided no actual points past the speculative arguing of semantics.

It's literal fact that meanings can be changed.

If you are American you are apart of the Militia, if you are able to serve your country, even if you don't you are apart of the militia. This has never been the case historically. Like, literally, never.

You changed the definition to suit your needs. That's literal fact.

>it refutes your argument

This is a statement you have made and make now on zero basis.

>its in YOUR second amendment

so you seem to assume

>you don't know what a militia is
>therefore no one does
>therefore sell guns to everyone!

Never said that, I only said that you can't even define "well regulated".

>peoples

still harping on this point again? I thought you said you were done with me.

>Never said that, I only said that you can't even define "well regulated".
I never said I could. History can though, that's the fucking point - which you refuse to see, as it refutes your argument. You want me to spoon feed you? How fat are you?

>You do not have a civilian army, you have civilians with guns.

We do not have a right to a civilian army, we have the right to bear arms.

>Your country is the only one in the world whose definition of militia encompasses literally everyone, by legal definition. BECAUSE of the 2nd amendment.

No, it only includes males aged 18 to 50. And you have yet to establish why this is an issue.

>It's literal fact that meanings can be changed.

Of course, yes can mean no and no can mean maybe and maybe can mean yes.

>This has never been the case historically. Like, literally, never.

American exceptionalism isn't just a dank meme you know.

If you are capable of how can you not define 'well-regulated', at least how do you justify it meaning what is happening in America today?

>History can define the term"well regulated" for me and that means you're wrong!!

kek

>how can you not define 'well-regulated'

I can and have. It essentially means properly equipped and capable of sustained martial action.