2A Question...

[Gregolian]

We went from this



To this...



Here we are folks. It's always the least genuine folks who represent the anti-2A crowd.

Such a poor and thinly veiled attempt to disguise his real leaning.

BTW - you're Canadian. So fuck off. Worry about Canadian shit. Like snow, hockey, and maple syrup. eh.

And a blackface prime minister

 

[Gregolian]

So a democratic controlled house and senate seems like something that's happened before. No idea how the 3/4 of states work re: gun control.

3/4 of the state legislative chambers have to approve the amendment change

the last amendment to ratify took several decades cause of this and all it was for was a pay issue for House and Senate members

 

[PHATV]

So a democratic controlled house and senate seems like something that's happened before. No idea how the 3/4 of states work re: gun control.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

 

[DragRacer]

I think I might have accidentally hit “report” on this post while I was reading the thread on my phone and scrolling with my dumb fat thumbs. My apologies if I did :sniper:

Firearms technology and the original meaning of the Second Amendment

Gun-control advocates often argue that gun-control laws must be more restrictive than the original meaning of the Second Amendment would allow, because modern firearms are so different from the firearms of the late 18th century. This argument is based on ignorance of the history of firearms. It is true that in 1791 the most common firearms were handguns or long guns that had to be reloaded after every shot. But it is not true that repeating arms, which can fire multiple times without reloading, were unimagined in 1791. To the contrary, repeating arms long predate the 1606 founding of the first English colony in America. As of 1791, repeating arms were available but expensive.

This article explains why the price of repeating arms declined so steeply. Then it describes some of the repeating arms that were already in use when the Second Amendment was ratified, including the 22-shot rifle that was later carried on the Lewis and Clark expedition.


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/03/firearms-technology-and-the-original-meaning-of-the-second-amendment/?outputType=amp

 

[jonharrison]

Look, people.

I understand how important the 2A is to Americans, it's the logic behind the arguments for it, that I'm having issues understanding.

Yes, I'm "devil's advocating" a bit, but im not trying to troll, im trying to understand the logic behind it because you will have 1 of 2 things happen.

Either the government becomes tyrannical and no soldiers are willing to fire on their fellow Americans, or they do fire on them and kill them from ranges that they can't even be seen from.

In both of those situations the 2A won't help. You either have nothing to worry about, or you'll be dead without knowing what killed you.

This is the part I guess I'm trying to understand from an American's point of view when it comes to 2A.

For those who believe I'm a libtard, gun grabber, well think what you want. Nothing could be further from the truth, I've listed some of the guns I've fired in posts above. Something a libtard gun grabber would never be caught dead doing, nevermind posting the footage of it on youtube.

Sure I’ll give this a shot. Let me present my argument in the framework of the founders. The founding fathers of the United States, despite the gentrified image that has passed down through history, were a revolutionary guerilla movement. The Revolution was a group of radicals who used acts of intimidation and violence to disrupt, and through the help of France, overthrow their own government who happened to be the most powerful military in the world. The Founders’ revolution wasn’t just in terms of government type, moving from monarchy to representative republic, but in ideas of liberty as well. The Founders fundamentally believed that a citizen had the right to self determination and liberty. That no authority could determine the fate of a free man outside of his own abilities. Firearm ownership as an individual right was a radical departure from European beliefs. In Europe, the ownership of arms by the agrarian class was never well established, or allowed, because the governing elites thought of the peasant class as property to serve the state, not individual citizens who could determine what is best for themselves. It’s this radical idea of government from the bottom up, rather than the state being entirely defined by who the current monarch was, that is the true essence of America. It explains every other article in the Bill of Rights, and it’s a fundamental part of being an American. To remove the 2a over concerns of safety, at the expense of liberty, is fundamentally contrary to the founding principals of the nation. The revolution itself put the safety of the participants far behind their commitment to liberty, as they were becoming traitors to the crown. Certainly you can debate what relevance this has in the 21st Century, however I would counter that curtailing one of the Bills of Rights, and limiting the liberty of any law abiding citizen, is contrary to the very definition of what our country’s founding principals establish for our country’s direction must be. The United States isn’t England or France. It wasn’t founded as separate kingdoms that over centuries melded into a nation. It was founded, by men, with set principals for what the country would be. As far as the effectiveness of a well armed populace resisting an oppressive, modern military, I would refer you to any resistance movement of WW2 against the Wermacht, the Mujahideen against the Soviets, or the resurgent Taliban despite fighting the US for the past nineteen years. That argument alone is still weak, though. Why the second matters to Americans is like I have been saying. It is an indicator that the populace as a whole, and the government in particular, respect the individual citizens inherent liberty, and place that liberty ahead of safety concerns. It’s the exact same as any of the other Bills, and true patriots bristle when infringements are imposed on any of them, including speech, rights to a trial, rights to not incriminate yourself, etc.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

And there are weapons I'm unconvinced need to be obtainable and legally owned by Joe Schmoe.

What weapons would those be, and why? I'm curious what your rationale would be for such a viewpoint.

 

[panamaican]

I lean on context. When the 2nd Amendment was written, the militia was an actual fighting force. It was expected to stand up alongside the army and fight against an opponent's army.

When I interpret the 2nd Amendment, I see it from that angle - what would a citizen militia need today to stand along an army and fight against an invading country's army.

And so while society has changed, the context of the 2nd Amendment hasn't. Which is what those rights were about - broad principles, not unchanging definitions. The founders of the nation expected the world to change and they expected us to apply the principles to the new scenarios.

 

[Farmer Br0wn]

Was this supposed to be a parody?

Because legally it's a really silly argument. "Shall not be infringed" doesn't speak to the class of arms infringed or the level of possession, which is why the first 200 years of 2A jurisprudence inferred a collective, not individual, right.

You're aware the Supreme Court disagrees with you, correct?

 

[7437]

Serious questions from an uninformed Canadian.

The Constitution has been amended many times. What would it taek for the 2A to be amended?

2/3 majority in both houses of congress, or 2/3 of state legislatures.

 

[Fugazy]

I think you missed the point of my post. There are multiple factors at play and it is important to identify them and address them all effectively where possible. A couple of those factors are the prevalence and availability of guns and extremely weak and inconsistent gun laws, regardless of whether you can identify others.

And sure, I understand the crime rate has been declining for a long time; I'm not an alarmist in that respect. I just don't think that's an excuse to dismiss the potential to reduce unnecessary deaths and take no action. People need to open their minds and realize there are multiple ways to contribute to solving complex societal problems. That doesn't mean leftists want to take away your guns.

I didn't say anything about leftists.

I agree that the issue is complex.

I understand you perfectly.

 

[Fugazy]

I am struggling to understand how words on a piece of paper from 200 years ago is the blanket answer.

You 100% don't understand the Bill of Rights or the 2A.

 

[Teppodama]

I'll worry about what kind of firearms are in civilian hands when I see more people worry and legislate a persons ability to start a car if they have alcohol in their system or the ability to speed in areas with clearly posted speed limits.

How about we start declaring every auto accident where someone

I am struggling to understand how words on a piece of paper from 200 years ago is the blanket answer.

Unfortunately it doesn't help. Name calling and assuming I'm one of those "damn red coats" just makes anything else you said worthless. Try having a normal discussion without resulting to assumptions and insults.



Words don't pull triggers, people do.



"Arrogant" = rustled.

I made a post asking questions, not to troll, yet here you are with your rustled Jim Jams.



This is what is happening in Canada. They keep passing more and lore restrictive laws, but we don't have a 2A to fall back on, so it's quite easy for the government to do.



Reading comprehension obviously isn't your strong suit. I never once said "we should get rid of guns". Sorry for trying to have a civilized discussion on a message board, I should have known better.

Continue being rustled.

I don't know if Canada has enough of a population that supports firearm right that organizing can effective against the rest but you might want to get serious and give it a try. Vote your grabbers out and repel their efforts.

Thats what needs to start happening here in the States. Politicians only respect money and power or that which threatens it. Time for supporters of the 2A or firearms in general to get serious about how they hit back both economically, politically, legally and socially.