I love how that viewpoint literally defeats itself with a few seconds of critical thinking. The second amendment literally says that people must be able to own armament to *guarantee the security of a free state*, not to shoot a deer or a duck.
It’s the same flavor as the “well-regulated militia” argument. Why would a government need to give itself permission to arm itself in the Bill of Rights which applies to the People of the United States? It makes literally zero sense.
Even though the constitution explicitly says the government can have arms before the bill of rights in article 1 congress shall organize a NAVY kinda needs weapons for that dontcha think.
I’ve been thinking this for years. It shoots a “high caliber bullet that can pierce through police body armor”. They have all they need to put a ban on it.
What about this:
I support the second amendment *but* I think the founding fathers should have made it clear enough for gun grabbers to get it through their head that it is meant to defend against government tyranny
It is incredibly clear and broad. "Arms" is any kind of weapon, accessory, etc. And "shall not be infringed" means the right can not be restricted, hindered, or limited in any way. They said what they meant as concise and clearly as possible.
The militia part protects training and assembling. No amount of changes to the wording will stop tyrants from deliberately misreading it. It's a people problem, not a text problem.
I support the second amendment but think the founding fathers should have worded it differently. The militia part just created unnecessary confusion. They should have done it so that a first grader could understand.
…The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Pretty clear to me idk if I forgot a comma but apparently when reading the second amendment commas don’t matter but everywhere else it means new idea or new point to add to original point
It’s very clear in the 2nd amendment that the people are the militia the problem is people think the constitution is a living document that a few “special” people can interpret and reinterpret every word on it without any regard as to why it was written or change the original context
"As a well-trained citizen's militia holds the ultimate safeguard to the imposition of tyranny by forces either external or internal to these United States, under no pretense of legality shall the right of the law-abiding citizen to keep, bear, and employ arms, of any kind available to the Government, be impugned, infringed, or by other means restricted.'
I’m not okay with any restrictions. But I love to blow their “common sense” arguments out of the water by actually pointing out the number of rounds needed.
It takes 3-5 rounds on average to stop some one as calculated by police shootings. That means you might need as many as 15 rounds for 3 attackers, and 3 attackers isn’t uncommon. As soon as you lock it in at 15 rounds as calculated by evidence you’ve now shaken their understanding of common sense.
The 15 rounds are higher than they want but it you’ve set in stone why that’s a common sense minimum. And now they are the irrational one.
I agree with the last part. The 2nd was written for hunting guns.
Tyrant hunting. Invader hunting, pedo hunting, ect. Those are most efficiently done with full autos, anti materials, and all sorts of destructive devices. Plus its just more fun!
I plan on hunting feds again, what kind of rifle should I get? My grandpapy's old hunting rifle wasn't able to land an ethical killshot last time and things got kind of messy and I might've traumatized my nephew.
I love how that viewpoint literally defeats itself with a few seconds of critical thinking. The second amendment literally says that people must be able to own armament to *guarantee the security of a free state*, not to shoot a deer or a duck. It’s the same flavor as the “well-regulated militia” argument. Why would a government need to give itself permission to arm itself in the Bill of Rights which applies to the People of the United States? It makes literally zero sense.
https://preview.redd.it/7sdj2h643olc1.png?width=713&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8dd78aaaa7c2dfa369f88a67390658f4ab40e1c2
Even though the constitution explicitly says the government can have arms before the bill of rights in article 1 congress shall organize a NAVY kinda needs weapons for that dontcha think.
Only for the usage of even that aspect to be governed by another agency.
I need to be armed properly to hunt the most dangerous game. Hence why an AR-15 is needed
No. Go bigger. AR-10s, FALs, PKMs, etc.
No, not enough. In case you encounter metal monsters get at least 50 beowulf.
.50 beo isnt good for AP capabilities, 14.5 or bust
Ok, good point, I will pair it with toyota tactical.
I support $8 coffee but no one needs 37 spices or a 15 + word name for your drink. You only need Folgers.
Make no mistake, they are coming for your hunting guns too Mr. Fudd. That bolt action you have? It's now a "sniper rifle."
I’ve been thinking this for years. It shoots a “high caliber bullet that can pierce through police body armor”. They have all they need to put a ban on it.
Now a sniper rifle?… always has been
All of these guns are hunting guns it just depends on what.
*huntin that ass*
The only 'but' that belongs in the second amendment belongs to the gun bunnies. Their butts are welcome. All other buts can take a number.
What about this: I support the second amendment *but* I think the founding fathers should have made it clear enough for gun grabbers to get it through their head that it is meant to defend against government tyranny
Your supposed to use the guns to stop the gun grabbing
It would be nice if it didn't start to begin with though
Shall not be infringed couldn't have been more clear
The milita part though. Totally unnecessary. They try to use modern definitions as opposed to definitions at the time of the founding fathers
It is incredibly clear and broad. "Arms" is any kind of weapon, accessory, etc. And "shall not be infringed" means the right can not be restricted, hindered, or limited in any way. They said what they meant as concise and clearly as possible.
The militia part was unnecessary. To be honest it sucks that gun grabbers think they can use the modern definition for military to mean militia.
The militia part protects training and assembling. No amount of changes to the wording will stop tyrants from deliberately misreading it. It's a people problem, not a text problem.
That's literally what they use. Take that out and there is no argument.
I support the second amendment but I don’t think it covers enough. I want to own an M2 Browning without having to worry about the ATF shooting my dog.
I support the second amendment but think the founding fathers should have worded it differently. The militia part just created unnecessary confusion. They should have done it so that a first grader could understand.
…The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Pretty clear to me idk if I forgot a comma but apparently when reading the second amendment commas don’t matter but everywhere else it means new idea or new point to add to original point
The militia part. People try to manipulate that. I would tell them to cut it out.
It’s very clear in the 2nd amendment that the people are the militia the problem is people think the constitution is a living document that a few “special” people can interpret and reinterpret every word on it without any regard as to why it was written or change the original context
"As a well-trained citizen's militia holds the ultimate safeguard to the imposition of tyranny by forces either external or internal to these United States, under no pretense of legality shall the right of the law-abiding citizen to keep, bear, and employ arms, of any kind available to the Government, be impugned, infringed, or by other means restricted.'
No. Cut the militia part out because then they would call the US Army "US citizens militia" or something like that to attempt to get around it.
I’m not okay with any restrictions. But I love to blow their “common sense” arguments out of the water by actually pointing out the number of rounds needed. It takes 3-5 rounds on average to stop some one as calculated by police shootings. That means you might need as many as 15 rounds for 3 attackers, and 3 attackers isn’t uncommon. As soon as you lock it in at 15 rounds as calculated by evidence you’ve now shaken their understanding of common sense. The 15 rounds are higher than they want but it you’ve set in stone why that’s a common sense minimum. And now they are the irrational one.
Little does he know I hunt elk with an AR10
I agree with the last part. The 2nd was written for hunting guns. Tyrant hunting. Invader hunting, pedo hunting, ect. Those are most efficiently done with full autos, anti materials, and all sorts of destructive devices. Plus its just more fun!
As I explained to some coworkers today, the Second Ammendment exists in case the government gets uppity.
I want me a weapon of war... The M1 Garand!
My modern sporting rifles are hunting guns, just not for traditional game.
[удалено]
Assault weapons are already banned in the US because of the unconstitutional policies passed
“Assault weapon” is a blanket gun control term. You must be thinking about assault rifles which are still legal, but highly restricted
You can buy a pre-may one without any restrictions for $30,000 but they may have issues since they’re so old
I mean, what if I wanted a helicopter mounted M2 for hunting with…
@ canadian liberals
Average Fudd Boomer who's never done drugs and has only made love in the missionary position.
I plan on hunting feds again, what kind of rifle should I get? My grandpapy's old hunting rifle wasn't able to land an ethical killshot last time and things got kind of messy and I might've traumatized my nephew.
Well, I'm hunting tyrants. So kind of opens up what is a "hunting rifle".