>


Except, and I know this will likely upset you, the 2A does explicitly state the purpose of a free person's right to bear arms is because a militia is necessary for the security of a free state. 

Sorry I missed the text that said that was the only reason for the 2a and only protected exercise of it.  Just like I missed the detailed lists associated with every other right that set out exactly what is and is not protected by them.  
Because it's not like there are basic given things that we all just assume are protected.  Obviously hunting and self defense were completely foreign concepts to the founders which is why they didn't specify them when they said a secure state need armed men.  Probably why they also didn't specify a right to food or water or shelter or that stuff because they didn't know about it not that the idea that such things were not inherently your right were insanity.

And the 2A definitely was not written so citizens could create armed militias

So you think the 2a was written to prevent the government from infringing on its right to arm itself?

and certainly not for the purpose of taking up arms against the government

Because god knows the people who literally just fought a revolution against a government they viewed as tyrannical would never think that would be necessary...
Do you have a time machine because you seem to act like you've spoken to the founders.

a significant part of the reason the US had to write the Constitution in the first place was because armed citizens rose up against the government.

Yeah the English government.  Had a big war about it.  Pretty famous actually.  Started with a tea party.
But you seem to think the men who fought against a tyrannical government thought nobody would ever need guns to fight against a tyrannical government and the 2a only exists to protect the governments right to arm itself.
Well I don't really know what to say other than...  Wow.  Impressively wrong and ignorant.
While I support the rights of people to own guns, recent history has proven we need much more regulation.  We need full registration and required training to own a gun.  Something we are sorely lacking.  We need a license to get a car, why not a gun? >

Defense is a human right. Cars are not. >

Firearms are inhuman.
Not one of you can give me an argument that fixes school shootings outside of guns disappearing. >

So is someone breaking and entering someones home to rape or kill, and you want to take away the best tool for a victims means of self-defense? If someone has intent to rape and then kill someone living alone, you just want them to take it and accept it? What if the resident is paralyzed from the waist down? What if they have some other medical condition or ailment you don't know about that limits their motor ability to learn self defense fighting byt enough to operate a firearm? You don't know the situation of a victim or a perpetrator who could be way stronger or heavier, could be weaker, could be using narcotics and you want to take away and limit their ability to defend themselves or limit that ability. >

Yes. I guess I do want to take away firearms for self-defense, as well. Taking them away from everyone is the only answer that makes any sense if we’re trying to stop the ever-increasing deaths by firearms. >

In a perfect world and if criminals just didn't commit crimes it might work but, be real, it doesn't. We don't live in a perfect world and never will not to mention the logistical nightmare it would be to get all guns in America destroyed.
Even the Reddit parroted Australia gun ban had no observable effects on suicides or homicides.
And mass murders still occur by other means. >

I don't care.
How many schools are getting shot up in Australia after they had the one that made them come to their senses about firearms?
I didn't expect homicides to disappear. I expect them to shrink because it's harder to mass murder with a knife unless you've got help. 
There's no argument you can give that's going to change my mind and apparently children dying aren't going to change yours. It won't change your mind until it comes to your school or church or grocery store and you weren't there to hero it up with your carry permit. >

Well there you go “I don’t care”..if that’s your position no one has to care about your opinion when it comes to our rights in usa they are there and not going anywhere if you don’t like it move to Europe which have laws you like better since we had a revolutionary war with Britain on the whole issue of them trying to tell us what to do and had their boots on our necks..2a is for protection against tyranny and rogue governments first and then personal protection second >

Sure, buddy. I just see a different path than you. >

It's not enough that you old fucks ruined everything, you can't even wait for the cancer to get us? >

When they said "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'm 1000% sure that what we have going on in this country with guns was not what they intended, they couldn't have imagined the firepower available or the frequency that we use it on innocent people. >

Let’s keep that same energy as it pertains to the 1st amendment with TV, radio, internet, etc. After all, they couldn’t see the sheer amount of information disseminated enmasse when the only way to say things back then was standing on a soapbox and yelling. >

Except TVs and radios aren’t being used to cause mass murders on a weekly basis. >

Just the mass brainwashing that allows the rest of the atrocities to continue. >

That’s funny, cause every other country has TVs and laptops too, yet they don’t have these regular mass shootings, but by your logic, all those brainwashed people in other countries should be causing mass shootings too. >

I’m not sure your point. Brainwashed people with guns obviously isn’t good. But that doesn’t mean brainwashed people without access to guns aren’t still a problem, especially when it comes to voting. >

My point is, other countries have brainwashed people too, but the reason they don’t have mass shootings is because they don’t have access to guns. I’m not in favor of brainwashing people. >

I guess my point is that checks on what people can say is not entirely bad. Germany for example doesn’t let people speak positively or deny the holocaust. We need more laws to reign in the amount of lying and misinformation people are allowed to get away with spreading. People need to get over their undying allegiance to 100% free speech. In fact, we already have limits regardless even though people think otherwise. >

If we need more laws I don’t want our US lawmakers making them.   
They simply are not good at it. >

This is a dumb take because they are the ones that write laws. The irony is if you think lawmakers are bad but they are voted by the people, many of whom have been fed bullshit by people and groups that should have had checks on spreading their lies and misinformation. >

Unfortunately, this quote is going to be used against Newsom if he runs for President in the future. >

Times change and may turn out to be a strength. >

If Sandy Hook didn’t change the political will and discourse, what ever will? >

Uvalde was worse. Bunch of grown armed cops too afraid to even try to save children in Texas because they knew that was a suicide mission. >

But it wasn't a suicide mission. It was 1 teenage boy. 
A team of officers in vests should have easily ended the situation. 
The officer that snuck in to get his kids was already there and concealed. 
This was cowardice. 
So yes, it was a travesty. >

The United States cares more about guns than human lives. 
It's written in black and white. You have guaranteed access to guns, but not food, water, breathable air, shelter, or healthcare.
As long as that remains true, we won't be able to do shit about armed nutjobs exercising their right to slaughter people by the thousand every year. >

When republicans say healthcare is “accessible” despite how expensive it is I really wanna know what they would think if guns and ammo cost as much as healthcare and medical procedures did. Would they still think they had “access” to weapons or does price gouging their wittle weapons make them sad and throw a tantrum? >

Having the ability to defend one's self, including against the government, does seem more important these days when fascism is rising and threatening people's lives. We've seen how governments such as in Iran brutalize their own people and how they have no possible recourse. And ultimately there's no way to feasibly get rid of the large number of guns available right now. We should have more regulations but we'll always have a lot of guns around. >

Gun control doesn't effect your ability to get a gun, it just effects how quickly you can.

And ultimately there's no way to feasibly get rid of the large number of guns available right now. We should have more regulations but we'll always have a lot of guns around.

Ultimately there's no feasible way to get rid of the large amount of carbon being put into the atmosphere right now. we should have more regulations but we'll always have a lot of emissions.
Time to give up on climate change too? >

The first statement is incorrect. Gun control obviously policy does affect your ability to get a gun when it bans certain types or says certain people can't have them. We already have extensive regulation of firearms, including background checks and limitations on ownership. The proposals being put forth now are bans on assault weapons or semi-automatic weapons. >

I’m not defending the specific proposal put forth now, which I agree is basically useless.
What I meant is that gun control does not affect a persons ability to buy a gun by default. If for example, we had a law that kept domestic violence convicts from purchasing guns for a period of time since that is such a big indicator for gun violence, of course, it would affect them. But they are not in the default.
Having some obstacles to buying a gun, like how you have to have a license to drive a car, does not prevent people from having cars
Banning certain types of guns does not prevent you from buying other guns.
We do not currently have extensive regulations by any means. Extensive is a relative term, and relative to every other country on the planet, our gun laws are among the most lenient you can find. >

The second amendment makes it pretty clear that being part of a well related state militia is a prerequisite to gun ownership. It would be interesting for a state to pass a law requiring militia service (we'd call that national guard service these days) to own most types of guns! >

"Second Amendment provides an individual right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes." >

What shit ruling. It literally says "being necessary to the security of a free State". It doesn't say anything about individuals protecting their homes.
But they decided the first half and the second half of the amendment can be interpreted separately. So they decided the parts about the well regulated militia and the protection of the state don't actually matter. Fuckin stupid. >


It doesn't say anything about individuals protecting their homes.

It directly refers to the right belong to the people.

But they decided the first half and the second half of the amendment can be interpreted separately. So they decided the parts about the well regulated militia and the protection of the state don't actually matter. 

Ok so how do YOU think we should apply the second part to the first part?  What, as long as I am part of any militia I can have open access to any gun?  Or do you think the militia is just the national guard now and the 2a just prevents the government from infringing on its right to arm itself?
There are indeed two parts and I am very curious how you interpret the second part. >

The militia is the essential thing being created by not infringing on the right of the (white landowning) people to bear arms. The Militia Acts passed right after the Constitution lay out all the 'well-regulation's, including what weapons one was required to own, ammo, kit, etc. So even the type of arms were regulated. When the militia was made unnecessary by the Dick Act the right of the people to bear arms for the essential militia was no longer required. >

Except and I know this will likely upset you.  Nowhere in the 2a does it say that the militia is THE ONLY reason the 2a exists.  Fixating on the militia just means you miss the point.  The right belongs to the people not the government or the militia it belongs to we the people and we have that right for many reasons among them being that we citizens need to be able to create armed citizen militias and to do that we need to be able to keep and bear arms but the creation of that militia is not the only reason for the 2a just like religion and yelling whatever you want in town square are not the only reasons for the 1a. >

Except, and I know this will likely upset you, the 2A does explicitly state the purpose of a free person's right to bear arms is because a militia is necessary for the security of a free state. And the 2A definitely was not written so citizens could create armed militias and certainly not for the purpose of taking up arms against the government, ahistorical bullshit, a significant part of the reason the US had to write the Constitution in the first place was because armed citizens rose up against the government.