Is the Second Amendment the biggest mistake in American history?


Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Warning: Attempt to read property "comment_date" on null in /var/www/wptbox/wp-includes/comment-template.php on line 1043

Is the Second Amendment the biggest mistake in American history?

  1. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is the Balfour declaration the biggest mistake in British history?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      No that would the decision to bring in a bunch of slaves

      Irrelevant document that was not even important to the creation of Israel, which itself was something that only israelites, Arabs, and leftists care about

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, that’s the Hart-Cellar act, tied with the Federal Reserve Act.

      Top 5

      >Politicians pass both lax and restrictive gun laws throughout the country for decades
      >Mass shootings still happen
      >Let's just pass one more law that doesn't prevent criminals from committing crimes, then we'll finally be at peace
      If it didn't work for the first 30 years what makes people think we'll get it right this time? It's clearly not the guns. Switzerland is proof of that.

      Iceland as well, pretty much everyone owns a gun and gun crime is virtually nonexistent.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Iceland as well, pretty much everyone owns a gun and gun crime is virtually nonexistent.
        You can own guns in Iceland?

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Yup.
          >https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna872726
          >https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/iceland
          >https://grapevine.is/news/2021/08/10/semi-automatic-firearm-imports-on-the-rise-in-iceland/
          >https://www.icelandreview.com/society/nearly-90000-firearms-in-iceland/
          >https://globalnews.ca/news/4236365/iceland-gun-control-violence/amp/
          Pretty cozy place
          guncontrol bros we lost...

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >No, that’s the Hart-Cellar act, tied with the Federal Reserve Act.
        aaaand /thread

        >tfw there is no hope

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >No, that’s the Hart-Cellar act, tied with the Federal Reserve Act.
        aaaand /thread

        >tfw there is no hope

        How much money do you need to escape this shit.

  2. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Madison and co. had no way of knowing thousands of micro penis-toting degenerate homosexuals would greenlight kids being shot for the sake of their stamp-collecting tier autistic hobby, so no

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      ya fuck the cia

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        This anon knows who the real culprits are. And they glow.

  3. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    >2017
    In 5 years the numbers have changed, haven't you heard? Therefore we need to re-write the Constitution. lol

  4. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    [...]
    >2017
    In 5 years the numbers have changed, haven't you heard? Therefore we need to re-write the Constitution. lol

    t. has a micro-penis

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      cry harder homosexual

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Americans viciously defending a liberal document written by liberals bitching about liberals
        Kek

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Modern liberals aren't liberals. They're socialists. For the US at least they name change came after FDR convinced everyone government spending was true freedom

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >convinced everyone government spending was true freedom
            Yeah, real freedom is sucking financial banking's dick and letting the CIA run rampant worldwide, just like Reagan said!

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Modern liberals aren't liberals. They're socialists
            >socialism was invented when Obama became President
            Smartest American.

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              was invented when Obama became President
              if you read the entirety of the post it says exactly when socialism became liberalism, under FDR

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Modern liberals aren't liberals. They're socialists.

            was invented when Obama became President
            if you read the entirety of the post it says exactly when socialism became liberalism, under FDR

            >socialism became liberalism
            amerifat moment

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              What's with the american habit to hide behind the rest of the world on every question possible? I guarantee you my ID card doesn't stipulate I have to whiteknight soshulism on 4chinz

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                It's not even about defending socialism, it's about having a basic understanding of what socialism is. You retards really think liberals who want a capitalist society with a welfare state are somehow socialist. It's the amerifat education system at its finest.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                I do not care. That does not make me american. Get new material.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Being politically retarded and unashamed to loudly broadcast it does in fact make you an amerifat.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                says the welfare queen

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you want to make your ad hominen Jose you'll have to make it fit. Simply repeating whatever bullshit your zoomer peers want you to believe does not cut it.
                In my country socialism could've meant as much saint-simonianism, as cooperativism, as solidarism, as communism and anarchism. And from my knowledge of other neighboring nations, which I doubt you have a speck of despite your feigned over-americanism, they had equivalents to that.

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              became liberalism
              Yes, FDR coined the term liberalism for the support of socialist government policies

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >In 1815, the first use of the word "liberalism" appeared in English.
                amerifat moment

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                correct

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >everyone I don't like is a socialist
            0/10
            Ask any genuine socialist their opinion on liberals.

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              All socialists are liberals and so are communists

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Liberalism is founded on individual rights and freedoms; socialism and communism are collectivist ideologies. You're retarded mate.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                there are two branches of socialism. socialism existed before marx, but it's no less destructive

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Even the very earliest forms of socialism deliberately contrasted with liberal ideas of individualism.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                so is modern leftism, not exactly seeing your point

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >not exactly seeing your point
                Because your education system has utterly failed you, and your political system is operated and explained by people who count on your stupidity to get easy votes.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Can you bridge the gap? Or do you not have a point

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Liberalism is founded on whig history and the right of homosexual commoners to rule. Especially enticing to israelites. Communism is a subset of liberalism. Marx lifted everything from those enlightement homos and from Adam Smith and Feuerbach who were as libtard as it gets.

                >muh linear progress measured in shit you can cram down your maw
                >society gets better because number goes up
                >all of humanity can be boiled down to economic relations
                >value is created by labor
                >monarchy bad, borders bad, feudalism bad, patriarchy bad, secularism good
                The only thing these homosexuals disagree with communists on is who gets to own the factories

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Communism is a subset of liberalism
                Nope. Communism is a subset of socialism, which has been in contrast with liberalism since the beginning. It was presented from the start as an alternative political school of thought to liberal individualism.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                was it?

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes.

                Individualism vs collectivism is Ben Shapiro tier retarded understanding of what you're talking sbout.

                Ben Shapiro is the exact sort of retard who would claim that liberals are socialists.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Okay so how are liberals not socialists? Or are you just going to give up again

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Okay so how are liberals not socialists?
                This is already been explained to you. On the most fundamental level, liberalism advocates individualism, while socialism arose as an alternative to liberalism which instead advocated collectivism. Liberalism would go on to promote things like the market economy, private property and capitalism, while socialism would proceed to insist upon collective ownership, the abolition of the free market which naturally creates unequal societies.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >This is already been explained to you
                no, you went on a semantic tangent and then gave up

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                No, it was explained to you and you're choosing to ignore it. Your confusion stems from the fact that your education system is terrible, and your politicians count on their constituents being retarded. Only in America does it make any sense at all to anyone that one politician will call another politician a communist because they want to keep the free market and private property intact but use taxes to fund a healthcare system. This bizarre scenario is normal to you. Your stubborn insistence on avoiding the truth and preferring your own ignorance is distinctly American.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >it was explained to you
                No, it wasn't. All you said is "socialists don't like individualism". Then I said "well, neither to the people we call liberals." Then you gave up

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                If he had done the reading instead of spending time boasting online he'd know that liberalism's logic was perfectly assimilated with early socialists. The abolition of property was talked about like the next logical step after feudal dues and tolls. They were only chastising them because they were not going all the way.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                bruh you've fallen so far into the rabbit hole you can't diffrentiate between the american meaning of liberal and the real meaning.

                Ben shapiro would claim himself to be a Liberal in the classical definition of it, he often refers to himself as libertarian on issues and proceeds to argue according to englightenment age ideals. He will also say that American "liberals" are socialist because of their wish to expand government ownership and welfare spending.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                He knows, it's LBJfag, he wants to rope you into a semantic argument to try and piss you off

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you can't diffrentiate between the american meaning of liberal
                I absolutely do not care about the latest nonsensical and inconsistent "american definition" of a political philosophy that was firmly established long ago. If you fat retards decided tomorrow that you were changing the definition of a triangle to mean a six-sided polygon because your inane politicians said so, that would mean nothing.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >latest nonsensical and inconsistent "american definition"
                >nearly 100 years old
                braindead

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                YWNBAW

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                okay LBJfag

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >flees when faced with "non-american" definition
                You're just a little bitch is all

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Individualism vs collectivism is Ben Shapiro tier retarded understanding of what you're talking sbout.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >incessant need to bring up gun owner's penises

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >You might have working firearms, but I'm thinking about your cock. Looks like I win again, rightoids.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        he's not wrong though. you likely have a tiny dick.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >behold the power of gun grabber logic

  5. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes.

  6. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Holy rent free

  7. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    No, it is its greatest moment and a ray of hope for all of us who suffer tyranny here in Europe and elsewhere.

  8. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    No. The mistake was the wording because now we have a debate between individualism and collectivism. Pennsylvania did it right.

    XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. -- https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/pa08.asp

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      SCOTUS did rule that it's an individual right. The wording made more sense in the 18th century.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        I agree that it's an individual right and yes, the SCOTUS made it clear in the 2008 Heller decision, but it was a 5-4 decision and many people will still argue that the Founders considered it to be a collective right. They tend to hyper-fixate on the well-regulated militia bit. I don't know how else to put sense into these people. Even the askhistorians reddit says that the 2A protects the individual right.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Heller was a catastrophe because they ruled the 2A is about self defense. It obviously isn't

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            That may be true, but I think if you ask most Americans, they'll say gun ownership is for a few reasons: self-defense, hunting, and competition shooting. No one cares about militias anymore and the National Guard has evolved into another reserve component of the military.

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              people would care if they were educated. Liberals today shit their pants in rage because some shitheads in a flyover state do something they don't like when in reality its none of their fucking business.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                People shitting their pants in rage because someone somewhere else is doing something they don't like is pretty universal

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                it shouldn't be in the US because people aren't educated

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          >the right of the PEOPLE
          That’s the words that BTFO any and all gun grabber arguments and they are starting to realize it which is why some are just dropping all pretense and calling for the 2A to be a abolished

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Literally diagramming sentences
        autism

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          When retards can't understand English you have little other choice.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Wrong lmao. People aren't slaves of the state. The 2nd amentment got it right. People should be able to keep a working gun in their homes for defense as necessary against the tyranny of the government, the state and such. Federal government is ofcourse free to have a military on its own as we need it to protect the borders and such, but it is individuals right to defend against the tyranny of the state with guns.

  9. 7 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      so we need to get rid of the mexicans

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >so we need to get rid of the mexicans

        Yes

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Guns are common in switzerland because they have mandatory military service and allow people to keep their guns if they do regular license renewals. Getting ammo is definitely not easy there. So I wouldn't say availability is high. Meanwhile in mexico, they can just smuggle guns in from the us. cartels have a fuck ton of guns. Its very available for them.

  10. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Alito is such a fucking bitch even when I agree with him

  11. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Politicians pass both lax and restrictive gun laws throughout the country for decades
    >Mass shootings still happen
    >Let's just pass one more law that doesn't prevent criminals from committing crimes, then we'll finally be at peace
    If it didn't work for the first 30 years what makes people think we'll get it right this time? It's clearly not the guns. Switzerland is proof of that.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >It's clearly not the guns.
      You're right
      It's the Americans with the guns. Americans have simply proven to be too stupid and mentally immature to own weapons, whereas the Swiss are actually intelligent and civilized

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        I wonder what's the main difference between American and Swiss population. Almost like America is packed full of naggers spics and the mentally ill

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Switzerland's population is 40% immigrants, and that includes retarded murderous Yugoslavs who can't go 5 minutes without trying to knife each other

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            Immigrants from where? Look at the countries of origin you disingenuous homosexual. If you removed naggers and beaners from America's gun crime stats we would have Western Europe tier gun violence rates

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              >If you removed naggers and beaners from America's gun crime stats we would have Western Europe tier gun violence rates
              How come Chile, which is just beaners and Haitians, has a lower homicide rate than the USA?
              How come Turkey, which is all brown, is safer too?
              Why is "white" Russia the most violent shithole in Europe, but "brown" France is safer?

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because Chile has one of the most corrupt law enforcement agencies in the world

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >How come Turkey, which is all brown, is safer too?
                Why is "white" Russia the most violent shithole in Europe, but "brown" France is safer

                Combination of genetics, culture, law enforcement strategies, availability of weapons, punitive vs rehabilitative justice systems, etc. All else being equal, more blacks = more crime

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Russia is the brownest country in Eastern Europe literally 20% muslim. It's not white ethnic Russians doing all the murder, compare murder rates in Russia to Hungary Slovakia Czechia

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >murderous Yugoslavs
            Murder rate in Croatia 1.0
            Murder rate in Shartistan 6.3

            Cope and seethe nagger

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              The average Yugo today is a 50 year old woman. Go back about 30 years and take a look at how peaceful they were being.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >has to go back to literal wartime to find anything remotely comparable to American nagger cities in peacetime
                lol nagger

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                You don't get to kill off all your violent people in one war and then next year go "aha, the murder rate is down now lol!" when they all sped up the process of killing each other earlier and there are scarcely any murderers left alive.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Endless shitskin cope
                >kill off all your violent people
                Prewar Yugo also had much lower murder rates than Zogland

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          There are parts of America with lots of naggers and spics where the murder rate is below the national average.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            >if you think men are stronger than women then explain this female bodybuilder!

            Retarded nagger

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              We're not talking about a female bodybuilder, we're talking about entire big cities, I'm sorry you're so brain damaged. Yes, the fact that Raleigh has a fifth of the USA's murder rate while being chock full of naggers objectively proves that naggers aren't the problem, you can cope and seethe all you want about it.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >you can cope and seethe all you want about it.

                Crime has a stronger positive correlation with the amount of blacks in a city than education, poverty, or population density

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >muh correlation
                Irrelevant, New York has a shitton of naggers and the murder rate is one of the lowest in the US, thus effectively proving that it's not about the naggers.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >treat blacks like subhumans for generations
                >hurr why are they driven to commit crime
                i wonder

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Yes they wouldn't be murderous if not for slavery and jim crow just look at Africa all peace and harmony

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Several African countries have lower murder rates than the US.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Because they don't have the resources and institutions that are equipped to faithfully report and investigate all instances of crime, which is why vigilante justice and lynchings are so much more common in Africa, especially out in the bush

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >they don't have the resources and institutions that are equipped to faithfully report and investigate all instances of crime
                Braindead take when you are perfectly willing to accept the crime rates in the countries that do report high murder rates, especially when the most broke ass African countries like the CAR are often the ones that report higher murder rates and yet somehow I'm supposed to believe that their numbers are more reliable than Ghana's or Cameroon's. The US is, in fact, more dangerous than some of the niggest places in the world.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Sounds like deconstructionist leftist wank. Typical black night stuff

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >The US is, in fact, more dangerous than some of the niggest places in the world

                White americans or black americans are statistically more dangerous?

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >White americans or black americans are statistically more dangerous?
                Here's the CDC data.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                once again, nogs are mostly killing each other in their containment zones. they aren't the ones lighting up schools and public places because they got bullied.
                >inb4 waukesha because it's the only example people can think of

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Braindead take when you are perfectly willing to accept the crime rates in the countries that do report high murder

                And you do the exact opposite nagger lover. If you think African shitholes have the resources and capability to accurately track and record their crime faithfully then you're naive as fuck

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >And you do the exact opposite nagger lover.
                I don't, retard. I'm pretty sure that the Central African Republic is in fact a violent shithole just like they claim to be. The burden of proof for the claim that the safer countries are all lying lies squarely on you.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Here's a good place to start

                https://issafrica.org/iss-today/why-are-south-africans-underreporting-on-crime

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >south-africans
                South Africa doesn't claim to have lower murder rates than the US. What about Senegal? Rwanda? Benin? Ghana? Cameroon? Can you prove that the murder rate in each of these countries is substantially higher than in the US?

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Can you prove anything in backwards black shitholes?

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                https://allafrica.com/stories/202004090443.html

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm pretty sure CAR is a lot more violent than what they report

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >I was forced to loot that Nike outlet store and rape that woman because one of my ancestors had to sit in the back of the bus

                You retards dodge any and all responsibility harder than women do lmao

  12. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Is the Second Amendment the biggest mistake in American history?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Dude stop dilating that much.

  13. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    The foresight of our founding fathers to include the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights is without parallel.g8fy8

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >NSA spying citizens
      >CIA admitting it drugged people for mind control
      >Government lying to wage war abroad
      >Torture in Guantanamo Bay with no accountability for the torturers (torture itself being unconstitutional)
      2nd amendment tards will go on and on about "using guns to defend us from government tyranny" but they havent lifted a single finger yet kek

  14. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    The 2nd amendment is the only reason America hasn't devolved into anarchy yet.

  15. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    It wouldn't be so bad if the "interpretation" of it wasn't so insane and willfully divergent.

    Somehow the idea of having an armed citizen militia as a check against government tyranny turned into a radicalist proposition of arm naggers and the lowest IQ of whites to turn American cities into squalid, disorderly, and violent shitholes. Surely what the "founding fathers" rightfully envisioned as the best way to live.

  16. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    No, the 13th and 19th Amendments are the biggest mistakes.

  17. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    No

    The historical basis for any sort of Republic and/or democratic system has been one of a military regime. The founders were students of history and knew this.

    The Ancient Greek republics were ones where the hoplite class of heavy infantry fighting men would govern themselves in a military brotherhood rather than blindly obeying the orders of some king. Their leaders were military based, and they all made decisions by vote. Even in the more democratic Athens this system of only the bulk of the military class was in place. They allowed the rowers in their navy to vote, which set the standard that military participation would grant someone a say in the state.

    Even in the medieval era, it was the knights, the armed men who held political power. Thomas Jefferson was really into this, and pointed back to the Anglo Saxon Witan, the democratic council of military leaders who would meet to pick their next king. Or going back further to the ancient German Thing. The process were tribal leaders and their men would all meet, and importantly meet armed with their own personal swords, to make democratic decisions.

    This was known, and the founders, in order to establish their Yoeman republic, knew that armed men were the bedrock of any Republic worth its salt. This is also based on the 200 years of colonial militias looking after themselves. The birth of Jacksonianism and the Democratic Party was based on this as well because the argument was that the poor men of America deserved a voice specifically because of their militia service. This is also the reasoning behind Nixon lowering the voting age to 18.

    Even communist realize shit like this, and know that a republic can NOT exist unless the people who vote are also armed.

    But of course, modern democrats and liberals know dick about history or politics and want guns banned because blacks shoot up each other and “it’s scary!”

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >modern democrats and liberals know dick about history or politics and want guns banned
      If you actually listen to them, mist don't give a damn about this country's founding principles

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >But of course, modern democrats and liberals know dick about history or politics and want guns banned because blacks shoot up each other and “it’s scary!”
      The biggest recent bans on automatic rifles and the like were passed in the 60s by Republican governor Reagan. Precisely because Black Panthers were arming themselves.

      All of you electiontrannies need to go back.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Hughes amendment retard

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >m-Muh reagan banned guns
        Blow it out your ass. You know damn well the entire gun grabber movement is rooted in the DNC. Fuck off

  18. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    No, that would be the slave trade.

  19. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nah, not even close.
    Second amendment is part of why we are great.

  20. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Well at the times guns were not so dangerous.
    We treat the constitution like the founding fathers were omniscient and what they said applied throughout history.
    Now we have guns that can kill tens of elementary schoolers per minute. I think even the most hardline of the founders would balk at how much damage the average citizen can do now.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Guess we need to ban the Internet because the first amendment didn't take into account people could reach millions of people per minute in the future.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Don't give them any ideas

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        When did the internet rip bullets into elementary schoolers?

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          When LULZ was invented.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Wouldn't be an issue if the cops weren't cowards.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          /misc/ has literally become a criminal subculture and it only exists because of the internet. People have died, and for no reason other than the mere fact that /misc/ exists.

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        >presented with a cogent point
        >deflects with a retarded strawman
        does ANY fucking rightoid know how to argue?

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          How is that deflection? It's a valid rebuttal. You can't say guns are more powerful today (Muskets -> AR15) than when the Bill of Rights was written therefore the 2A doesn't apply, anymore than saying mass communication is more powerful today (printing press -> Internet) than when the Bill of Rights was written therefore the 1A doesn't apply.

          • 7 months ago
            Anonymous

            2A in its current form is partially responsible for multiple mass shootings. 1A in its current form does allow for people to form hate groups, hate speech etc, but that's a minor percentage of how people use the Internet.

            • 7 months ago
              Anonymous

              >but that's a minor percentage of how people use the Internet.
              If you're going with that argument, then even the 100 or so mass shootings the past few decades pales in comparison to the 100s of millions of law abiding gun owners.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                I see what you're saying, but I don't think these are equivalents. Ability to own a gun properly carries much more responsibility than properly using the Internet. With great power comes great responsibility. It *is* too easy to get guns in a lot of states and it shouldn't be like that. And I say this as a gun owner. I think we all should be allowed to own them, but again, there's a lot of weight behind it. I don't think we're doing everything we can to make sure those buying them are sane individuals.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                what's your proposal?

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                Raise the minimum age required for gun ownership to 25 for starters. Our brains are still developing up until that time. Even though one is legally an adult at 18, they're far from a functioning one. They're still fucking kids. I realize this would bring up inconsistencies like they can join the military at 18, can buy tobacco/alcohol at 21 etc but oh well, it is what it is. Yes, America is different and we just need to account for it.

                As far as something like a mental health screening, I don't really know. I don't think anyone fucking knows. Doesn't the federal government already have procedures for doing this for when granting people security clearance? Maybe borrow something from that.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                > for starters
                predictable, bad faith gun grabbing innuendos. take your arbitrary age limit and go fuck yourself.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >seething and ad hominems
                predictable, you propose changes and rightoids have a meltdown while offering nothing in return

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                oh did i hurt the wittle wibewals fee-fees?

                I don't need to offer you anything dumbass.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                oh did i hurt the wittle wibewals fee-fees?

                gonna cry? gonna piss your pants? maybe shit and cum?

                I have no need nor want to offer you anything.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >gets mad and shits xer pants when someone suggests solutions
                This is why the rest of the world laughs at you. I hope more bullied spics continue to massacre all your children.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Raise the minimum age required for gun ownership to 25 for starters.
                Then the draft, cigarattes, and alcohol purchases should all be raised to 25 as well. That's bullshit the government could send you to die in a war at 18 but you gotta wait 7 more years to exercise your constitutional rights.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                I'm completely against that because delayed adulthood is probably one of the biggest mistakes in modern society. Maturity past puberty is probably like 20% biological and 80% learned. 25+ year old manchildren who have never been pressured to grow past teenagehood still act more like teenagers than sub-25 year olds who have been forced to take responsibility for their own lives.

                I wish the pro-gun lobby would stop being cowards and just admit "yeah there's no legislative solution to gun violence because 2A is ironclad, good fucking luck passing an amendment and good fucking luck confiscating firearms if you do (but you won't lol)".
                Then after beating this into liberal skulls we can stop chasing the myth of gun control and do something else about it or at least focus our attention elsewhere, holy shit.

                Gun violence wasn't nearly as much of a problem (especially the random shooting sprees that are statistically rare but people care far more about than the much more common Tyrone shooting Jaykwon for selling weed on his street corner type incidents) prior to around the 60's or so when probably the first modern mass shooting as we would recognize them happened at the University of Texas clocktower. despite even fully automatic weapons being easily available. Ever since then, and especially after Columbine, their frequency has exloded. I would chalk this up mostly to the media giving disaffected youth a way to get instant recognition and revenge on society if they go shoot some people as well as constantly reinforcing the idea that that is simply the thing one does when they are a disaffected youth with a grudge against the world. The decline of civic engagement and social capital is probably even more to blame because you don't become a mass shooter if you don't fall through the cracks and become a disaffected loner in the first place. This isn't really "mental health" so much as fixing a dysfunctional social environment which lacks community building with (enforced) engagement.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                If you can vote, shoot pornography, and die in a war at 18, you can own a gun.

              • 7 months ago
                Anonymous

                >18 yo can be sent over to bumfuck Iraq with full auto M-16 and be blown to pieces by ISIS
                >24 yo can't own a semi-auto AR-15 because muh feel feels
                libtard logic at its finest

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Stupid lower caps poster

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Dems already actually believe this, you've seen people say shit like "it's a private company they can delete your account" right?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Based and Mirari Vos pilled

        Here We must include that harmful and never sufficiently denounced freedom to publish any writings whatever and disseminate them to the people, which some dare to demand and promote with so great a clamor. We are horrified to see what monstrous doctrines and prodigious errors are disseminated far and wide in countless books, pamphlets, and other writings which, though small in weight, are very great in malice. We are in tears at the abuse which proceeds from them over the face of the earth. Some are so carried away that they contentiously assert that the flock of errors arising from them is sufficiently compensated by the publication of some book which defends religion and truth. Every law condemns deliberately doing evil simply because there is some hope that good may result. Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Don't threaten commies with a good time

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Well at the times guns were not so dangerous.
      Not understanding the full dimensions of the freedom being given when it's written doesn't mean that you can change the interpretation later on the fly. This was literally in the supreme court ruling that legalized gay marriage, mind you:
      >The nature of injustice is that we may not always see it in our own times. The generations that wrote and ratified the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment did not presume to know the extent of freedom in all of its dimensions, and so they entrusted to future generations a charter protecting the right of all persons to enjoy liberty as we learn its meaning. When new insight reveals discord between the Constitution’s central protections and a received legal stricture, a claim to liberty must be addressed.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I do not trust the average citizen with their own basic rights
      Then you are the problem. Educate or uplift your fellow citizens, don't just take away their rights. They're rights, not privilages. They're not there for you to take them away when they make you uncomfortable. Instead you should get to know your neighbors and become more comfortable with them exercising the rights they were born with.

  21. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    No, allowing women to vote is.

  22. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >In a letter written February 25, 1825, Madison explained that the interstate commerce clause was primarily intended to forbid the states from erecting internal tariffs or trade barriers against one another, and it had not been meant as a positive power conferred on Congress. He acknowledged that the power vested in the Federal government to regulate overseas commerce was not necessarily the same, although it could easily be construed as such.

    >Congress and pliant judges have since the 20th century and particularly since the New Deal, allowed the commerce clause to be a blank check to regulate nearly anything the Federal government wishes to regulate, when in fact "commerce" in the 18th century use of the term referred primarily to the buying and selling of goods. This includes things such as public morals and vice activities, regulating manufacturing and agriculture, labor laws, wage laws, and more, capped off by the infamous Wickard vs Filburn ruling in 1941.

    >As Justice Clarence Thomas explained in his dissent to Raich vs Gonzalez, "...under the current interpretation of the commerce clause, Congress has no meaningful limits on its power."

  23. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    They probably thought the "WELL REGULATED" part was hard to miss.
    Ideally we'd have something like the Swiss wherein gun owners are actually trained soldiers whose arms are registered with the local army authorities and ammunition is kept at a local depot for defense. Instead we have individual LARPing rednecks who screech at the idea of having to follow orders from anyone and are entirely incapable of forming a genuine defense force capable of carrying out organized combat

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's not what well regulated meant in 18th century vernacular. Well regulated meant highly functional, hence they were saying the benefit of individual rights to own firearms would have secondary effect of a strong militia.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >He doesn't know that 'Well Regulated' in older texts is almost always meant to mean 'ready for use at any moment', free of rust and wear, provided with shot, powder and whatever other supplies are required, and ideally also trained with

      Actually, its just hard for you to frame because you're used to looking through the world in a modern lens. Understand that the founding fathers saw most forms of government, including the one they were creating themselves as a potential enemy. The Fed was a necessary evil at the time, brought about by the necessities of fighting war with a voluntary tax base. (E.G. No tax base at all, because people don't voluntarily pay taxes)

      They understood that big entities like governments take power, money and liberty from the people. Whether they do this for good reasons or bad reasons is up for debate and depends on who you ask, but if you arm the people you give them the capacity to refuse, which is absolutely necessary to the voting process. If you give someone a decision, and voting 'no' can easily destroy their lives because the citizenship is powerless and the fed can just walk back their rights when they vote 'wrong', (E.G., You Voted Rayciss) then you really don't have a vote at all.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Are you retards trolling or genuinely this ignorant

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        He's not trolling. If you actually go back and read similar documents from the time period, that is actually what Well Regulated means in the vernacular of the 1700s-1800s.

        Words and phrases change meaning over time. You're looking at this through a modern lens, trying to bend the words of people who wrote them almost 250 years ago to a modern way of looking at guns. Is it really so surprising that their opinion was different from yours?

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          What the fuck are you babbling about nagger? I know full well what well regulated means

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Militia is supposed to be armed and ready for invaders and a tyrannical government
      > keep all ammo in large centralized locations controlled by the military

      is it possible to be this stupid?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Whatever, there should be citizens' militia and the state police is illegal.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to counter the need for any standing armies outside war time, America was founded upon individualism, not your collectivist statism trash.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's not what well regulated meant, tardo.

  24. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Why would it be the biggest mistake?

  25. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    the 1st and 2nd Amendments are single greatest thing America has done as nation. no other country in the world has proper equivalent of those, they all have various restrictions on free speech.

  26. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's the only thing they did right

  27. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's about the only thing it does correctly.

  28. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Most Americans don't really understand the origin, purpose, or point of 2A anyway or its basis in English common law.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Most of America are brown retards that can't finish highschool. That's not saying much

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why don't you explain it then? Since you're clearly the local authority on it

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        it was derived from English statutes dating from the Middle Ages which were about people keeping things like a crossbow at home in the event the Scots would invade you or something.

  29. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >thread about weapon ownership in the US
    >literally derails into racism

    Every time. This board fucking sucks and you losers are the reason.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Connect the dots. It's one particular in demographic in America that's making weapon ownership difficult to justify

      • 7 months ago
        Anonymous

        Because race is THE reason why America is a violent shithole. You're not interested in truth you just want to push a narrative.

        I didn't ask you fucking losers.

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          Don't post on a discussion board if you don't want discussion, bluegum

        • 7 months ago
          Anonymous

          You have to go back howbeit

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Because race is THE reason why America is a violent shithole. You're not interested in truth you just want to push a narrative.

  30. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Don't post on a discussion board if you don't want discussion, bluegum

    lol

  31. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    nagger

  32. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Americans need to read the Federalist papers.

  33. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    It's really funny coming on here seeing rightoids cry and rage about gun control and feds showing up totheir houses, and on communist twittter you have the same thing.

    Commies support guns, if you're too stupid to understand that, use your fear of them.

    Communists support guns, so they can go kill you.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Commies support guns for commies only.
      >so they can go kill you
      Yeah. Also you'll never be a woman

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      doesn't matter, they're too fucking poor to afford one and have extremely low testosterone levels generally so will piss and shit their pants and run back into their mom's basement. Where they will stay and rot away whilst awaiting the revolution (never happening).

  34. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >when he got his ass handed to him he simply ignored the post
    The absolute state of american larping zoomers

  35. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    I wish the pro-gun lobby would stop being cowards and just admit "yeah there's no legislative solution to gun violence because 2A is ironclad, good fucking luck passing an amendment and good fucking luck confiscating firearms if you do (but you won't lol)".
    Then after beating this into liberal skulls we can stop chasing the myth of gun control and do something else about it or at least focus our attention elsewhere, holy shit.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      Maybe heavily armed cops could be trained to actually go into a school instead of sitting around waiting for an hour? Just a thought.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      There is a solution to gun violence, kicking all the naggers out

  36. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Re-interpreting the Second Amendment like it's supposed to mean "Hicks are allowed to have 40 guns with zero oversight whatsoever" was the mistake. Enshrining it into the constitution that local militias beholden to the community are to keep order, as opposed to police forces loyal to the government, was a good idea.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >local militias
      The point of the second amendment had nothing to do with militias, it was clearly an individual right and the benefit of that individual right would also have a secondary effect of a well functioning militia. See

      SCOTUS did rule that it's an individual right. The wording made more sense in the 18th century.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Hicks are allowed to have 40 guns
      Why is this a bad thing again?

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      And for anyone who still can't understand the grammar of the 2A, here it is with food.

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      The 2A says clear as day that the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That includes hicks whether you like it or not homosexual.

  37. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    Slavery was the biggest mistake in American history. Only the British crown is to blame for that. tbh

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      This. Slavery was a bad idea no matter how you spin it. Should have just used irish indentured servants

    • 7 months ago
      Anonymous

      >he believes the libtard reporting on brexit

  38. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    the fucking seethe from the amerimutts daily reminder 56% bros but im sure you guys can totally regain your country from the naggers and mexcians good luck on that lol

  39. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    ITT: seething noguns yuroahmeds

  40. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    No, the 19th Amendment is

  41. 7 months ago
    Anonymous

    >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.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *