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
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.
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
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
2 years 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!
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Modern liberals aren't liberals. They're socialists >socialism was invented when Obama became President
Smartest American.
2 years 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
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
2 years 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
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's not even about defending socialism, it's about having a basic understanding of what socialism is. You morons really think liberals who want a capitalist society with a welfare state are somehow socialist. It's the amerifat education system at its finest.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I do not care. That does not make me american. Get new material.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Being politically moronic and unashamed to loudly broadcast it does in fact make you an amerifat.
2 years ago
Anonymous
says the welfare queen
2 years 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.
2 years ago
Anonymous
became liberalism
Yes, FDR coined the term liberalism for the support of socialist government policies
2 years ago
Anonymous
>In 1815, the first use of the word "liberalism" appeared in English.
amerifat moment
2 years ago
Anonymous
correct
2 years ago
Anonymous
>everyone I don't like is a socialist
0/10
Ask any genuine socialist their opinion on liberals.
2 years ago
Anonymous
All socialists are liberals and so are communists
2 years ago
Anonymous
Liberalism is founded on individual rights and freedoms; socialism and communism are collectivist ideologies. You're moronic mate.
2 years ago
Anonymous
there are two branches of socialism. socialism existed before marx, but it's no less destructive
2 years ago
Anonymous
Even the very earliest forms of socialism deliberately contrasted with liberal ideas of individualism.
2 years ago
Anonymous
so is modern leftism, not exactly seeing your point
2 years 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.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Can you bridge the gap? Or do you not have a point
2 years 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
2 years 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.
2 years ago
Anonymous
was it?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes.
Individualism vs collectivism is Ben Shapiro tier moronic understanding of what you're talking sbout.
Ben Shapiro is the exact sort of moron who would claim that liberals are socialists.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Okay so how are liberals not socialists? Or are you just going to give up again
2 years 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.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>This is already been explained to you
no, you went on a semantic tangent and then gave up
2 years 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 moronic. 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.
2 years 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
2 years 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.
2 years 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.
2 years ago
Anonymous
He knows, it's LBJgay, he wants to rope you into a semantic argument to try and piss you off
2 years 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 morons 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.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>latest nonsensical and inconsistent "american definition" >nearly 100 years old
braindead
2 years ago
Anonymous
YWNBAW
2 years ago
Anonymous
okay LBJgay
2 years ago
Anonymous
>flees when faced with "non-american" definition
You're just a little b***h is all
2 years ago
Anonymous
Individualism vs collectivism is Ben Shapiro tier moronic understanding of what you're talking sbout.
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
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.
Heller was a catastrophe because they ruled the 2A is about self defense. It obviously isn't
2 years 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.
2 years 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 fricking business.
2 years ago
Anonymous
People shitting their pants in rage because someone somewhere else is doing something they don't like is pretty universal
2 years ago
Anonymous
it shouldn't be in the US because people aren't educated
>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
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.
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 frick ton of guns. Its very available for them.
>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.
>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
I wonder what's the main difference between American and Swiss population. Almost like America is packed full of Black folk hispanics and the mentally ill
Switzerland's population is 40% immigrants, and that includes moronic murderous Yugoslavs who can't go 5 minutes without trying to knife each other
2 years ago
Anonymous
Immigrants from where? Look at the countries of origin you disingenuous homosexual. If you removed Black folk and beaners from America's gun crime stats we would have Western Europe tier gun violence rates
2 years ago
Anonymous
>If you removed Black folk 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?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Because Chile has one of the most corrupt law enforcement agencies in the world
2 years 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
2 years 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
2 years ago
Anonymous
>murderous Yugoslavs
Murder rate in Croatia 1.0
Murder rate in Shartistan 6.3
Cope and seethe Black person
2 years 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.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>has to go back to literal wartime to find anything remotely comparable to American Black person cities in peacetime
lol Black person
2 years 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.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Endless shitskin cope >kill off all your violent people
Prewar Yugo also had much lower murder rates than Zogland
There are parts of America with lots of Black folk and hispanics where the murder rate is below the national average.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>if you think men are stronger than women then explain this female bodybuilder!
moronic Black person
2 years 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 Black folk objectively proves that Black folk aren't the problem, you can cope and seethe all you want about it.
2 years 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
2 years ago
Anonymous
>muh correlation
Irrelevant, New York has a shitton of Black folk and the murder rate is one of the lowest in the US, thus effectively proving that it's not about the Black folk.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>treat blacks like subhumans for generations >hurr why are they driven to commit crime
i wonder
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes they wouldn't be murderous if not for slavery and jim crow just look at Africa all peace and harmony
2 years ago
Anonymous
Several African countries have lower murder rates than the US.
2 years 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
2 years 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.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Sounds like deconstructionist leftist wank. Typical black night stuff
2 years 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?
2 years ago
Anonymous
>White americans or black americans are statistically more dangerous?
Here's the CDC data.
2 years 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
2 years 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 Black person lover. If you think African shitholes have the resources and capability to accurately track and record their crime faithfully then you're naive as frick
2 years ago
Anonymous
>And you do the exact opposite Black person lover.
I don't, moron. 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.
>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?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Can you prove anything in backwards black shitholes?
2 years ago
Anonymous
https://allafrica.com/stories/202004090443.html
2 years ago
Anonymous
I'm pretty sure CAR is a lot more violent than what they report
2 years 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 morons dodge any and all responsibility harder than women do lmao
>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
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 Black folk 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.
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!”
>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
>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.
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.
/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.
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.
2 years 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.
2 years 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.
2 years 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.
2 years ago
Anonymous
what's your proposal?
2 years 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 fricking 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 fricking knows. Doesn't the federal government already have procedures for doing this for when granting people security clearance? Maybe borrow something from that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
> for starters
predictable, bad faith gun grabbing innuendos. take your arbitrary age limit and go frick yourself.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>seething and ad hominems
predictable, you propose changes and rightoids have a meltdown while offering nothing in return
2 years ago
Anonymous
oh did i hurt the wittle wibewals fee-fees?
I don't need to offer you anything dumbass.
2 years 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.
2 years 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 hispanics continue to massacre all your children.
2 years 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.
2 years 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 fricking luck passing an amendment and good fricking 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.
2 years ago
Anonymous
If you can vote, shoot pornography, and die in a war at 18, you can own a gun.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>18 yo can be sent over to bumfrick 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
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?
>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.
>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.
>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."
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
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.
>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.
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?
>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
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.
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.
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.
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.
doesn't matter, they're too fricking 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).
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 fricking luck passing an amendment and good fricking 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.
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.
>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.
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.
the fricking seethe from the amerimutts daily reminder 56% bros but im sure you guys can totally regain your country from the Black folk and mexcians good luck on that lol
Is the Balfour declaration the biggest mistake in British history?
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
No, that’s the Hart-Cellar act, tied with the Federal Reserve Act.
Top 5
Iceland as well, pretty much everyone owns a gun and gun crime is virtually nonexistent.
>Iceland as well, pretty much everyone owns a gun and gun crime is virtually nonexistent.
You can own guns in Iceland?
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...
>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.
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
ya frick the cia
This anon knows who the real culprits are. And they glow.
>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
cry harder homosexual
>Americans viciously defending a liberal document written by liberals b***hing about liberals
Kek
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
>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!
>Modern liberals aren't liberals. They're socialists
>socialism was invented when Obama became President
Smartest American.
was invented when Obama became President
if you read the entirety of the post it says exactly when socialism became liberalism, under FDR
>Modern liberals aren't liberals. They're socialists.
>socialism became liberalism
amerifat moment
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
It's not even about defending socialism, it's about having a basic understanding of what socialism is. You morons really think liberals who want a capitalist society with a welfare state are somehow socialist. It's the amerifat education system at its finest.
I do not care. That does not make me american. Get new material.
Being politically moronic and unashamed to loudly broadcast it does in fact make you an amerifat.
says the welfare queen
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.
became liberalism
Yes, FDR coined the term liberalism for the support of socialist government policies
>In 1815, the first use of the word "liberalism" appeared in English.
amerifat moment
correct
>everyone I don't like is a socialist
0/10
Ask any genuine socialist their opinion on liberals.
All socialists are liberals and so are communists
Liberalism is founded on individual rights and freedoms; socialism and communism are collectivist ideologies. You're moronic mate.
there are two branches of socialism. socialism existed before marx, but it's no less destructive
Even the very earliest forms of socialism deliberately contrasted with liberal ideas of individualism.
so is modern leftism, not exactly seeing your point
>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.
Can you bridge the gap? Or do you not have a point
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
>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.
was it?
Yes.
Ben Shapiro is the exact sort of moron who would claim that liberals are socialists.
Okay so how are liberals not socialists? Or are you just going to give up again
>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.
>This is already been explained to you
no, you went on a semantic tangent and then gave up
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 moronic. 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.
>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
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.
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.
He knows, it's LBJgay, he wants to rope you into a semantic argument to try and piss you off
>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 morons 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.
>latest nonsensical and inconsistent "american definition"
>nearly 100 years old
braindead
YWNBAW
okay LBJgay
>flees when faced with "non-american" definition
You're just a little b***h is all
Individualism vs collectivism is Ben Shapiro tier moronic understanding of what you're talking sbout.
>incessant need to bring up gun owner's penises
>You might have working firearms, but I'm thinking about your wiener. Looks like I win again, rightoids.
he's not wrong though. you likely have a tiny dick.
>behold the power of gun grabber logic
Yes.
Holy rent free
No, it is its greatest moment and a ray of hope for all of us who suffer tyranny here in Europe and elsewhere.
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
SCOTUS did rule that it's an individual right. The wording made more sense in the 18th century.
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.
Heller was a catastrophe because they ruled the 2A is about self defense. It obviously isn't
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.
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 fricking business.
People shitting their pants in rage because someone somewhere else is doing something they don't like is pretty universal
it shouldn't be in the US because people aren't educated
>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
>Literally diagramming sentences
autism
When morons can't understand English you have little other choice.
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.
so we need to get rid of the mexicans
>so we need to get rid of the mexicans
Yes
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 frick ton of guns. Its very available for them.
Alito is such a fricking b***h even when I agree with him
>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.
>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
I wonder what's the main difference between American and Swiss population. Almost like America is packed full of Black folk hispanics and the mentally ill
Switzerland's population is 40% immigrants, and that includes moronic murderous Yugoslavs who can't go 5 minutes without trying to knife each other
Immigrants from where? Look at the countries of origin you disingenuous homosexual. If you removed Black folk and beaners from America's gun crime stats we would have Western Europe tier gun violence rates
>If you removed Black folk 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?
Because Chile has one of the most corrupt law enforcement agencies in the world
>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
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
>murderous Yugoslavs
Murder rate in Croatia 1.0
Murder rate in Shartistan 6.3
Cope and seethe Black person
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.
>has to go back to literal wartime to find anything remotely comparable to American Black person cities in peacetime
lol Black person
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.
Endless shitskin cope
>kill off all your violent people
Prewar Yugo also had much lower murder rates than Zogland
There are parts of America with lots of Black folk and hispanics where the murder rate is below the national average.
>if you think men are stronger than women then explain this female bodybuilder!
moronic Black person
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 Black folk objectively proves that Black folk aren't the problem, you can cope and seethe all you want about it.
>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
>muh correlation
Irrelevant, New York has a shitton of Black folk and the murder rate is one of the lowest in the US, thus effectively proving that it's not about the Black folk.
>treat blacks like subhumans for generations
>hurr why are they driven to commit crime
i wonder
Yes they wouldn't be murderous if not for slavery and jim crow just look at Africa all peace and harmony
Several African countries have lower murder rates than the US.
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
>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.
Sounds like deconstructionist leftist wank. Typical black night stuff
>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?
>White americans or black americans are statistically more dangerous?
Here's the CDC data.
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
>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 Black person lover. If you think African shitholes have the resources and capability to accurately track and record their crime faithfully then you're naive as frick
>And you do the exact opposite Black person lover.
I don't, moron. 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.
Here's a good place to start
https://issafrica.org/iss-today/why-are-south-africans-underreporting-on-crime
>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?
Can you prove anything in backwards black shitholes?
https://allafrica.com/stories/202004090443.html
I'm pretty sure CAR is a lot more violent than what they report
>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 morons dodge any and all responsibility harder than women do lmao
>Is the Second Amendment the biggest mistake in American history?
Dude stop dilating that much.
The foresight of our founding fathers to include the 2nd amendment in the bill of rights is without parallel.g8fy8
>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
The 2nd amendment is the only reason America hasn't devolved into anarchy yet.
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 Black folk 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.
No, the 13th and 19th Amendments are the biggest mistakes.
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!”
>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
>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.
Hughes amendment moron
>m-Muh reagan banned guns
Blow it out your ass. You know damn well the entire gun grabber movement is rooted in the DNC. Frick off
No, that would be the slave trade.
Nah, not even close.
Second amendment is part of why we are great.
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.
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.
Don't give them any ideas
When did the internet rip bullets into elementary schoolers?
When IQfy was invented.
Wouldn't be an issue if the cops weren't cowards.
/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.
>presented with a cogent point
>deflects with a moronic strawman
does ANY fricking rightoid know how to argue?
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.
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.
>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.
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.
what's your proposal?
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 fricking 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 fricking knows. Doesn't the federal government already have procedures for doing this for when granting people security clearance? Maybe borrow something from that.
> for starters
predictable, bad faith gun grabbing innuendos. take your arbitrary age limit and go frick yourself.
>seething and ad hominems
predictable, you propose changes and rightoids have a meltdown while offering nothing in return
oh did i hurt the wittle wibewals fee-fees?
I don't need to offer you anything dumbass.
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.
>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 hispanics continue to massacre all your children.
>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.
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.
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.
If you can vote, shoot pornography, and die in a war at 18, you can own a gun.
>18 yo can be sent over to bumfrick 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
Stupid lower caps poster
Dems already actually believe this, you've seen people say shit like "it's a private company they can delete your account" right?
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?
Don't threaten commies with a good time
>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.
>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.
No, allowing women to vote is.
>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."
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
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.
>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.
Are you morons trolling or genuinely this ignorant
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?
What the frick are you babbling about Black person? I know full well what well regulated means
>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?
Whatever, there should be citizens' militia and the state police is illegal.
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.
That's not what well regulated meant, tardo.
Why would it be the biggest mistake?
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.
It's the only thing they did right
It's about the only thing it does correctly.
Most Americans don't really understand the origin, purpose, or point of 2A anyway or its basis in English common law.
Most of America are brown morons that can't finish highschool. That's not saying much
Why don't you explain it then? Since you're clearly the local authority on it
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.
>thread about weapon ownership in the US
>literally derails into racism
Every time. This board fricking sucks and you losers are the reason.
Connect the dots. It's one particular in demographic in America that's making weapon ownership difficult to justify
I didn't ask you fricking losers.
Don't post on a discussion board if you don't want discussion, bluegum
You have to go back howbeit
Because race is THE reason why America is a violent shithole. You're not interested in truth you just want to push a narrative.
lol
Black person
Americans need to read the Federalist papers.
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.
Commies support guns for commies only.
>so they can go kill you
Yeah. Also you'll never be a woman
doesn't matter, they're too fricking 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).
>when he got his ass handed to him he simply ignored the post
The absolute state of american larping zoomers
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 fricking luck passing an amendment and good fricking 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.
Maybe heavily armed cops could be trained to actually go into a school instead of sitting around waiting for an hour? Just a thought.
There is a solution to gun violence, kicking all the Black folk out
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.
>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
>Hicks are allowed to have 40 guns
Why is this a bad thing again?
And for anyone who still can't understand the grammar of the 2A, here it is with food.
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.
Slavery was the biggest mistake in American history. Only the British crown is to blame for that. tbh
This. Slavery was a bad idea no matter how you spin it. Should have just used irish indentured servants
>he believes the libtard reporting on brexit
the fricking seethe from the amerimutts daily reminder 56% bros but im sure you guys can totally regain your country from the Black folk and mexcians good luck on that lol
ITT: seething noguns yuroahmeds
No, the 19th Amendment is
>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.