The Second Amendment of the US Constitution

[Lazun123]

If you think that guns are not needed, watch the documentary of Ukraine conflict. Government was firing on its people, and they had no guns to fight back. If you think that wouldn't happen in the US you are naive.

I am pretty liberal, but the right to bare arms i strongly support, no matter how many of these ***** heads shoot up.

[Tomki]

Here's a recording after the first Paris terrorist attack - Charlie Hebdo (much more to come if they don't grow cojones there)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2ln5Wa6NYU

How do you think that these guys would have ever escaped in US where so many bystanders would have guns? Now they were able to roam the streets freely when people were hiding. In a gun restricted country only the bad guys have the guns (and few police officers).

[Dallane]

I'm going to give everyone here a money making pro tip. When there is a shooting in america that has wide spread news coverage IMMEDIATELY go and buy as much stock in gun and ammo manufacturers as you can. I've made around 3k so far. It happens every time. I just ordered a gun safe to put everything i'm about to buy in it lol.

[Flame]

(but ukraine conflict have ended with the victory of the "population"... .... so what's the sample there?)

[Tomki]

Hmm.. I am not sure what "victory" means in Italy but here are the latest updates from Ukraine crisis:

http://www.understandingwar.org/backgro ... ch-18-2016

"Heightened separatist operations in March are part of a larger trend of escalation since December 2015. Separatists have phased their operations as follows:

A) December 2015; January-March 2016: Separatists seize uncontrolled village of Kominternove, east of Mariupol; separatists increase mortar attacks east of Mariupol

B) February-March 2016: Separatists target frontline government-controlled civilian checkpoints (northeast of Mariupol, south and west of Donetsk city, north of Horlivka)

C) February 16 and March 3, 2016: Separatists launch “Grad” MLRS (northwest of Donetsk city)

D) March 4, 2016: Separatists shift focus of offensive operations from west to north of Donetsk city "

The news are not regular anymore but it still seems that the guys with better weapons have the upper hand..

[saltmummy]

I'm going to give everyone here a money making pro tip. When there is a shooting in america that has wide spread news coverage IMMEDIATELY go and buy as much stock in gun and ammo manufacturers as you can. I've made around 3k so far. It happens every time. I just ordered a gun safe to put everything i'm about to buy in it lol.

I remember maybe two years ago when there was that scare where everyone thought "Obama is gonna take my gun!" Everyone bought lots of guns and ammunition and drove the stock price of companies like Ruger through the roof as well as the price of guns and ammo. My stepfather sold one of his revolvers and used the proceeds to buy a used truck.

[Flame]

At first i wrote something about Ukraine and what i think. But imho, this will derail the topic. In case, it's in the spoiler, but i think we should stick with US and ignore outside countries.
I would ask you to not compare something completely different from your country without take into account all the differences.
This topic would derail into a nonsense in a couple of pages if you do so.

Is better to stick with US.

The "victory" is that the "pro euro-style" party won, since the Nazi/Extremist/Violent is the one we supported.
To me Ukraine is the proof that weapons are a worst way to hold a democracy, since the aggressive ones won over the civilized ones. XD
Also is known that the Euro-Party was supported with weapons by us.

Basically, we supported terrorism.

Uhm.
That doesn't sound persuasive if you want to proof me that weapon = democracy.

[Tomki]

The "victory" is that the "pro euro-style" party won, since the Nazi/Extremist/Violent is the one we supported.
To me Ukraine is the proof that weapons are a worst way to hold a democracy, since the aggressive ones won over the civilized ones. XD
Also is known that the Euro-Party was supported with weapons by us.

Basically, we supported terrorism.

Uhm.
That doesn't sound persuasive if you want to proof me that weapon = democracy.

I'm sorry but I didn't get this. How can it support the idea of having no weapons if aggressive ones win over?? To me the best way to protect democracy is to have guns to defend it from aggressors. So weapons = maintain democracy. What do you mean with terrorism in Ukraine?

[Flame]

Uhm, my spoiler is late.
But your question is not complicate.

If i'm not aggressive, i have to use a weapon even when i don't want. If you're aggressive, you win over me, since you feel better with it and guns don't let you much time to think.
Me, Flame, have died.

If no one of us have a weapon, we are forced to use democracy and laws to fight between the population.
Me, Flame, is a bit bored, but that's more fair.

If you want to fight me with a simpler weapon, i have more chances to find help, since you're less effective than with a real weapon.
Me, Flame, can defend himself or even win.

For a non aggressive man, a weapon is only a guarantee that, the day there will be a fight, he'll lose that fight, since he would use a different kind of weapon. (The Law)

----------

In case of tiranny and oppression, the peacefull man will become a warrior just like others peacefull or aggressive men. I'm peacefull, but i would fight the government if it's a common enemy.
I don't want to fight a civil, though. So i ask to the society to remove weapons to civil. That way, i don't have to use a gun against a civil to re-balance the disadvantage between me and my neighbor.

I don't trust my neighbor enough to give him a weapon.
I trust him enough to call him for help in fight the oppressor, though.

-----

A minority of civil that decides to use weapons in a democracy country, are rebel. If you agree their ideas, they are called revolutionary. If you disagree, they are called terrorists.
Both uses weapons and murder to force their ideas against the majority of the population.

A revolution, instead, is when the majority of a population fight to force an idea on a minority, usually the government.
This have not happen in the last 60 years, but there is the freedom to call that minority Terrorist or Revolutionaries at our pleasure.

[TotalyMeow]

Actually that's completely false.

If anyone else is interested, no, it's not. There WAS a lot going on though, and the first proposal of the Bill of Rights (proposed by Mason, not Madison, I did missremember that one) was voted down for the reasons I gave. Also, because they naively thought the federal government would not try to grant itself powers not mentioned in the constitution. More realistic heads prevailed, and Madison did become instrumental in getting the Bill of Rights added.

9 states did ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights, though most of them strongly recommended adding one. However, when it was ratified, the Constitution ONLY became law FOR those 9 states. The others still had to agree and if they hadn't there would have been problems. Especially since New York and Virginia, two of the largest states, were among the four holdouts who insisted on a Bill being guaranteed to be added before they would sign.

Yeah, the number of amendments proposed varied up and down a lot before they were added, but it did end up at 10, with another being rejected but eventually added 200 years later.

They were not talking at all about "keeping the States Free" from the federal government. They were talking about maintaining the States' control over a standing Militia instead of it being organized and regulated by the federal government.

They were worried about keeping State control over a militia that isn't controlled by the federal government precisely because they were worried about keeping the States and the people in general from being oppressed by the federal government.

False. That is not very clear. In fact that's about the most unclear part of that amendment. 'people' does not mean an individual in these case following the amendment as written since Militia refers to the plural. Most individual rights within the Bill of Rights use the singular.

Aaaactually no. 'The people' is used here, and in Amendments 1, 4, 9 and 10. All referring to people in general, but also in the specific. Others say things like 'any person' or don't have the words people or person at all because it is implied. It means, in every case, both the individual person, and any group of people and any subset of groups of people. You really can't have 'people' as a group without said group being made up of individual persons. I really don't understand what you are trying to argue at this point.

This is what the House passed as the 5th Article within the amendments towards a 'Bill of Rights'.

"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

It was changed in the congressional committee to the Senate version:

"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."

This demonstrates that conscientious objection was originally going to be a protected right, and then was edited out. Sad. This edit did nothing but allow for a forced draft.

The absolutely warped 5-4 decision in 2008 defining it as an individual right was the culmination of this work by the NRA and other right wing groups. Most legal scholars expect it to be challenged and changed in our lifetimes.

And yet it still makes no difference as the ability to be part of a militia demands the ability to have access to weapons for use in said militia.

The second amendment was never about protection of the individual. Nowhere in it does it mention protection of the individual.

I totally agree and that was the basis of my whole argument which you just quoted and claimed false because... you agree with me.

YOU SHOULDN'T BE THREATENING ARMED REVOLT TMEOW

I'm not planning on it, the federal government isn't that bad yet, but I do have the right. Thanks, Second Amendment.