Shall be infringed

Shall be infringed

Attached: 1973_Colt_AR15_SP1.jpg (2022x513, 144.14K)

kys

Civilians shouldn't have guns. 2A will be abolished.

You won't do shit.

FUCK OP.

What is the purpose of the 2A?

A disturbed half-Amerind, half-Spanish mongrel shouldn't be able to shoot up an elementary school.

The balance of bad uses of guns to good uses of guns (ignoring sport shooting and hunting) is like 99.9999% to .0001%. The bad uses are things like young black males killing other young black males and disturbed Hispanics shooting up an elementary school. The good uses would be someone defending their family in a hostile situation, which accounts for about .0001% of gun incidents. Guns overwhelmingly make our population less safe (ignoring sport shooting and hunting). The hypothetical "hero pulls out a concealed piece and shoots dead a gun-armed attacker making threats" simply never happens. Or if it has ever happened, it's at that .0001% incident rate. It's not worth all the risk.

As for sport shooting and hunting, those can still happen, you could check them out from the government and they would be used in a supervised environment.

It was meant to prevent the U.S. government from prohibiting the citizens of the States from bearing arms, the reason being that that would interfere with the States right to distribute arms to their citizens to serve in the State militia. "Shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed by a law of the Federal Congress".

Each State could still fully ban civilian ownership of any arms if it chose, and that would not violate the Federal 2A.

But I don't give a shit about the State militias. If the States want militias, let them advocate that themselves. I'm saying just ban the ownership of guns by civilians nationwide. Then there can be an exception so that each State can appoint people to its militia, and those people can keep their militia weapons at home, or they could be stored in an armory. But it's not my job to figure out the State militia policy, which as I said I don't give a shit about. We have a national standing army now, whether you or I like it or not.

Guns prevent more than 2 million crimes per year. Also, the 2A isn't meant for hunting or even defending oneself from crime. The right to do that should go without saying.

The 2A is solely the government's acknowledgment of your right to keep them in check by means of violent force. That is its purpose.

Armies contain soldiers. Soldiers are individuals. A gun in the hands of a trained civilian is as good as one in the hands of a soldier. It is an equalizer to tyranny and a deterrence to government encroachment.

Attached: 1653701936156.gif (398x494, 1.92M)

Cope

>Guns prevent more than 2 million crimes per year.

A made-up statistic. The hypothetical "hero pulls out a concealed piece and shoots dead a gun-armed attacker making threats" simply never happens.

>Also, the 2A isn't meant for hunting or even defending oneself from crime. The right to do that should go without saying.

So you're leaving that to a common law interpretation, and you are right, that is what the common law says about self-defense. But a Constitution or statute can override the common law. So after appealing 2A, a gun-banning law would override the common law right to self-defense, at least concerning guns. You could still defend yourself, with a longbow, for example.

>The 2A is solely the government's acknowledgment of your right to keep them in check by means of violent force. That is its purpose.

lol, that isn't what the text says. That's just a wishful assertion. Here is the text:

"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."

>Armies contain soldiers. Soldiers are individuals. A gun in the hands of a trained civilian is as good as one in the hands of a soldier. It is an equalizer to tyranny and a deterrence to government encroachment.

It's not worth all the risk.

>A made-up statistic. The hypothetical "hero pulls out a concealed piece and shoots dead a gun-armed attacker making threats" simply never happens.

A real statistic. This includes things like home burglaries, car-jackings, rapes, etc. If you want to talk about the lack of heroes, that has more to do with the cowardly culture we've adopted, diversity, feminism, and so on.

>So you're leaving that to a common law interpretation, and you are right, that is what the common law says about self-defense.

I could still defend myself with my fists as well. Free speech over the phone is just as valid as speaking at a rally or timesquare. The right to bear arms is sufficient force to go against government agents.

>lol, that isn't what the text says.

That is its purpose.

Then you're a coward. Just come out and say that. You're not only a coward, but an ironically hypocritical one who complains about the lack of "heroes."

enjoy Roe v. Wade getting overturned.

Attached: 1625641556393.jpg (726x968, 370.52K)

>A real statistic. This includes things like home burglaries, car-jackings, rapes, etc. If you want to talk about the lack of heroes, that has more to do with the cowardly culture we've adopted, diversity, feminism, and so on.

Even if you provided sauce, which you haven't, I still wouldn't believe it. I would still think it's a made-up statistic.

>I could still defend myself with my fists as well. Free speech over the phone is just as valid as speaking at a rally or timesquare. The right to bear arms is sufficient force to go against government agents.

After appealing 2A, a gun-banning law would override the common law right to self-defense, at least concerning guns. You could still defend yourself, with your fists, for example.

>That is its purpose.

lol, that isn't what the text says. That's just a wishful assertion. Here is the text:

"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."

We have to assume that the drafters meant what they wrote, and not a remote interpretation of what they wrote.

>Then you're a coward. Just come out and say that. You're not only a coward, but an ironically hypocritical one who complains about the lack of "heroes."

No, I don't want any more random kids shot at school. Also, if I were concealing a piece, I am not sure that I would draw and hit the target fast enough to save my own life. I would give that about 25%. I would rather the disturbed person just not have a gun in the first place.

They love guns. More than "conservatives". They just want them pointed at conservatives. You owning them prevents that.

>. I would still think it's a made-up statistic.
what you meant to say was
>"I would still FEEL it's a made-up statistic."
because you're a dumbass woman with pathetic female opinions