Is the Second Amendment a tool for racism?

[Project 429]

Jeez, is the favorite meaningless slur of the political left also associated with the least favorite amendment of the political left?

OH LOOK, THERE SEEMS TO BE A CONNECTION

LITERALLY NO ONE COULD HAVE GUESSED IT

[Keltoi Samurai]

Dysia

I don't know anyone from America in a militia, so I don't know what if any good the 2nd amendment serves. But race doesn't appear to be a factor. Gun control in the United States, on the other hand, has the same history as Cola Wine. You should look in to it. Maybe you will learn something.

The second amendment does nothing for the militia, though, as it grants the right to keep and to bear arms to the people.

[FreedomFighter2]

The second amendment is a tool for the self defense of minorities against their oppressors and a fundamental right for all people seeking to liberate themselves from imperial control.

[HMS Thunder Child]

Project 429

Jeez, is the favorite meaningless slur of the political left also associated with the least favorite amendment of the political left?

OH LOOK, THERE SEEMS TO BE A CONNECTION

LITERALLY NO ONE COULD HAVE GUESSED IT

[Frank]

It is interesting to note that when the Black Panthers started actively enjoying that right, the political right was suddenly all in favor of gun control.

[Keltoi Samurai]

HMS Thunder Child

Project 429

Jeez, is the favorite meaningless slur of the political left also associated with the least favorite amendment of the political left?

OH LOOK, THERE SEEMS TO BE A CONNECTION

LITERALLY NO ONE COULD HAVE GUESSED IT

[Frank]

It is interesting to note that when the Black Panthers started actively enjoying that right, the political right was suddenly all in favor of gun control.

Proof not only of mainstream conservative racism, but also of the necessity of the 2nd.

[X of Castigation]

Project 429

Jeez, is the favorite meaningless slur of the political left also associated with the least favorite amendment of the political left?

OH LOOK, THERE SEEMS TO BE A CONNECTION

LITERALLY NO ONE COULD HAVE GUESSED IT

It's not our fault that the demographic of "slope-headed, knuckle-dragging mouthbreather" closely associates itself with gun ownership. If you've got issue, blame the undereducated rural white folks.

[azulmagia]

Keltoi Samurai

Dysia

I don't know anyone from America in a militia, so I don't know what if any good the 2nd amendment serves. But race doesn't appear to be a factor. Gun control in the United States, on the other hand, has the same history as Cola Wine. You should look in to it. Maybe you will learn something.

The second amendment does nothing for the militia, though, as it grants the right to keep and to bear arms to the people.

The amendment that mentions arms in the context of the militia...does nothing for that militia?

rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes

[Keltoi Samurai]

azulmagia

Keltoi Samurai

Dysia

I don't know anyone from America in a militia, so I don't know what if any good the 2nd amendment serves. But race doesn't appear to be a factor. Gun control in the United States, on the other hand, has the same history as Cola Wine. You should look in to it. Maybe you will learn something.

The second amendment does nothing for the militia, though, as it grants the right to keep and to bear arms to the people.

The amendment that mentions arms in the context of the militia...does nothing for that militia?

rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes

Actually, it mentions arms in the context of the people.

"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."

So who's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? The militia's, or the people's?

[azulmagia]

Keltoi Samurai

azulmagia

Keltoi Samurai

Dysia

I don't know anyone from America in a militia, so I don't know what if any good the 2nd amendment serves. But race doesn't appear to be a factor. Gun control in the United States, on the other hand, has the same history as Cola Wine. You should look in to it. Maybe you will learn something.

The second amendment does nothing for the militia, though, as it grants the right to keep and to bear arms to the people.

The amendment that mentions arms in the context of the militia...does nothing for that militia?

rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes

Actually, it mentions arms in the context of the people.

"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."

So who's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? The militia's, or the people's?

I find it very amusing that you're claiming it mentions arms in the context of the people, as if that were exclusive of it also mentioning arms in the context of a militia (a bald-faced false dichotomy I should think). And if the militia is composed of the people, the question of whose right it is to bear arms - either one OR the other - makes no sense.

[Keltoi Samurai]

azulmagia

Keltoi Samurai

azulmagia

Keltoi Samurai

Dysia

I don't know anyone from America in a militia, so I don't know what if any good the 2nd amendment serves. But race doesn't appear to be a factor. Gun control in the United States, on the other hand, has the same history as Cola Wine. You should look in to it. Maybe you will learn something.

The second amendment does nothing for the militia, though, as it grants the right to keep and to bear arms to the people.

The amendment that mentions arms in the context of the militia...does nothing for that militia?

rolleyes rolleyes rolleyes

Actually, it mentions arms in the context of the people.

"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."

So who's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? The militia's, or the people's?

I find it very amusing that you're claiming it mentions arms in the context of the people, as if that were exclusive of it also mentioning arms in the context of a militia (a bald-faced false dichotomy I should think). And if the militia is composed of the people, the question of whose right it is to bear arms - either one OR the other - makes no sense.

But it is clearly mentioning arms in the context of the people rather than the militia. It says nothing about arms and militia, it clearly says, though that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I'm not basing my posts on inferences made from the text, I'm basing them on the actual text, itself.

[azulmagia]

Keltoi Samurai

But it is clearly mentioning arms in the context of the people rather than the militia.

I dispute the "rather than" part. You are going to have to justify that.

Quote:

It says nothing about arms and militia, it clearly says, though that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Right, FOR THE SAKE OF THE MILITIA, therefore it is not true that "it says nothing about arms and militia".

Quote:

I'm not basing my posts on inferences made from the text, I'm basing them on the actual text, itself.

You are infering a great deal from the text.

[Keltoi Samurai]

azulmagia

Keltoi Samurai

But it is clearly mentioning arms in the context of the people rather than the militia.

I dispute the "rather than" part. You are going to have to justify that.

Quote:

It says nothing about arms and militia, it clearly says, though that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Right, FOR THE SAKE OF THE MILITIA, therefore it is not true that "it says nothing about arms and militia".

Quote:

I'm not basing my posts on inferences made from the text, I'm basing them on the actual text, itself.

You are infering a great deal from the text.

Where does it say anything is for the sake of the militia?

And how are you disputing that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is somehow predicated on service in the militia? I'd say that limiting the right of the people to keep and bear arms to just those bearing them in service to the militia would be quite a large infringement.

[azulmagia]

Keltoi Samurai

azulmagia

Keltoi Samurai

But it is clearly mentioning arms in the context of the people rather than the militia.

I dispute the "rather than" part. You are going to have to justify that.

Quote:

It says nothing about arms and militia, it clearly says, though that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Right, FOR THE SAKE OF THE MILITIA, therefore it is not true that "it says nothing about arms and militia".

Quote:

I'm not basing my posts on inferences made from the text, I'm basing them on the actual text, itself.

You are infering a great deal from the text.

Where does it say anything is for the sake of the militia?

I should think that the words "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" pretty much establishes that.

Quote:

And how are you disputing that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is somehow predicated on service in the militia?

Because it's mentioned in the context of a militia. confused

Quote:

I'd say that limiting the right of the people to keep and bear arms to just those bearing them in service to the militia would be quite a large infringement.

Translation: "I want my guns and I'll interpret the Second Amendment any damn way I please."

[Wendigo]

It says that the reason that right won't be infringed is so that the arms will be available to the militia. A militia which is two things:

1. Essential to the defense of a free state (which is not the role enjoyed by any militia now)

2. Well-regulated - which as per the Articles earlier in the Constitution, and reference to the Militia Acts, we know means disciplined by Congress, and under the control of the properly constituted authorities for purposes including fighting off invasions and suppressing insurrections.

[Lem Kosmea]

The Second Amendment has nothing to do with race. The use of "state" instead of "country" is because the framers were not fond of strong centralized government and believed the Unites States was a union of sovereign individual states acting in concert to form a nation (like a marriage). As to the argument about the people vs militia. Every man from 18-45 was a part of the "irregular militia." In legal sense they still are. The idea being that every man has a responsibility to defend the state and its people from aggression. The people were the militia.