People misunderstand the 2nd Amendment.
It's not about a well-regulated militia. It's about the people's right to keep and bear arms, and how it's not to be infringed. A well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state is not a justification for the right, either, it's one of the many justifications as for why the right is not to be infringed.
In the US, it's your God-given right to keep and bear arms. Everything outside of that is simply to be considered noise.
yeah
>Satellite Photos Show Impact of Ukraine Attack on Russian Airbase
Story by Isabel van Brugen • 2h
>Russian Soldier Warns Others Not to Sign Up for 'Hell' of Ukraine War
Story by Brendan Cole • 2h
Can't hide from us, Rajeesh
meds
Its not a schizo theory if its predictable
Photos Show Impact of Ukraine Attack on Russian Airbase
>Story by Isabel van Brugen • 2h
link?
Mind explaining how this at all relates to Ukraine or Russia?
The constitution is Russian propaganda. True patriots have no reason to fear the government.
this is an off-topic bait/slide thread to derail as much attention from the shitshow King Monke is overseeing as possible
You have to be 18 to post on PrepHole
>god-given
No, it's your NATURAL right to keep and bear arms. Stop trying to conflate US civic policy with religion
GOD GIVEN
AMENDMENT RECOGNIZED
natural = god-given
It's worded that way so that people who don't believe in God can't decide to just undermine religion and do away with it. To the Christian, these are our God-given rights. To other religions, it is still given by their god/gods. To those who believe nothing, these rights are simply as integral to you as any other part of your body, to remove these rights is to remove a part of your body.
Anon is right, and so are you.
>arguing semantics with people that are on your side
divide and conquer bullshit
the idea of natural rights makes no sense anyway, in nature it's might makes right and nothing else. rights are either granted by a society, by god, or by yourself standing up for them.
NTA No you morons it's YOU who is dividing as realility check religion isnt the forefront of our nation anymore + not everyone believes in the concept/your sect.
If you change your rhetoric to a Natrual humanistic style then you water it down enough that anyone can drink.
It's your natural unalienable human right to be able to have a weapon in hand to protect you, your loved ones, and your hard earned property. Save the god speak for sundays and you'll attract more fence sitters.
>Nature doesn't make sense
My guy there's fricking crows that use sticks as tools to scrub worms out of logs and monkeys that throw poop and bash in skulls with rocks. It's completely clear as we humans are special being the only ones with crazy fine motor skills with our fingers.
>Just because a moose can't grip a pistol doesn't mean it's your natural human right to be able to grip a pistol.
>2YYY2
Every creature in creation has some means to defend itself, be it teeth, claws, beaks, or the ability to use tools like rocks and branches as blunt instruments as some apes do. We humans were given the ability to make and use weapons as we do. Whether this was granted by God or merely the natural laws of existence, it doesn't matter as far as the law goes. Man is given such inalienable rights by his creator, and always has possessed these rights. Those who do not recognize these rights are merely violating them, but they exist still and will surely return upon those who seek to take them away. You can block the light of the sun from me, but I can always step around you or push you over. The sun remains there, and you can't take that away.
These rights were created by men. Fought for and carved out by men. And they can be lost by men. They are as inalienable as we allow them to be, no further and for no longer. This isn't to disagree with your post but to remind that they are purely a human construct that we must work to maintain.
>These rights were created by men.
Wrong. They are innate.
>Fought for and carved out by men
Wrong. They just are
>They are as inalienable as we allow them to be
Wrong they still exist
You see the problem with dribbling worthless fricks like you is you never actually read Rousseaus the social contract or Tom Paines the rights of man. You have absolutely no idea where these ideas came from or what they means you just like driveling on. You don;t have any idea where the idea of universal rights comes from or what they are. You think they are something to do with a list of shit written down by some c**ts for the US constitution and they exist by virtue of that. What a fricking moron you are.
Innate and "just are" are meaningless platitudes.
Words do not give you a right, your willingness to do violence if your right is denied gives you a right.
Our rights are no more innate than a cows right to life which is to say we will have them as long as we can defend them. Saying they are "Innate" is a lazy cop out that allows you to deny the moral imperative to defend those rights personally.
If they are "Innate" then you dont have to worry about losing them and don't personally need to take action to keep them. They are not "Innate", they are not encoded on the universe, they are agreed upon, by Americans, as the highest level of law to which all other law and all officers of the law are subject, but those laws only mean anything if we enforce them. If we lay back and talk about "Innate Rights" we will lose our hard earned rights, paid for in the blood and suffering of our ancestors.
Oh shut up you fricking moron. You literally have no idea what you are discussing. Go read the fricking books and don't be a worthless loudmouthed moron your whole life. None of the universal rights 'exist' because you do or don;t kill someone or because some bit of paper exists. They just are. How did people as loud and stupid as you even come to be? Locke, Hobbs. Rousseau,Tom Paine? Nope just you farting on.
We all know god isnt real because this kid played god and delivered justice upon them heathens!!!
>It's not about a well-regulated militia. It's about the people's right to keep and bear arms, and how it's not to be infringed.
It's both. Every town in colonial America had a militia where every able-bodied man capable of carrying a musket was expected to be part of it. Not saying you don't have a right to own guns and the constitutional basis for it is well established, but it was a completely different country.
If Jefferson had his way the entire time, the U.S. would be divided among a number of friendly sister republics full of yeoman farmers spread like quilts around small times, each the capital of a ward, or a section of a county, modeled on ancient Anglo-Saxon "hundreds" (the ancient Anglo-Saxon language would also have been revived and replaced Latin as the language of educated elites). If you flew over this in a balloon, you might even see militia drilling in the parks, because none of the republics would have significant standing armies. Each hamlet would have a neoclassical town hall in the Greek Revival style introduced by him, a cluster of churches and temples (Congregationalist, Deist, Masonic and Unitarian). Washington D.C. would be called the District of Cherronesus, named after the region where he believed the Saxon ancestors of the American people migrated to Britain after the fall of Rome.
the 2nd amendment exists before professional police forces became a thing, necessitating citizens to group together to protect their communities
Imagine thinking you need a piece of paper written by a slave owning hypocrite tax dodger to own a gun. Pathetic.
We know.
?si=vkles6DATSbRpevm