"Dad, the 2nd Amendment is just a remnant from revolutionary days. It has no meaning today."
"You couldn't be more wrong, Lisa. If I didn't have this gun, the king of England could just walk in here any time he wants and start shoving you around. Do you want that?"
Other urls found in this thread:
Why is Lisa so fucking retarded?
why is lisa so fucking hot
But she's right, trying to organize a militia in modern times just makes you a terrorist group.
Homer wasn’t doing a militia. He just bought a fun for the riots.
Please americans, never get rid of your idiotic gun laws. Every single dead amerimutt is a cause for celebration.
Lisa is a fucking idiot
That's the fucking point numb nuts.
And do tell us what shithole you hail from.
why the fuck should i do that? i'd go to Yas Forums if I wanted that shit.
>people attack your flag instead of your argument
Except you didn't present an argument you just went "lol murica bad cause guns" as a clear shitpost.
He’s right though, England is just waiting for you Americans to get rid of your guns before we bring your rebellious asses back in line and the Empire is restored.
>militia
No one said anything about a militia, just the right to own weapons
she's a cartoon character not a real person
>trying to organize a militia in modern times just makes you a terrorist group.
When has this not been the case?
You should have figured out by now that the US government has become increasingly terrified of its own citizens.
Noooooooooooooooo
Are you mentally addled? There was never an argument. Stating that you hope that americans will keep their archaic and moronic laws just so that a maximum possible amount of amerifats will die a horrible and painful death is an expression of attitude or belief.
Goddamn son have the government mentality cucked you. You couldn't even imagine the u.s goverment knocking down your door and shoving it's dick up your ass just cause. I got some delicious flint,Michigan water you can drink up,just open your mouth and close your eyes.I am from the goverment, you can trust me.
S11E5
guns would be useless against lisa's huge posterior anyways
>He just bought a fun for the riots.
Where do I buy fun?
at the funhouse (formerly gunhouse)
So you're shitposting.
I don't mind if you do but at least own the fact that you are instead of dancing around it.
The second amendment was written so that the US government would not need to provide conscripted soldiers with firearms since they would just be forced to bring their own.
It exists because the US government is, and always has been, cheap.
Now let's see what kind of weird shit this thread devolves into before it ends up deleted.
Guns in cartoons thread?
But he’s right. If Americans cared about using guns to rebel against the government, they wouldn’t have allowed their police to turn into a military force.
Would lisa say that about the rest of the amendments as well, feel like she at leasts wants to ban "hate speech"
a sexy idiot
So how long has this samefag being haunting Simpsons threads saying Lisa is sexy?
>The second amendment was written so that the US government would not need to provide conscripted soldiers with firearms since they would just be forced to bring their own.
>It exists because the US government is, and always has been, cheap.
You're sort of correct but actually it was because if army recruits already knew how to handle a firearm, they would need less training and would be ready to go into battle.
since the beginning of simpsons threads
>Now let's see what kind of weird shit this thread devolves into before it ends up deleted.
My money's on Lisa's feet.
So, American citizens were supposed to shoot each other or at least at tin cans for fun, as training?
In the Civil War, the Union cavalry in the Eastern theater was hot garbage for the longest time because it was nothing but city kids from Philly and NYC who didn't know how to ride a horse (often they didn't know how to handle a gun either). They never had that problem in the West where soldiers were tough farmers and frontiersmen.
>or at least at tin cans for
Since when did they have tin cans in the 1700s?
>The tin canning process was allegedly created by the Frenchman Philippe de Girard, but the idea eventually passed to British merchant Peter Durand who was used as an agent to patent Girard's idea in 1810.[2] The canning concept was based on experimental food preservation work in glass containers the year before by the French inventor Nicholas Appert. Durand did not pursue food canning, but, in 1812, sold his patent to two Englishmen, Bryan Donkin and John Hall, who refined the process and product, and set up the world's first commercial canning factory on Southwark Park Road, London. By 1813 they were producing their first tin canned goods for the Royal Navy. By 1820, tin canisters or cans were being used for gunpowder, seeds, and turpentine.
you got the tism, son
>was trying to make a low-effort ">be American >get shot" joke
>user was too dumb to even notice it and just jumped on the part about tin cans and copypasted a Wikipedia page to refute me
You're breaking my balls.
>try to make a joke with the lowest hanging fruit possible
>attempt to claim the other guy is dumb
This was the one where on the DVD commentary they called John Swartzwelder at home while he was barbecuing.
America
Going back to just the 1900s, the large majority of america was wilderness. A lot of people still hunted for food, and cops were only in large cities and hub towns. The last large scale Native american raid on settlers was 1898. That wasn't very long ago from a historic standpoint. People just saying "I mean it's current year people come on ughk" isn't that great of an argument for many people. Especially when outbreaks are happening and people are fist fighting over toilet paper.
>No one said anything about a militia, just the right to own weapons
>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.
It's almost as if you don't actually know what the 2nd amendment says.
Which is the point moron. Guerilla action and disobedience still hasn't been beat for ruining countries
This should make you think.
The Founding Fathers hated the idea of a standing national army. They believed that a standing army would lead to states' rights being trampled by a too-powerful national gov't using that army to override state laws. They instead promoted the idea of state militias - citizens forming under government leadership to form temporary armies in times of crisis.
They recognized, however, that this left the country vulnerable. If a bad actor were to gain national power and ban assembly or gun ownership then militias would be unable to form and face a foreign power's invasion.
That is why the 2nd amendment was made: to ensure the US could form militias in lieu of a standing army.
But hey, guess what: WE HAVE A STANDING ARMY NOW
The moment we established a federally controlled armed forces the 2nd amendment lost its purpose. It's entirely vestigial and any argument that it has use is just fucking wrong.
shall
man the cops don't even come around my neighborhood, so don't even give me that "just trust the government to ensure your security" bullshit, user.
Did your government give you permission to post this?
>the right of the people
Now imagine some screwhead of the president making an ACTUAL oppressive regime, using that army, while the citizens are disarmed. What then? Surrender and submit to the new overlord?
not
lisa cunny > lisa feet
>They believed that a standing army would lead to states' rights being trampled by a too-powerful national gov't using that army to override state laws
Wow gee golly willickers
That's almost completely fucking correct.
>The moment we established a federally controlled armed forces the 2nd amendment lost its purpose.
You can't be this retarded, that's the same as saying once the FCC was created the 1st amendment lost its purpose. Despite having a standing army the expressed purpose of the 2nd amendment was self preservation and protection of one's self and property. It doesn't just lose its purpose because we now have an army that can defend US soil.
We get it, you’re a cunt from a less free nation.
The 2nd amendment is not for the protection of private property. It is for national security.
The Founders would say that at that point you've already lost, and they believed that back when the most advanced weaponry available was muskets and cannons
Almost.
Again, the 2nd amendment is not for the protection of private property. You're simply wrong. I urge you to actually read my post instead of just having a kneejerk reaction.
You’re an idiot. I bet you’ve never even held a weapon
Apologies, I slightly misread your post; the Founders would say that even an armed populace cannot face a national army. That was one of their most sincerely held beliefs and is the reason they were against the creation of a national army in the first place.
Come and take it faggot
This user:
>the 2nd amendment lost its purpose
Also this user:
>If a bad actor were to gain national power and ban assembly or gun ownership then
the level of fucking mental dissonance and dishonesty needed to hold such views simultaneously
Liberalism is a hell of a mental disability.
>The moment we established a federally controlled armed forces the 2nd amendment lost its purpose
Get shot faggot, you are too stupid to share air with.
I've hunted and eaten wild deer and I enjoy shooting my BIL's rifles at the range.
That doesn't change you being very fucking wrong about the 2nd amendment and American history.
I don't want to take your guns, I want you to stop making retarded arguments for keeping them.
>cutting off the sentence to avoid what it's actually saying
The full sentence is
>If a bad actor were to gain national power and ban assembly or gun ownership then militias would be unable to form and face a foreign power's invasion
We don't need the 2nd amendment to fight off a foreign invasion. It has lost its purpose.
Misrepresenting US constitutional Law, is surprise, AGAINST THE FUCKING LAW
I suggest you spend your ban time reading the Federalist Papers.
>private property
fuck you, user. i never said anything about personal property. guns are for protecting one's self. step out of your ivory tower and get a reality check
but there's no king of england, why do we need the 2nd again?
>dont want to take your guns
>the Second has lost its purpose.
Honestly Its shocking how few people know the Federalist papers even exist.
Its literally the founders clarifying what they indented and solidifying from further talks.
>yes goy trust the government to protect your freedoms
>posts waco
ok pedo cultist
The 2nd amendment is also not for personal protection.
I have, and if you had you'd realize that Madison (one of the few founding fathers who wasn't completely against a standing army) shares the same concerns as the other founders should the army reach any reasonable level of power.
Madison was also not the only founding father, and his opinion that a "small army" would be ok was not shared.
>it's literally the founders clarifying what they intended
No it isn't, it's John Madison and Alexander Hamilton (and to a lesser extent John Jay) making arguments for the ratification of the constitution.
Too complicated for you?
You already do
>Misrepresenting US constitutional Law, is surprise, AGAINST THE FUCKING LAW
And the frightening thing is the US supreme court has done this so many fucking times.
The best part of this, is that it was entirely about the ATF trying to justify its existence.
There was no crime, the agents shot first, (and possibly only) shot people fleeing the fire, and very likely started the fire themselves.
But the government will protect you.
>misrepresenting US constitutional law is against the law
No it isn't you fucking clown
>if you kill the kids they can't be molested
Because if you don't, you're just a jealous kid angry that he can't live somewhere so nice.
This is the most correct Yas Forums post I've ever seen my god
Fuck Op and fuck off topic bait threads
>cutting off the se
Oh no, how will we ever know what was meant 200 years from now on a bootleg comics uploading host image board?
The entire premise of RIGHTS is that they are inherent aspects of reality and existence, and any documents merely recognizes that existence, not to provide them as a PRIVILEDGE does. You can't remove someone's right to defend themselves with any object, any more than you can remove someone's ability to think words. To do so would be to physically cut off every person's hands, tongues and lobotomize them, and make them invalids in a chair hooked up to life support until they gracelessly expire from old age. Rights never lose their purpose because of new inventions or beurocractic nightmares, rights remain existant in the world as long as people exist to ACKNOWLEDGE THEM and uphold them against dipshits like you who wrongfully claim that people don't need guns because "muh army" and "muh police state". Nnniiiggggggeeerrr.
OK so first im just going to say it, even as a lawyer federalism was amped up by judges in the high court fucking states forever. (Australia btw)
Secondly, why does it matter the intent of the writers if the piece of legislation is still relevant today?
Take if from someone with an extremely limited constitution that the HCA stretches to its limit.
You don't want to be in a situation where you have limited rights invented by the Court that can be legislated away.
>Federalist papers goes into WHY they did not want a standing army.
>Legit concerns that hold weight today, perhaps more than ever.
>Same for any federal agency really.
>Oh but now that we have one may as well get rid of the main measure that limit governmental power
Fuck off you worthless, subhuman coon.
>You can't be this retarded, that's the same as saying once the FCC was created the 1st amendment lost its purpose
The FCC is supposed to establish uniform standards for OTA radio and TV signal transmission (eg. what frequencies can be used). What does that have to do with the 1st Amendment?
i thought that happened because of deregulation and privatization.
likewise with leaded bread
Fucking A+ post there user.
in case england invades to steal away lisa simpson
I own guns and hunt, but I never understand why anyone thinks they can actually overthrow the govt or have a chance at combating them. They have damn drones that can blow you up whenever, or just launch a missile strike at a bunker. For some reason psycho preppers feel like if the govt goes full corrupt evil and doesn't give a fuck anymore that they'd still honor the rules of combat to give them a fighting chance. No above average gun enthusiast hoarder is at best on the level of a middle school child having the chance to beat a pro sports team. It isn't going to happen and the only way they'd even get any points is because the pro team is pulling punches. I love guns but I hate when it gives people a false sense of preparedness or security.
>rights can't be taken away!
Then you don't have any you massive cocksleeve. You have priveleges.
Oh hey you didn't fucking mention those concerns because you aren't familiar with what they are, you're just SURE that they line up with what you personally believe.
You're an idiot.
This meme has been posted in every 2nd Amendment thread ever and been systematically debunked, yet still gets used anyway.
Flint you mean?
The exact opposite actually.
They knew the pipes needed an overhaul for near a decade. But did fuck all until it was to late.
Then when the issue got national attention, rather than let the workers do their fucking jobs, they began regulating as many aspects of the work as they can to appear as if they are actively working on the issue they themselves caused. It of course, slowed work to a crawl
>MUH RIGHTS
youtube.com
Yeah because it's not like a bunch of sand niggers have been able to fight back with unprecedented effectiveness despite fighting insurmountable odds.
>More copy-pasta!
>Yum Yum Yum.
Die degenerate.
This is such a retarded argument, it's like saying a drawing of two dudes banging isn't gay because they're not real.
The militia consists of every person. Well-regulated doesn't mean "government regulation," it means it's in proper working order.
>give up your right to protect yourself from tyranny because the tyrants will bomb you, just bend over and take it.
Hi Eric
Carlin was a funny man.
He was also a man with deep mommy issues that led to him hating masculinity, responsibility, and his culture.
He was a very funny man. He should not be referenced for public policy. Nor should poems affixed to monuments.
Is this OP?
Fuck you user no one cares about your fucked constitution.
>he should not be referenced for public policy
Way to not watch the video or understand what's being said to you.
I don't know why people don't bring this up more often. Even if you don't expect to outright defeat an oppressive government, an insurgency from an armed populace can slow them down and force them to give up, or at least force some concessions. And who knows, you might actually win. Better than lying down and taking it.
>all these angry replies
>not even a single attempt to contradict the content of the posts
Yas Forumsfags BTFO
will they ever recover?
If it were a matter of just killing all the dudes America would have just carpet bombed everything into oblivion. But we don't want to just kill their dudes, we need their country to have infrastructure for us to exploit a functioning government so we can gtfo and not have to worry about them sending GTA high scorers after us.
Not him, but I'm a fucking idiot.
But like really when it comes down to the crunch and not just online.
How many people would rather die on their feet than live on their knees?
Guns actually empower people who are often at a physical disadvantage, like women and the elderly. Example: some young guy busts into a grandma’s house. The young guy could just rob her and rape her and basically do whatever the fuck she wants, but if she has a gun, she at least stands a fighting chance. Knew a lot of elderly ladies from my old neighborhood who were armed. Lot of them just kept their husband’s gun after he died. They slept a lot better knowing they could at least defend themselves. I don’t see how gun ownership “isn’t relevant” since it was always about empowering the people.
Lad thats not even correct.
His points were challenged but he refuses to acknowledge that and like all trolls keeps ranting the same and using old copy-pasted bullshit.
>user can't tell the difference between reality and fantasy: the post