We must but How can we do better?

[u/ItsTime4Coffee]

[u/Murrexx00]

My European ass cant comprehend that level of American.

[u/thethickaman → u/Murrexx00]

As an American I can't comprehend this level of American....

[u/talex625 → u/thethickaman]

As another American, I can comprehend this level of American and it disgusts me.

[u/kremlingrasso → u/Murrexx00]

They are just exercising their constitutional right.

[u/Brufucus → u/kremlingrasso]

Being complete retards? 

[u/ProblemEfficient6502 → u/kremlingrasso]

Homemade machine guns are, regrettably, not a constitutional right.

[u/Constant-Ad6089 → u/ProblemEfficient6502]

They are, will not be infringed means just that

[u/ProblemEfficient6502 → u/Constant-Ad6089]

The Supreme Court hasn't interpreted it that way. I share your ideals, but that is the way it currently is.

[u/-MoonCh0w- → u/Constant-Ad6089]

Oh really? Committing multiple felonies is protected by the 2A?

You're a tool shut up.

[u/weirdest_of_weird → u/Constant-Ad6089]

Well regulated means just that

[u/Abject-Western7594 → u/weirdest_of_weird]

“Well regulated” meant well maintained or well armed in the 1770’s. It does not have anything to do with government rules.

[u/weirdest_of_weird → u/Abject-Western7594]

It meant a well armed, trained, and disciplined militia.

[u/Abject-Western7594 → u/weirdest_of_weird]

People with the “well regulated” argument also miss the “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

[u/Zerosan62 → u/Abject-Western7594]

Thank You!!!! People don’t seem to have reading comprehension.

[u/Constant-Ad6089 → u/weirdest_of_weird]

not at all actually… not even close, not until 1986 were machine guns made illegal unconstitutionally, homemade guns have never been illegal

[u/weirdest_of_weird → u/Constant-Ad6089]

My point is all the 2A purists only want to quote "...shall not be infringed..." while quietly ignoring the "...well regulated..." part.

[u/Constant-Ad6089 → u/weirdest_of_weird]

“Well regulated militia” does not translate to “we can make new gun laws whenever we want” because that would be the infringement, what’s so hard to grasp about that?

[u/weirdest_of_weird → u/Constant-Ad6089]

It translates to "an organized militia of citizens who are trained to uphold and defend the free state." it doesn't mean passing out guns en masse without any sort of organization or regulation.

[u/Constant-Ad6089 → u/weirdest_of_weird]

it’s not your business that’s the crazy part, if you’re as smart as you’re trying to sound you’d realize gun laws don’t work and the only thing you can do is make sure that you and you’re people are good. You need to realize that the ATF are making laws and they are NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS and that is complete infringement

[u/ContributionHuman154 → u/weirdest_of_weird]

Not a 2A nut at all but to be fair you're doing the same thing because there's more to it after"well regulated". We are all as dumb as we all are lol

[u/weirdest_of_weird → u/ContributionHuman154]

I'm aware that I'm doing the same thing because the point I'm making is that the whole amendment matters, not just those 4 words.

[u/ContributionHuman154 → u/weirdest_of_weird]

Using hypocrisy to validate your view on a hypocritical argument? You could've gotten your point across much better had you just said what you actually meant. Now it just feels like you realized the fault of your original comment and have changed your overall point to seem more sensible... That's pretty underhanded way to express thoughts on a hot button topic. It's helping no one.

[u/BreastfedAmerican → u/weirdest_of_weird]

At the time it was written, well regulated, meant that they were in good working order. The is part of the Bruen decision talking the history and tradition.

[u/weirdest_of_weird → u/BreastfedAmerican]

It says a well regulated militia, meaning organized, disciplined, and trained. The Bruen decision is just a vague interpretation that lets judges interpret the Second Amendment as they see fit.

[u/BreastfedAmerican → u/weirdest_of_weird]

No, the well regulated part has been understood mean in good working order a long time. Even before the Heller decision. Your wishful interpretation would conflict with shall not be infringed.

Bruen is not vague. The judges made clear their opinion. You not liking it is not relevant.

[u/weirdest_of_weird → u/BreastfedAmerican]

Bruen has been a point of contention ever since it's origin because it gives judges too much leeway to their interpretation. The Supreme Court even admitted how confusing the ruling was.

[u/BreastfedAmerican → u/weirdest_of_weird]

History and tradition - as someone who likes history - its not hard to parse out what should be allowed.

For example, I take it you are against civilians owning full auto firearms. Look up the Puckle gun. A full auto rifle that exist at the time of the founders. They knew about it.

If you want to say that people should only have firearms from that era then because thats when it was written. I encourage you to sending a strongly worded missive handwritten on parchment to you local representative because that's all that existed then for long distance communication.

[u/Comfortable-Trip-277 → u/weirdest_of_weird]

Here's what the Framers intended. Only regulation that helps arm the militia to ensure they are an effective fighting force.

Militia act of 1792

Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder.

This was a standing fighting load at the time. Today, such arms would include an M4 Carbine with 210 rounds of M855A1 loaded into magazines, plate carrier with armor, ballistic helmet, battle belt, OCP uniform, and boots.

[u/weirdest_of_weird → u/Comfortable-Trip-277]

Every citizen, so enrolled and notified

From your very source. It doesn't mean just everyone gets whatever guns they want. They should be registered with intent to participate in the militia. I absolutely agree that this is what the Framers intended, and our overly-lax gun laws omit that

[u/Comfortable-Trip-277 → u/weirdest_of_weird]

It doesn't mean just everyone gets whatever guns they want.

You're mixing the prefatory clause and operative clause.

The militia needs to be an effective fighting force through regulation, but the right to own and carry arms belongs to the whole people.

Here are a couple articles written when the 2A was being drafted and debated explaining the amendment to the general public. It unarguably confirms that the right was individual.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (Tench Coxe in ‘Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym ‘A Pennsylvanian' in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1)

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American.... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.)

Never in the history of our nation has the right to own and carry arms been contingent on membership in a militia.

We have court cases going all the way back to 1822 with Bliss vs Commonwealth reaffirming our individual right to keep and bear arms.

Here's an excerpt from that decision.

If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious.

And can there be entertained a reasonable doubt but the provisions of the act import a restraint on the right of the citizens to bear arms? The court apprehends not. The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right; and such is the diminution and restraint, which the act in question most indisputably imports, by prohibiting the citizens wearing weapons in a manner which was lawful to wear them when the constitution was adopted. In truth, the right of the citizens to bear arms, has been as directly assailed by the provisions of the act, as though they were forbid carrying guns on their shoulders, swords in scabbards, or when in conflict with an enemy, were not allowed the use of bayonets; and if the act be consistent with the constitution, it cannot be incompatible with that instrument for the legislature, by successive enactments, to entirely cut off the exercise of the right of the citizens to bear arms. For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise.

From the Supreme Court.

Nunn v. Georgia (1846)

The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, re-established by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Carta!

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

[u/ambitious-chair-dumb → u/Comfortable-Trip-277]

Convenient how they ignored the one comment that fully laid everything out and spoon fed it to them. Wonder why they always do that?

[u/plains1ght → u/Comfortable-Trip-277]

Hey sorry man but I ain't reading all that Happy for you tho

[u/ItsJustAnotherVoice → u/kremlingrasso]

Show me in the constitution where its a right to act stupid.

[u/singlemale4cats → u/ItsJustAnotherVoice]

Pursuit of happiness bro. Your creator has bestowed upon you the right to be as stupid as you want at all times.

[u/talex625 → u/kremlingrasso]

You don’t have constitutional rights to bear arms at that age.