The Founding Fathers did not live in 2018 and drafted the Constitution in the 1700s. Maybe we should consult goat herders and voodoo men for infinite wisdom?
No shit. If you're not a fucking moron you can read an article from any source and determine pretty quickly how biased or fake it is. Maybe give it a try.
Your precious Founders had no problem with enslaving an entire race of people and most if not all owned slaves. You live in a la-la land of a bunch of disorganized redneck hillbillies challenging the side that will have the US military on it. Is that critical enough for you?
Explain the relevance of slavery to the conversation. I appreciate your take on our chances King George. The US military has never lost a conflict to an under manned and out gunned opponent btw.
The relevance is that the Founders lived in a different time and age. They had no problem with enslaving an entire race of people. Most owned slaves. You know of any slave owners in 2018 chief? Your 1 sentence line of the right to bear arms shall not be infringed may as well come from goat herders, they had more humanity at least.
So let's throw out the bill of rights because slavery. Got it chief. That doesn't speak to the reasoning for the 2nd amendment or why it still applies today.
Your precious Founding Fathers counted human beings in fractions. Not a 1/1 of a human being but 3/5 of a human being. Their archaic views of guns in the 1700s should have zero bearing in 2018.
The Constitution needs to be updated with the times. 1700s Americans didn't hold the values we do and thank God we don't because some of them were messed up.
Using slavery as an argument to discredit the reasoning for the 2A is not convincing. The same reasons for the 2A still exist today despite the founding fathers being wrong on slavery. If you want to say the 2A isn't relevant anymore, attack the reasons for the 2A. An example of how your reasoning is silly: The founding fathers believed in slavery. The archaic views of freedom of religion in 1700 should have zero bearing in 2018. * mic drop *. If it sounds stupid it's because it is.
Here's the new American style that forcefully suppresses a different opinion Ohio Student Suspended for Refusing to Leave Classroom During Gun Control Walkout
Fake news. The school told the kid he could go to study hall if he didn't want to protest. He didn't listen and got in trouble. Won't stop right-wingers from spreading it around the Internet though.
Freedom of religion does not result in a massive loss of life every month/year, so your example is flawed. You can keep your muskets, like your Founders intended. Reload every shot. But these assault rifles have to go, and will go.
My example is not flawed, it is pointing out the pure stupidity of your reasoning. It's completely illogical to point out the flaw in one thing and turn around and say see - so this other thing cannot be taken seriously because of the other thing. That's exactly what you did. Muskets were WEAPONS OF WAR at the time. You can't even define what an assault rifle is but you're sure they have to go.
Just saw that. A very misleading article. Getting in trouble for refusing to leave an unsupervised classroom is pretty reasonable.
How many people have died as a result of the freedom of religion? Can you answer this without dodging it? How many people die in school shootings and other gun crimes because of the flawed 2nd amendment because small dicks need to have big weapons? Your example really is flawed. You don't need assault rifles to hunt. You don't need them for self defense. I am not a gun not so I'm not sure how you want me to define them, but anything with a ridiculous rate of fire has no place in modern society. Want to play with these toys? Go join the fucking military. Get out of Call of Duty and shooting plastic targets at the range.
You're completely missing the point and I'm not going to explain it a second time. You're fucking dense. The second amendment wasn't created because they were worried about getting invaded by fucking deer. If you want to ban something you should be able to clearly state what it is you're wanting to ban. You don't even know. The media told you it's an assault weapon is all you know. It's not and you don't even know what an assault weapon is. Explain what the fuck it is you want to ban without using the term "assault rifle".
Sometimes it helps to read more than the headlines, and if you claim something is a quote it's customary to show the source. The kid wasn't suspended for refusing to leave the classroom, he was suspended because he wanted to stay in an area that was unsupervised. Participating in the walkout was permitted as was going to a study hall, both of which had faculty supervision. No suppression of different opinions, no "new American style," but plenty of drama on the kid's part...and yours.
The second amendment was enacted because private ownership of firearms was the way states ensured that they could stock their militias in the days before there were standing national armed forces. The concept has zero validity today, but a constitutional amendment to correct it will never happen. That doesn't mean in any way that firearms cannot be regulated, they already are, and can be even more tightly regulated, and it will not run afoul of the second amendment.