spannersgalaxy asked:

Don't think you know what "well regulated means".

*worlds largest facepalm*

Generally speaking if you don’t know anything about a subject and someone calls you out on it, the best recourse is to stop and go do some research rather than continuing to make your self look uneducated.

I am only going to explain this once, so listen up.

First things first lets look at the definition of the first term that you don’t understand.

The term militia (pron.: /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] or irregular army, is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[2] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service

Via Wikipedia

So saying this doesn’t refer to common citizens shows a complete lack of understanding of the word.

I am going to keep this short so forgive me for not covering the larger implications  of any of the subject mater.

On to the second phrase you have failed to comprehend.

I know that in your modernly versed mind you have looked at “well regulated” and what you interpreted this to mean was governmental regulation, and you perceived it this way because you did not understand what Militia means. So this was the only semi logical conclusion you could come to. But it's incorrect. The correct modern ‘translation’ of what this means is actually well trained.

Granted I can understand how it’s easy to get confused when you forget that this was written 222 years ago, and don’t have any concept of the history of that time period so I will go easy on you for that. They just don’t teach history well in US schools.

So all of that understanding of history and definitions aside there is this:

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Via Wikipedia.

So not only is your misinterpretation of the Second Amendment wrong  by classical standards, it’s incorrect by modern US supreme court established definition. And I could go into the Natural Rights that predate the Constitution, but I think this is enough information for one lesson.

Any further questions?


I’ve been the anon TRYING to have a conversation with you about guns, but am unable to do so from this blog since it’s secondary and I’d rather use this one to argue guns. 

Before I begin, let me just say that if you are trying to make effective, intelligent arguments, you are failing miserably. Throwing around insults and generalizations is hardly the way to get people to listen to you. Emotion has no place in this debate, it only clouds judgement. Take a deep breath. 

First, if you want to lower gun crime, you expand the rights of citizens to be armed in public. That means allowing concealed carry in all 50 states without exception. That also means the banning of gun free zones, because you never see these fucks attack police stations or gun conventions, they go to schools and malls where law abiding people are told they can’t have their guns. And I don’t know where you get your information, because you can’t just stroll up to the corner gun shop and walk out with a gun like you’re buying milk. You MUST submit to a background check. If you fail, you are supposed to be prosecuted because the law assumes you knew you were not eligible to own a gun. THAT is what I mean by enforcing existing laws.

Second, I don’t know where you got the notion that I think you want to ban all guns. As a general rule I think people realize thats a fantasy so I wouldn’t assume that about you. As such, I never insinuated that about you. 

Third, this “gun show loophole” is a misnomer peddled by the media to scare the uninformed into thinking you can just buy a gun any ole’ time with no checks. I would expect more from you, buying into it. Every vendor at any gun show is a licensed FFL and is therefore required to do background checks, unless it is a person selling from their private collection, which is wholly insignificant when you look at the amount of tables at any given gun show. 

Lastly, regarding the “assault rifle” ask you’ve just responded to, I would expect more out of an infantryman. The AR-15 as you well know is a semi-automatic firing an intermediate round meant to injure, not kill, so as to take more than just the person on the receiving end out of the fight. Yes, it is the civilian version of a select fire rifle, but it is not select fire, and making it so will have the ATF so far up your ass you’ll taste the blood of the dogs they’ve killed on their boots. 

All that being said, even some of the parents of Newtown children have said these proposed laws would not have saved their children. Arm teachers with concealed handguns, allow people to bring their handguns into restaurants and malls and movie theatres with them, and you will see these things stop, because these people don’t want resistance. They want easy targets and their names all over the news for years to come. Stop the glorifying of mass murderers, you stop the mass murders (for the most part, not as an end-all). 

I hope that you can start to see reason, because it seems to me that you’re letting your anger argue for you, and nothing ever gets done that way. 

There's a political sickness infecting a good majority of voter-age citizens

Now, while I may be pretty foaming-at-the-mouth conservative on some points, i still find myself agreeing with liberals from time to time. STFUconservatives actually presents fair points once in a while, same as spannersgalaxy.

But there are people, like for instance lemwon4 or ASPOM, that perfectly fit a discription of evil politics put forth by that great literary character Spider Jerusalem:

They’re the shriveled lizard part of our brains that tells us to vote strictly to fuck the other guy directly in their colon.

They don’t REALLY give a shit about saving the economy, or making life better. Those are only tangental issues that they latch onto to form a vague platform from which to appear legitimate. All they care about is fucking the lives of those they perceive as evil. Or even as Winston Churchill once described the Nazis: men and women who would burn the world to a cinder just to caper around a pagan bonfire. They want things to be as untenable for their real or imaginary opponents as possible, and screw reality or basic common sense and decency.

So for those of you that vote strictly according to how badly your chosen candidate will ruin the lives of the losing team, fuck you. You are scum.

Barry Goldwater once said something bad about religious conservatives! 100% moderate y cant modern republicans be moar like him wow 10/10 sooo awesome fuck religious people lololol modern conservatards stay mad #goldwater4evah
—  Spannersgalaxy and every other mindless twat in the Barry Goldwater tag