Have A nice Music

TRULY IS

A DREAM

TANK

Me:

Average gun control advocate:

First off, the Second Amendment was added, along with the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, after the Constitution was drafted at much contested debate because most of the rights outlined therein were considered to be inherent already.  This includes the natural inalienable right to own and bear arms personally or to form a militia.  Many of the Framers did not believe it was necessary nor even possible to list every right that was to be protected and guaranteed.  Not to mention, by outlining specific rights, it could be misconstrued later on by those in the government that rights not listed could be infringed upon.  Most of this was resolved in the Ninth Amendment however.  The biggest contentions by delegates from each of the states were regarding individual and state rights contrary to federal power.  The Second Amendment specifically addresses both of these.

So, right off the bat you must concede to one of two beliefs: rights are either inalienable, inherent, and god-given or they are bestowed to you by a person in authority such as a king or your government.  The right for individuals to bear arms was a concept enlightened thinkers brought to America.  It was a big FU to rulers who long believed they were above the law themselves.  Suddenly, some ‘Joe Nobody’ had the same amount of power that a monarch had at his/her finger tips.  Subsequently, this is precisely why authoritarian tyrants around the world and throughout history have banned the right of the people to arm themselves.  You simply disarm the competition.  So, this civil liberty was understood to be granted by any free person to resist oppressive tyranny if need be.  If you do not understand this basic concept, then the entire Second Amendment will not make sense to you no matter how much you misinterpret it otherwise.

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.

Now, let’s dissect this a bit, considering the average gun control fan doesn’t know how to read basic sentences properly.

A well regulated militia,

Prior to the Constitution, the States had their own militias.  In a state such as South Carolina, every able man, including slaves if need be, were to be armed against indigenous attacks or any skirmishes from competing interests; from countries like France for example.  These were not standing armies of the state nor were they some kind of National Guard.  In fact, the conscripted Militia Acts that gave authority to the Commander in Chief in times of attack to take control of a state’s militia was not passed until 1792.  These militias were comprised by individuals living within their state who’s livelihood had nothing to do with defense.  Richard Henry Lee put it best in his descriptions of military forces, “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary.”  That’s important to remember in the overall text. 

Also, note that the Founders worried about the concept of an underclass of individuals becoming the grunt force of a rich man’s military.  George Mason said at the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788, “A worthy member has asked, who are the militia, if they be not the people, of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans, Prussians, and by our representation? I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people. If we should ever see that day, the most ignominious punishments and heavy fines may be expected. Under the present government all ranks of people are subject to militia duty.”

Also, in case there is any confusion on the language and use of the word “well regulated;” no, it does not mean to regulate by authority.  It simply meant properly functioning as intended.

being necessary to the security of a free state,

This particular portion is in reference to state sovereignty which was one of the most heated points of dispute in the Constitutional Convention.  The states wanted to ensure they had the right to secure their own State from the federal government if the need ever arose.  Elbridge Gerry contended during the debates on the Second Amendment, “What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution.”

So, this language was particularly added to give solace to the States that they could secure their free state by a means of forming a militia of the people of that State.  Also, so that there is no confusion regarding state rights, the Second Amendment technically did not intend to be incorporated to supersede individual state’s authority in regards to gun rights either - although, as I have mentioned, the right to own and bear arms was an understood natural right by each of the states anyway.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms,

Now, here’s the part most anti-gunners trip on or tout as some kind of gotcha point.  Putting aside all that I’ve explained to you about it being an inalienable right, if you were to interpret the right to bear arms solely on the Second Amendment, the English language easily explains why the right of the people to keep and bear arms is the second subject of the full overall sentence.

Now, let’s take a look at the original inspiration for the Second Amendment from a draft by George Mason for the Virginia Declaration of Rights in 1776:

“That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free state, that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided.” - George Mason

Not good enough?  How about the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights?

“XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.“

Also the Pennsylvania delegates of the Ratifying Convention also proposed:

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power.”

Samuel Adams proposed at the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention much the same:

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States…” - Samuel Adams

The Framers clearly understood that firstly the free people had the right to mass, which means to assemble into a body.  They also had the right to specifically keep and bear arms.  After all, how would a body of the people mass together to defend their free state if they were not armed freely?  

Oh, and the Founders were also aware of long established common law that gave one the right to self-preservation as well as the 1689 English Bill of Rights which codified, “That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.”  

“And, lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated and attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and, lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self preservation and defense.” - Sir William Blackstone

shall not be infringed.

I believe this needs no explanation.  The Framers wanted to make it evidently clear that the newly formed federal government could not break the terms of the rights of the individuals to bear arms nor prevent the states from forming a militia.  The Second Amendment explicitly prohibits the encroachment, limitation, and dissolution of these inalienable rights.

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.” - William Pitt the Younger

Now, one other point of contention regarding the Second Amendment that I always hear during this debate:

“’Assault weapons’ and ‘weapons of war’ would never have been allowed if the framers only knew what we have today.  It only applied to powder muskets!“

What part of arms do you not understand?  Arms is short for armaments which is a word for weaponry.  The Second Amendment does not exclusively protect the right to own just firearms.  Moreover, if the Founders were alive today, they would just as easily transition to the most advanced armaments available…just as they did when the Second Amendment was drafted.  I kindly suggest everyone take a look at the historical timeline put together by the folks at AmericanFirearms.org to see the evolution of firearms over the decades and centuries.  It illustrates that the Founders were fully aware of technological advances in weaponry and they clearly took advantage of it.

Steven Crowder actually has an excellent video lampooning this silly talking point.

Most people don’t even know that you could own a cannon, a Thompson submachine gun, or even a howitzer if you could afford it.  Many private citizens did in fact own them peacefully and you were none the wiser.  That’s because the overwhelming majority of gun owners are non-violent citizens.

Of course, progressives put an end to all this like most freedoms enjoyed by Americans in 1934 and 1968.  However, despite this, scary looking civilian semi-automatic rifles, like the often misunderstood AR-15, are legal because they do not have an automatic function.  These are neither assault weapons nor ‘weapons of war,’ which I assume to mean they are military-grade used in active combat.  You are just wrong.  

 What makes this topic interesting is proponents are usually half correct but then they fill in the other sections with their desired conclusion. Yes, there is a personal right to own a firearm. To serve your militia. You have a right to personal ownership so you could serve and protect your community. Not just yourself. Service to your fellow man is implied. The militia wasn’t structured like the military that we have today and it wasn’t as limited in scope as our military today is. If you were an able-bodied man you were expected to serve on patrol acting as law enforcement, serving as sentry, and yes marching into battle. All of these responsibilities for the community were fulfilled by the militia. For as large as the militia dominated the imaginations of the founding generation, it’s ironic that it wasn’t until after Valley Forge when the Continental army received standard training so they could function like a professional standing military that we were able to toe-to-toe with the British in the field. Before that it was green militiamen that were driven out of Boston, New York and most of the northeast in the early war. Regardless the founding generation’s had legitimate fears of a standing army, given that monarchy is the only form of government these men lived under. At no point in history before the ratification of the Constitution has our style of liberal constitutional republic been tried. So the insistence on a weak/nonexistent federal military made since for the time. The only thing though is the militia system has failed more than it has helped. As we expanded west, and became more individualistic, people stopped showing up for their militia duty. The shortcomings of the militia is what caused us to largely lose the War of 1812. The invasion of Canada stalled out since we couldn’t muster more troops, we were similarly unable to stop the British march on Washington and burning of the White house for the same reason. Jackson’s victory in New Orleans was done with green boys, pirates and slaves because there were no real measures of retention for militias. One of the factors of many that made the expansion into the west as choppy as it was is because militias tend to not like long deployments. They are good at protecting your town but when it comes to pursuing military opponent in the field they don’t do so hot. One of the big reason why the Union prevailed over the Confederacy among many other reasons is because after it became clear the war wasn’t going to be resolved in four months like everyone hoped. Quickly after their realization the Army of the Potomac replaced all of the short term contracts with three year contracts and started organizing like a professional army. Meanwhile in the Confederacy while their boy might fight like demons in their own backyards they had constant difficulties retaining their numbers because men didn’t what to stray too far from their homes. This is why you start to see this movement away from the militia system after the Civil War. Ultimately culminating in the nationalization of the militias in 1903. Militias simply are not suited for modern combat. That said the issue at the heart of the matter is that the militia is no longer the greatest deterrent against tyrant rather that would be our secular civil law and democratic institutions.

Let me get to the heart of my argument. Yes, rights are natural. Yes, rights are endowed by our Creator. All that said our founders didn’t stop at declaring our rights in the Constitution. They set up institutions to protect and allow us to implement those rights. Representative government; so our grievances can be addressed peacefully in rational manner. An independent judiciary to ensure fair and level applications of the law, civilian control of the military etc. My point is that every man, woman and child that died under tyranny before the Constitution had the same inalienable rights as the Americans did after the ratification of the Constitution. What the constitution changed is it provided mechanisms to preserve those rights. Without institutions to protect those rights, without the prevailing values of the population that want to protect those rights, then those rights will not be preserved. The ability to physical violence does not discredit harmful worldviews. The classic example the right loves to bring up in the Holocaust. Every narrative the right has about it being a lesson on why disarming the people leads to tyranny is dismantled by the fact that the kristallnacht, the event that sped up the push to find a ‘finial solution’, was perpetrated by average German citizens who were armed. The issue wasn’t that the population wasn’t armed, it was that the prevailing mood didn’t value the lives and civil rights of Jews and other undesirables. The people empower leaders who share their values, and if civil institutions purposely exclude some group from protection then that group will be unable to express their God given rights. This is way emphasizing our values empathy and mutual responsibility is so important to the preservation of the Republic. When our values turn inward, when our institutions no longer value everyone and become hierarchical, it rots our liberty. Constitutional institutions are preserved by republican values, not arms. What if the government becomes tyrannical? To keep this short, governments don’t just ‘become tyrannical.’ That takes place over time and is predicated on the erosion of republican virtues. If you don’t want a tyrant, might I suggest valuing and protecting the civil rights of all, and not empowering despots who have clear contempt for our democratic institutions? Don’t subscribe to hierarchical worldviews that don’t value the rights of all as equal? The short version is, if you practice republican values, and preserve your democratic institutions, the need for violent revolts lowers dramatically to zero.

 At the end of the day what the right wants, is rights without responsibilities. Although some reluctantly acknowledge or even scapegoat personal responsibility, they all completely disregard any social/mutual responsibility. You do not have a right to infringe on someone else’s liberty in the practicing of our liberty. This is rights 101. It doesn’t matter if you’re on your own private property when you dump into the river that is the water supply for the town. You have a right to free speech, but you have a responsibility to not insight violence. There is a right to own arms but you have a responsibility to not use those arms in a destructive or menacing manner. Rights are predicated on responsibilities. Rights without responsibilities is anarchy. As we have a volunteer military with elected civilian head; as we have volunteer police force with an elected civilian head; as we no longer demand random citizens to fulfill these roles; it is entirely reasonable to require private firearm owners to act in a responsible manner. That isn’t just personally responsible. That is mutually responsible as well. Yes you are personally responsible to know how to operate and store your firearms. You still have a mutual responsibilities to not exacerbate dangerous situations, to properly identify when a threat is actually occurring (not just feeling it), and to act in accordance with the law for safety of all those who are around you. You have a tool meant to take life in your hands. That comes with some responsibility. As such, it is an entirely reasonable to request, that in order to own a firearm you demonstrate that responsibility. That you take a course, that proves proficiency, skill, mental stability, threat assessment, proper storage, understanding of the law and your social responsibility that come with firearm ownership. Simply being armed doesn’t make your prepared, being trained makes you prepared. The reason the AR-15 debate is infuriating is because instead of acknowledging that consistently irresponsible parties that are drawn to the tacticool aesthetics of the AR-15 which is why they pick when they want to live out their solider fantasy, we get semantic arguments about what the ‘AR’ in the name stands for . When the right finally acknowledges that they have responsibilities that come with their rights and act accordingly then we’re cool. That is where an honest conversation has to begin.

Making fun of bigots and taking away people’s ability to take them seriously is a good thing, YES. 

However, Steven Crowder could not give a single, flaming fuck about y’all turning his “change my mind” thing into a meme and clowning on him because this meme has brought him lots of attention and money. He talks about the meme on his Twitter and on his show. He loves the attention it brings him. It’s brought tons of traffic to his Youtube account and the video the meme comes from is at 5+ million views, while all his other “change my mind” videos are only at 1-2 million. 

His social blade is in the green and he’s gaining subscribers rapidly and getting millions of views on his videos.  This has literally only benefited him and he knows it.

He has “Change my mind” merch, guys. Come on.

He’s banking off of y’all “making fun of him”. It’s stopped becoming a joke and you guys are giving him more exposure and putting cash into the pocket of a literal transphobe because you think photoshopping “Pee is stored in the balls” on his sign is some kind of crushing blow to him when it’s literally the opposite.

he does stuff like that a lot; 

Crowder an idiot and memes like this just hurt his credibility and make HIM the joke

he does stuff like that a lot; 

Crowder an idiot and memes like this just hurt his credibility and make HIM the joke

The sweatdrop

Liberal use of the V sign, even in situations that did not call for it and does not require a camera to be present.

Falling over because someone said or did something so incredibly stupid it made you lose all strength and will to live.

When they do the anime face thing

Making characters squishy

the dignity laugh