@cole Said

Isn't the full text something along the lines of a Right to bear arms to form militia armies? One surely must argue that there is not a need to form militias which were to protect against colonial English troops or marauding native Americans. Doesn't therefore give anyone a right to hold guns for other reasons or really just because they can.

Did anyone check that it's maybe just the right to have bare arms, you know so you can all top up your tans?

But yes looking at the straw man argument the proposer doesn't suggest taking guns away

@Eaglebauer Said

It's heavily debated.

The actual wording is:

"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."

A lot of people argue that it wasn't specifically directed at England, though that was the example of the time, but in general a provision for the people to have the ability to defend themselves against a usurpacious government of any nation, including their own.

A lot of other people argue, as you mention, that it's an outdated problem that isn't an issue these days.

A lot of other people argue that if you take away that amendment, it would eventually become a problem again. And that while it isn't currently an issue in the US, it actually still is in a lot of other places in the world.

One side of the fence or the other, there is much left to interpretation.

@mrmhead Said

And meanwhile, there are a lot of bears running around without arms because of this!

@mrmhead Said

Proposition: We should have tougher gun laws

(straw man) Argument: It is our 2nd amendment right to own firearms. YOU ARE NOT TAKING OUR GUNS AWAY!!!

@Eaglebauer Said

Citizen: No, I'm speaking about a specific issue and you're an a*****e for putting words in my mouth. Also, you have the aroma of a baboon with halitosis and explosive diarrhea.

@cole Said

Isn't the full text something along the lines of a Right to bear arms to form militia armies? One surely must argue that there is not a need to form militias which were to protect against colonial English troops or marauding native Americans. Doesn't therefore give anyone a right to hold guns for other reasons or really just because they can.

Did anyone check that it's maybe just the right to have bare arms, you know so you can all top up your tans?

But yes looking at the straw man argument the proposer doesn't suggest taking guns away

@mrmhead Said

And meanwhile, there are a lot of bears running around without arms because of this!

@mrmhead Said

grizzly limbs
short sleeves
carry guns
...?

@cole Said

Is this an A-Typical gun tooting American?

@Erimitus Said

I only use my AK-47 for squirrel hunting.

@mrmhead Said

And where in the constitution does it say you have the right to squirrel arms? .. or tails... or ...

@Erimitus Said

I googled the constitution and it says nothing at all about squirrels.

@mrmhead Said