Why is the 2nd Amendment sacrosanct, but not any other? -

Samson Pumpkin Jr.

You're mixing up two groups of people: the cringe reactionaries (such as myself) and the based and epic lolbertarian cuckservatives. The former group are consitution deniers while the latter are firm constitution respecters. The former actively call for certain groups to not be able to vote and for protestors to be dealt with while the latter holds all civil liberties in high regards.

Not Really Here

"You're a small, irrelevant island nation"
You're mixing up two groups of people: the cringe reactionaries (such as myself) and the based and epic lolbertarian cuckservatives. The former group are consitution deniers while the latter are firm constitution respecters. The former actively call for certain groups to not be able to vote and for protestors to be dealt with while the latter holds all civil liberties in high regards.
Lolberts don't respek the Constitution. They would have to support a state if it wanted to disenfranchise anyone convicted of a crime.


Joshua Connor Moon: Born to the Broom
Probably because it's the one where ordinary people have a tangible interest in it and it's probably the most noticeably under threat by crazy people.

The first is pretty ironclad, with lots of established case law protecting those rights. Fifth barely comes up and is pretty uncontroversial, plus eminent domain is a fairly broken system anyway. Fourth is repeatedly under threat, but because people don't really have a strong conception of their rights to privacy you barely see anyone really complaining. Sixth, seventh, and Eighth are fairly uncontroversial and procedural in nature, and the ninth is super vague and no government in their right mind would ever dream of explicitly telling people what they can't involve themselves with or what rights are exclusively vested in the people.

Michael Jacks0n

You know I'm bad, I'm bad.
Voting is as much a right as to bear arms, and is also way more likely to overthrow a harmful government than a bunch of fags with guns.

I believe everyone has the right to vote (legally) the same as I believe the population has the right to bear arms (legally). If I need a background check and paperwork to buy a gun, you need an ID to vote so that non-Americans and felons can't vote for Democratic politicians via fraud. Comprende?

say protestors should be locked up

Nigga, you mean like in April-May when you leftist chucklefucks condemned the lockdown protesters as being "far-right extremists", going as far as weaponizing "I need a haircut!" as a short-lived Reddit meme for a brief moment until you did a total 180 and advocated mass protesting as long as it's done in the name of Burn Loot Murder?

If the left didn't have double standards, they'd have no standards at all.
Last edited:


This is not the Green Tom Show.
Well, it's easy.

I believe the Second Amendment is sacrosanct because without it, America is literally not any different, theoretically speaking, than China, North Korea, France, Russia, or any of the many Dictatorships in the Middle East in Africa, at least in the Government's ability to oppress its people with impunity.

Let's suppose that a man named Bob Johnson became President of the United States. Now, Bob thinks that everyone should have to dress the same way, get paid the same amount of money, have to have soldiers living in their homes, and have to install security cameras in their homes.

Unfortunately for Bob, the people are armed to the gills. There's a gun for every person in America, (around a 1:1 ratio) and the military only consists of a few million. Bob cannot force an unconstitutional agenda upon the people because he knows if he tears the Constitution to shreds, he will be forcibly overthrown and his rule will come to an abrupt end.

You may be saying to yourself "Well, the Army has so many tanks, drones, guns, and missiles. No way the People would be able to fight back."

Unfortunately, you forget that a Drone cannot search your home for weapons. Sustaining a war with an armed populace quite literally is nearly impossible because you need physical soldiers and boots on the ground. You need an army to fight a war. Technology cannot do that for you. The only way to subjugate the populace is to take everyone's method of self-preservation away. Forced confiscation, buybacks, whatever it takes.


Master of Cunt-Puppets
Please read this post snipped from chanboard, OP.

Japanon on gun control.jpg

Steely Dan

Call me Deacon Blues
Why the Bill of Rights works so well and is a great document is because all of them tie into each other; you really can't have without the other nine. Citizens need the freedom to speak up in the face of tyranny (1st amendment), the ability to fight off tyranny should it then try harm them or their family (2nd amendment), have their homes be safe from unreasonable search and seizure from tyrants (4th amendment), etc etc.
Unfortunately, the 4th amendment has essentially been repealed, with the PATRIOT Act and local no-knock warrants, And as more amendments get stripped, people will cling on to ones that they can tangibly cling on to. So while I do think people can go overboard with the 1776 larping, the 2nd amendment is still very important, just like the other nine.


in ur zone, dekin' my harbl
To answer the question that was actually asked in the title: the second amendment isn't sacrosanct. It is one of the most infringed amendments with the possible exception of the 4th amendment.

NFA '32 and GCA '68 are clear and unambiguous infringements, as well as the Hughes '86 Amendment (which arguably was not passed correctly and should not actually be applicable). Whatever you think about the practical impacts of these laws they absolutely clash with the simple words "shall not be infringed".

The courts for years did not consider it a right applied to the states and there's a variety of terrible decisions which narrow the scope of the 2nd amendment radically (Miller talking about "common use" is a big one), or Heller which narrowed its own scope for no goddamn reason. Now consider that even with a decent basis in case law in light of Heller to suggest that state gun law restrictions in "certain states" are almost all unambiguously unconstitutional the courts still refuse to even take cases and find the most pathetic excuses to get out of uttering a word on the topic. The best we've gotten has been out of lower appeals courts where they threw out Cali's magazine size ban.

What I'm getting at here is the notion that the 2nd is sacrosanct is a big pile of disingenuous crap. Typically setting the 2nd up as an unassailable pillar is a strategy used by those trying to frame their own position (anti-self-defense) as the underdog. Which is fucking laughable given that nearly the entire last century has been 99.99% a steady upping of infringements upon the second amendment's supposed sacrosanct invincibility.

Now, should the 2nd amendment be sacrosanct? This is what most posters appear to be responding to.

Absolutely, it should be exactly as sacrosanct as the first amendment which is very goddamned sacrosanct.

We've seen just how much damage "only speech" can do, people can lie, people can ruin other people with nothing but convincing speech crafted with malicious intent, but despite all the potential harms, the founders codified the restriction on the government's ability to regulate speech because it benefits everyone despite the obvious pitfalls this lack of regulation can present and we've been tripping in forever. The counter to bad speech is more speech after all.

So from an intellectual consistency standpoint which is something I care about: you can end someone's life by taking actions to keep them from being able to feed themselves, and as we've seen, you only need words to do that. I see no intellectually honest reason why the tools to do so utilizing hot lead and explosions should be any more stringently regulated.

Hollywood Hulk Hogan

nWo 4 LyFe
True & Honest Fan
A lot of people lack anything in their life that they're proud of, so they grasp their guns like a bunch of rednecks.

I hate to break it to people, but if the army did decide to go full tyrant, your guns aren't gonna do jack shit. And besides, the "anti-tyrant" retards have shown they don't care if there's a tyrant wannabe as they mostly support Trump and his attempt to steal the election

Tactical Wizard

So you believe felons should have guns. Do you also ride the short bus?
Yeah, hi. I can’t directly respond to your OP so here we go: It’s not sacrosanct. It is and has been under constant attack for decades. It’s the only amendment that has been transparently misframed as being applicable to the state in a field of amendments that all restrict the state and ignores that the army is already authorized in the main body of that document.

As for your “why do they support this but not that?” Query? Consider the following: blanket statements about people’s opinions are invariably wrong. Do people like that exist? Certainly. Do they make up the majority of second amendment advocates? Not even remotely.

So, in the immortal words of the great urban bard Killer Mike? One time for the right of free speakers, two times for the right to hold heaters.