2nd Amendment

Argued with my liberal friend about this, and now i want the interpretation of Sup Forums, does the 2nd Amendment only apply to militias, or everyone, and why?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

Isnt everyone above a certain age part of the standing civilian militia? Therefor everyone.

The militia is broken up into to 2 parts, organized which is the National guard, unorganized which is Citizens 18-45 depending on the state. Read your states constitution for further clarification.

It applies to the people, because grammar.

the people

and "well regulated" doesn't mean what liberals want it to mean

Everyone, because technically everyone between the ages of 17 and 45(? not 100% on the max age) is part of the militia by default.

The founding fathers were extremely worried about a government that would attempt to disarm the populace and take the country by force. Shit, half the reason we won the revolutionary war was because the colonists refused to hand in their arms and instead used them to fight the British. They wrote that amendment as an insurance against the govt getting too powerful and over-reaching it's bounds.

>inb4 "hur good luck fighting da army with ur ar-15"

Mountain men in Afghanistan have been giving our militaries hell with shit that dates as far back as the times when the british empire was trying to conquer them.

The 2A was put in place as a means for the average american citizen to defend him or herself against anyone that would do them or their families and friends harm- and that includes the government.

In the Roman Empire and through the middle age, it was only forbidden for slaves and normal folks to bear arms

Why do you think this (not disagreeing just want to know)

A hearty and nutritional meal being necessary to the functioning of a healthy human being, the right of the people to store and eat food, shall not be infringed.

Who has the right to store and eat food? A hearty and nutritious meal, or the people?

beat me to it.

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.
All parts are important, remember that all men 17-45 were considered part of the militia around that time.

In the times of the founding fathers, the phrase "well-regulated" had the meaning of something being in working order, functioning as expected. A militia is defined as a military force raised from the civilian population - indeed, in US law, all able-bodied citizens that are eligible for military service are defined as being part of the militia.

"the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed" pretty self explanatory

well-regulated meant "in proper working order". So basically, the militia has the right to own whatever weapons (or small arms) that the military does. Some will argue that this isn't the case because full-auto rifles are restricted, but it's only this particular feature (and it's not all that practical anyway)

"being necessary to the security of a free State" means preventing oppression, not just deterring invasions

that's a good one, I'm gonna use that

It is very, very clear.
You and your libtard friend lack basic English reading comprehension.

the second amendment applies directly to The People, thats why it was written so.

see pic related to demolish left grammar torture schemes

The text states that because it is necessary to have a state militia or military, the PEOPLE have the right keep and bear arms to protect themselves from a tyrannical state militia. Literally what our forefathers just fought a war over at the time this amendment was ratified.

The people obviously because that's how the English language works.

WE'RE ALL SOLDIERS NOW

Not that it mattered much anyway as only the very rich could afford swords and armour.

To expand on this, in the context of a "well-regulated militia" being a militia that is able to function as expected, a militia without the means to fight cannot be regarded as a functional militia, and since a militia is made up of the civilian population, it therefore becomes essential that the civilian population (ie: the people) have the right to keep and bear arms.

"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."

>the right of the people

Maybe you should actually read the 2nd amendment before asking these types of questions lol.

And had access to the training to proficiency use them.
Firearms arms are the greatest equalizer in history.

ITT cucked leafs and britfags pretend they understand gun rights.

I understand this completely, my friend doesn't however, and was looking to find things like in this thread

dear god please stop, the BoR is a list of restrictions constraing the federal and state governments. It's plainly clear in intent, and can be corroborated by the multitudes of other founding documents. Your marxist friend isn't a friend, he's a domestic enemy of the US and is attempting to subvert you. All of this is natural and anticipated by the founders because they were the precipitate of europeans that moved to the americas and later fought for independence. They saw all of this before. The 2nd amendment clearly states "the right of the people" not the "right of the militia". It doesn't grant the right, it merely states that the right shall not be infringed and was dictated by anti-federalists who feared the overreach of a federal government and so crafted a list of specifically worded restrictions against the gov. Later in the amendments, they state that the enumerations of the restrictions can't be worded and manipulated so as to disparage the people of their rights. Which is what your friend is doing.

They don't understand rights, let alone gun rights.

Read the cases.

Heller v DC is a landmark one.

Your friend is beyond assistance and you should not willingly keep the company of dullards.

he and I were saying exactly what you were saying, faggot. Also, Canada's gun laws are better than California's

It's not a matter of understanding gun rights, it's a matter of understanding simple, plain English. Stop being a faggot just because you're American and we're not - we all support the 2A.

...

It refers to a militia, but in order for a militia to be called up, they must be armed. So, the individuals in the militia must have a right to be armed in the first place.

For an Englishman, you should understand basic jurisprudence then. Original intent isn't explicit.

It's to protect against the possibility of government tyranny by arming the people.

It doesn't have fuck all to do with arming militias. In PLAIN FUCKING ENGLISH, it protects the rights of the PEOPLE. So clearly, you don't understand.

You may have to accept that your friends are illiterate. I'm sorry, user. Many such cases.

youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8

anyone can form a militia at any moment in time, so therefor it applies to anyone.

founding fathers hated the concept of a standing army

the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to provide for the security of a free state using something other than a standing army: the well regulated militia

since you can't be an effective militia member without being able to bring a firearm to the table, the right of the people to keep and bear arms was implemented as a means toward the end of establishing a well regulated militia in order to provide security for the newly established state that was too enlightened to truck with crap like standing armies

we now have a standing army

the 2nd amendment is arguably obsolete

yeah, that's exactly what he's been saying. Dumb piece of shit

Pic related. Tell your friend to suck a dick

It's not arguable. We have historical records that date back to the signing of the constitution. We know what the second amendment means and what it has always meant. Also grammar agrees with that interpretation.

>Canada's gun laws are better than Commiefornia's
That's not really something to be proud of.

The 2nd Amendment applies to all citizens above 18 years of age.
Even a ricegook like me knows this.

>what is self-defense?

Actually, the standing army is unconstitutional.

"Regulated" didn't mean monitoring and intervention by the government like it means now

>England doesn't know how the English language works

Fuck off dude.

no one can deny you the right to survive, so telling anyone they can't legally hold arms is like telling them they are a slave

Our standing army does not for the most part police, or operate inside the us like the standing British army did in colonial America.
So it is not actually obsolete.

Based Texas

I have never seen that flag before.

not to defend his theory that the 2A is obsolete, but what about the National Guard?

Regardless of the intent behind the 2A and the difference between the political atmosphere in the times of the founding fathers and the modern era, the wording of the 2A itself is very explicit and leaves little room for alternative interpretations.

The political and social implications of allowing virtually unregulated civilian ownership of firearms is another argument entirely, but whatever the case, the wording of the 2A (which is the topic we're discussing) is very clear.

What specific part of the constitution makes it unconstitutional?

National Guard isnt a militia, its a state army.

Males aged 18-45 are part of the national militia.

If you are an american citizen Man aged 18-45 then the 2nd Amendment is talking about YOU.

Its well known in the government that with the shitty infrastructure in the united states and the fact that the modern military isnt even trained for survival innawoods.

The civil war would go terribly for them, and assets like the air force only help against foreign threats and concentrated targets.

This

And furthermore "infringed" is exactly what any law does to curtail the right to keep and bear arms.

Arms are weapons, whether its a ballbat, knife, sword, or an M1 Abrams tank cannon.

Ammunition for weapons are also arms, whether they are arrows, crossbow bolts, or 120mm tank shells.

All laws curtailing weapon possession are Unconstitutional, on a federal level superceding state authority.

>the 2nd amendment is arguably obsolete
Regardless of your opinion on the matter, the 2A does not grant the right, it merely obligates the federal government to respect and uphold it.

To form a well regulated militia, you have to have possession of arms to bear to form one. That's the point. That's the implication. That's what you're not explicitly reading.

It isn't, but my point was that being an American doesn't automatically means you know more about firearms or the US's right to bear arms. I also wanted to point out that Canadians are generally more enthusiastic about guns and shooting than Brits are

Everyone.

Everyone. The amendment makes no sense otherwise, and grammatically speaking it refers to the people.

The militia is the entire US population. This is the only answer.

>apply to militias
Militias with the purpose of: overthrowing a corrupt government. Which would require being as heavily armed as the govt to include tech. That is the 2nd amendment is not interpreted as for a militia because it would require mass deregulation of arms in the US. That is why they only interpret it as small arms. Tell your libshit "friend" that.

California reporting in. Once again you bring shame upon your people. You are wrong, leaf. Even in my uber-cucked state, I still enjoy more firearm privileges than yourself.
>forced registry
>shit-tier grandfather laws
>convoluted restricted/prohibited laws for small calibers
Canadas firearm laws make California look like Georgia. Canada has all the shitty firearm restriction of Commiefornia, plus some.

They are federally trained, but sworn both to the governor of their respective state, and the federal government in the case of a national emergency. Yes, they would be considered a state's "official" militia.

Who said anything about arming militias? The people ARE the militia, and without the right to keep and bear arms, the people cannot be considered to be an effective militia.

Even in modern US law, all able-bodied people are considered to be part of the militia regardless of whether they serve in any military force or hold membership of any militia group, they are still considered to be part of an unorganised militia.

I don't even get why you're attacking me. I don't know how I can make it any clearer that I support the 2A 100%.

When it is not deployed over seas it responds to emergency situations, typically shit like natural disasters.

It is not a military force that functions generally in a policing capacity day to day.

...

Please give me your garand, it's almost christmas

not a single one of those weapons in that picture is an M1 Garand you fat idiot

I feel this is an important fact that many people overlook when discussing the Bill of Rights; it doesn't grant people the rights - they're God-given rights for every US citizen, and the Bill of Rights is merely a contract that the federal government must uphold those rights.

have I caused some controversy?

It was to provide for the security of a FREE state.
Keyword: Free. The purpose of the militia was not to protect THE state, but rather a free and fair state which the people would desire. The standing army protects the official state, but the official state will not permanently be a free state. Additionally, there is evidence that the founding fathers that supported the Bill of Rights used this line of thinking. Many of them sympathized with Shays's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, some even saying that the occasional revolutionary upheaval is crucial for the free state.

>Vz.24
>Garand

Tell him that the supreme court's opinion is that the right to keep and bear arms it's unconnected to service in a militia, and if he doesn't like it he can go take a seat next to Kim Davis whining about how SCOTUS decisions they don't like shouldn't count.

In your mind, what is a militia? ,':^)

pretty sure "free" in the sense the constitution was written refers to the sovereignty of the new union and freedom from foreign power

>iwasonlypretendingtoberetarded.bmp
filthy no guns, you dont even know what freedom is

If I wanted to own a shotgun with an 8 inch barrel, I don't need a 200$ tax stamp or any paperwork. Rifles in .50 BMG are also legal and unrestricted. AR-15s don't have BULLET BUTTONS. Chinese imports aren't banned, so we can have mid-tier M1As and 1911s for dirt cheap.

I also hear that in California, semi-auto shotguns/rifles with detachable magazines cannot legally be sold until 2017 (Bill 880 and Assembly Bill 1135 in June 2016)

Btw the grandfather thing is better than a complete ban on automatic weapons, isn't it?

Well, seeing as I bought a gun so I can shoot some white nationalists on the Day of the Rope, I guess it's for that.

...

Really,
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure."
This was by Richard Henry Lee, the main proponent of a Bill of Rights. It was not referring to the Union if the Union were to violate basic civil liberties.

A balanced breakfast being necessary to a good day, the right of the people to keep food shall not be infringed.

Who has the right to keep food, the people, or the breakfast?

Any other interpretation is liberals intentionally trying to twist an otherwise simple sentence into a pretext to deny you your rights.

What is the best gun to kill altright/stormweenies in your opinion? Maybe a gun developed by black people..that would be epic karma don't you think? Now I just have to find one :^)

I'm white so I know how to aim, you fucking piece of shit leaf.

And, he should probably ask if
>"we the people"
means the government, or the militia.
Then, ask if
>"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"
means the government, or the militia.

Everyone who can read English.

No, I'm thinking an AR-15.

I really just wanted his gun so I could smash it, firearms are evil and only exist to take human life.

the second amendment back then meant that civilians were to have equal force as the government in order to prevent tyranny.
In the 21st century, for the civilians to be a military match for the government we would require tanks and jets, not ar 15s.

They exist to take animal life as well

Does the 2nd Amendment include having the right to own a Nuke ?

"the right of the people" Pretty simple shit m8

The amendment is making a claim to two separate rights

1. That states have the right to organize militias

2. The people (note: citizens of the US) have the right to keep and bear arms

Constitutionally, the federal government isn't allowed to keep a standing army (our military branches--army, navy, air force, and marines). Congress is only allowed to select from the states, the abled-bodied men necessary to fight during times of war. After which, the collective is to be disbanded.

Congress has gotten around this Constitutional tidbit, by keeping us in a perpetual state of war.

Only the state's areally supposed to have their own state militias so that 1. The states can't bully one another, and 2. The states (during times of peace at least) cannot be bullied by the federal government.

The National Guard *is not* a militia, in the sense of what a militia was when the constitution was written (an important distinction for understanding the original intent).

It specifies "the people" as having the right to bear arms as well as the right to be in an armed group. It prohibits the government from legislating it and is not meant to grant the government rights, but the people.

The tyranny in America would be enforced by Feds, not the us military.

they might have written down "white" or "caucasian" in your police record, paco, but that doesn't make you a *white* person.

Can you afford one? And, can you carry it into battle?

don't forget two-liter life