The second amendment has been Infringed on for 225 years

Whenever I talk about the Second Amendment, it is evident that their most favourite part is;
>Shall not be infringed

But they often forget about the part that says;
>Well regulated militia

What does well-regulated mean? Let's look at some dictionary definitions.
>[reg-yuh-leyt]
verb (used with object), regulated, regulating.
1.
to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.:
to regulate household expenses.
2.
to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.:
to regulate the temperature.

Now can someone please explain to me how militias are well regulated? Any American who is alive, of age, and has the money, can purchase a gun. They don't even need to be added to a registry. This is the POLAR OPPOSITE of well-regulation, and has contributed to the massive gun problem in America.

To all American gun owners- stop infringing on the second amendment and throw down your weapons.

Other urls found in this thread:

rawstory.com/2016/01/trump-campaign-official-arrives-at-oregon-standoff-to-help-militants-combat-psyops/
youtube.com/watch?v=jq7s9lwcXaQ
youtu.be/nUmKT43j4Tc
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

reg·u·late (rĕg′yə-lāt′)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates
1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.


The Militia being well regulated does not refer to gun control it refers to the people in the militia.

>well regulated
The people's arms are adequate to support the purpose of ownership.

My favorite part of the amendment is the break (,).

Further, there's no dispute as to the Founder's intentions as you can just look to history to see how the 2nd Amendment was implemented at the time of its ratification.

Here's a hint, libs: civilians were allowed to own warships.

I'm very skeptical of this.
Not only because it's not what the amendment means but also because that's clearly not what leftists are saying. You see what tantrum lefties throw at the idea that someone is not a pawn of the state but can defend himself.
How do you think they would react to actual paramilitary marches in order of battle? To thousands and thousands of private men gathering in armor, standing in ranks and pledging themselves to the flag before a show of force?

...

Leaf, the well regulated militia went mainstream with the US military and national guard. Your argument is moot. Leave such embarrassing arguments in grade-school.

FYI wise guy, 2nd amendment people are well aware that guns (included under the term "arms") are already extremely regulated, and that this does not mean a complete ban. More embarrassing argument.

Keep your cuckery in canukistan leaf

>U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (2007): The Amendment does not protect “the right of militiamen to keep and bear arms,” but rather “the right of the people.” The operative clause, properly read, protects the ownership and use of weaponry beyond that needed to preserve the state militias.

>10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
>(b) The classes of the militia are—
>(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
>(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
>(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, §1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

Those things which are well-regulated shall not be infringed.

Where does it say that it must be regulated by the government?

In other words, if you are an US male citizen between 17 and 45 and aren't a cripple welcome to the unorganized militia.

>Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia

Same dumb fucking leaf, over and over again.

this

Libcuck, it was already stated under law in recent precidents that EVERYONE in the us is able to be considered a militia member. You can be a militia of 1. You as the individual have the right to hold arms. The militisic arm of the gov't, the military, does not supercede your implemented right to form, be a part of and take action as a militia member.


These things were decided long ago by people smarter and apparently with more self worth and belief in the freedom of their fellow human than yourself. Be thankful to them that you even have the option to act like an ignorant tool at let it lay at that. You arent starting your own country, you have no people to govern and your personal interpretation of the world and that which resides within it does not trump anyone elses.

God damned Leafs. I know english is your third language after french and chinese but you may wanna look up how commas work.

State Militias must be well regulated.
In order for a state militia to exist every man must have the right to freely bear arms.
If the state supplies the arms then it's a standing army, not a militia.
I'm a bong in nogunsallowedland and even I understand this. Why don't American liberals?

seefucking leaf

>Well regulated
>To be regular
>To be in regular and working order

>Need access to keep and bar arms in order to serve its purpose, the people shall have arms and this shall not be infringed

Anyone who thinks its about gun control is a filthy uneducated commie and the sort of person we need guns to defend against.

Meant to quote OP, my bad.

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order.

h-h-hong kong bro? or white trash studying in china?

THE PEOPLE

The real discussion here is that the 2nd amendment has already been so severely chipped away that it ONLY now covers the right to bear arms only up to guns, and even then, sorry, no, you don't get all the guns either. Just certain ones.

It's like having the "right to drive vehicles" but it's been reduced to the point where it only really means the right to drive bicycles and electric scooters.

...

THE FOUNDERS DIDNT MEAN BLACK PEOPLE OR INJUNS WHEN THEY SAID ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL

I get wanting to be able to own automatic rifles without restrictions. But honestly you've got to draw the line somewhere.
Miniguns and grenade launchers aint for civilian use.

>Now can someone please explain to me how militias are well regulated?

because they are usually run by the national guard which is a branch of the US military which tends to be very organized

>EVERYONE in the us is able to be considered a militia member.

including felons,

but I think non citizens are disqualified or no?

You'll step out of Australia's shadow some day leaf

>But honestly you've got to draw the line somewhere.

no, drawing a line costs too much and causes trouble

just leave it be and it will work itself out, this policy tends to create the lowest amount of murder killing

regulated yes, regulated by the government no. The regulated part gives the government the right to take away guns from drug cartels and terrorists. It does not give them the right to outright ban the sale of some guns. Good job reading three words instead of the thousands of pages the founding fathers and other thinkers wrote about this subject.

rawstory.com/2016/01/trump-campaign-official-arrives-at-oregon-standoff-to-help-militants-combat-psyops/

If you think Trump's anti-gun, I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems but a gungrabbin POTUS aint 1

>But they often forget about the part that says;
The right of the people.

Fixed that for (you).

The line gets drawn at nukes cuck. As soon as you draw a line it gets pulled by the left. Look at your own country and the ongoing knife ban.

The militia is The People of the United States. NOT the government.

The only reason being is that they are cost prohibitive for individual ownership. They could be owned and maintained by militias though. Ditto for attack helicopters, which I just so happen to identify as.

Yeah but nah.
Recreational suitcase nukes only needs to go wrong once.

Yeah but private individuals shouldn't be able to own daisy cutters for example.
That's just ludicrous.

Yeah we should draw the line at Black people and mudslimes....no reason they should own a guy considering they commit most of the gu crimes in the usa

Bunch of people could just club together, buy bunker buster, and then take out a street block for shits and giggles.

*Gun.. sorry I am drunk

this is a great point, i'm all for a national registry/background checks but i wish my state would actually let me buy a gun

fuck jersey

Well regulated means a well maintained militia you shitskin commie. The people should have the means to rebel.

Franklin own a privateer the "Black Prince"

Yes but you have to acknowledge that it's only this way because at certain points in American History, these laws were passed because people said "Ok, not ALL arms...let's be realistic." And this took place because this wasn't always the case. When the constitution was written, they really meant ARMS, as in everything that fall under arms. If you wanted a cannon, and bombs, you could have it. So when you look at the sum total of what falls under "arms" the allowed guns is now an ever shrinking tiny percentage of that whole.

Clearly this was done with the intent of making sure the populace will always be militarily inferior to the state. This was especially apparent for example when machine guns were outlawed because mobsters were outgunning cops at every turn.

It's just the point that "you think gun regulation means a total ban" is not even serious when it's already been "regulated" down to a tiny percentage.

>Only I have the authority to own guns
No you don't. The people do. Not a selection of peoples.

fucking leaf

Would be one way of dealing with the nigger problem.

>Look mom I posted it again

Sage and move on lads

kek has spoken
/thread

Notice also the Constitution doesn't mention an age limitation. Nor does it mention a criminal history limitation. Nor does it mention a location limitation (gun free zones.). All these things are yet further "regulation" not enshrined in the 2nd amendment.

Silly leaf doesn't understand that the contemporary usage of "well regulated" meant well trained or in good working order. That said, it applied to the militia (get it, the militia should be well trained and competent) and as such the peoples right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED because it's what allows them to be armed for militia service.

why not

You realize murder and destruction of property is illegal already, right?

Kek has spoken.

Fpbp

/thread

"Regulate" does not imply using the coercive force of the state.

>hong kong
fucking proxys

Blacks aren't people and the founders knew this you fuckin knob.. You can look up dozens of quotes from the founders talking about the colored man. When Jefferson wrote about all men are created equal he was only talking about white abled body men

Because it literally takes just one fucking guy snapping and in an urban area you can take out like 80,000 people with one of those.
Right and I'm just saying it's retarded to let it be ludicrously easy if you have enough money just on 'muh principles'.
I'm with you 99% of the way on being against gun control but 2nd amendment advocates make themselves look moronic when they start defending privately owned WMD.

In 1787 when the constitution was written "well regulated" meant that those in the "militia" (the general populace) be well trained and skilled in arms to defend against invaders and domestic tyrants. Not the dribble that you posted.

m8, you're forgetting the fact that the founding fathers never wanted a standing army, only a standing navy.
All fighting age males were considered of the militia of the USA. Humorously, the only thing you could stretch from the 2nd amendment is that women shouldn't be allowed to own guns, but not really of course.

youtube.com/watch?v=jq7s9lwcXaQ

"so what are you doing to protect my constitutional right to bear doomsday devices?"

If that's what would happen and it is so easy to do then what has prevented it from happening so far?

Maybe niggers are the only ones stupid enough to want to do that but are regulated by natural retardation and thus incapable of doing so.

WHITE MALES....the founders didn't want blacks

In that time period regulated meant something along the lines of well maintained, proper working order, properly equipped etc.

The term regulate was used in this way since around the 1600's until the mid to late 1800's. I dont have my source but it shouldnt be to hard to find.

In summary, the 2nd amendment is saying that the people should always have the right to carry their guns and they should be properly equipped to defend themselves from any threat including a tyrannical government. And that said right can not be changed, taken away, or stopped in any way.

>Right and I'm just saying it's retarded to let it be ludicrously easy if you have enough money just on 'muh principles'.
It's already ludicrously easy. I have a million ways I could just go out and murder someone and if it was completely random, I would likely never be caught. Having a gun doesn't make that urge any stronger than having a knife does, having a machinegun doesn't make it any stronger, so why would a grenade or a nuke make it stronger? In your world, if someone had enough money to buy a bunker buster or whatever, they would have enough money to buy a machinegun or a grenade launcher or any number of illegal explosives currently. Hell, flamethrowers are legal for farm use, and i can't think of any flamethrower related murders recently.

When was the last time you saw a NFA regulated item being used in a random shooting in America? There currently are several miniguns in private hands in America and not one of them has ever been used to kill a single person, much less unleash random havoc. Why do you believe that would change when the scale gets bigger?

>If that's what would happen and it is so easy to do then what has prevented it from happening so far?
Idk man maybe because it's currently illegal to buy a recreational daisy cutter and high explosives are tightly controlled and regulated by the government/military.

This...

/thread

Yes of course it's easy to murder just one person but we aren't talking about just one person.
If miniguns and daisy cutters were available with literally no regulation at all then how long do you think it would be before some random muslim cell clubbed a few thousand dollars together and decided that downtown LA could use some redecorating?

My favourite part of the 2nd amendment is "shall not be infringed"

Why is Sup Forums the easiest board to troll?

Yeah, like that part in the 2ns Amendment that says "the right of militia members to keep and bear arms!"

>canadian posting about guns again

we need to ip ban canada.

And for anyone interested, regulated in that context means 'trained'.

Even you could make one faggot.

>The BLU-82 uses ammonium nitrate and aluminum (cf. ammonal). The warhead contains 12,600 pounds (5,700 kg) of low-cost GSX slurry (ammonium nitrate, aluminum powder and polystyrene).

abandon thread

You ignored literally every single one of my points and just repeated your argument in a different way.

The same reason they haven't done that with one of the several dozen legal and hundreds of illegal options. Why don't they use flamethrowers? Why don't they buy a ton of fertilizer and make truck bombs again? Why don't they smuggle in weapons from over the border? Why don't muslim gangs sneak in with fully automatic weapons purchased from Mexico and just shoot up a town? Hell, why don't they buy bombs from the IRA and blow up Big Ben?

Couple of things.
1. A lot more goes into it than buying the materials, putting them in a bag, and shaking it into a boom boom mix.
2. Actually purchasing this amount of materials would instantly attract the attention of federal authorities, and rightfully so.

>says a person justifying a tyranny
Fuck off you authoritarian.

Watch this.
youtu.be/nUmKT43j4Tc

Will Trump deliver?

They already try to do a few of those things.
Oklahoma city was done with a truck bomb indeed. But do you honestly think there wouldn't be a hell of a lot more of these massive terrorist bombings if you could just buy these things from any old firm that wants to sell them?
As far as automatic rifles go I agree with you that there's no way to stop those.
They are too easy to make, numerous, and small.
But that's completely separate to knowingly allowing people to legally buy things like daisy cutters which have literally 0 defensive or recreational use.
Massive terrorist events are far rarer because, get this, it's actually difficult to acquire enormous amounts of explosives legally.

You are grasping at straws here buddy. If it was common for white people to snap then Anders Breivik scale events would be happening daily.

So youre saying we should be allowrd ordinance and attack vehicles plus training grounds right?

No I'm not lmao.
Each one of your mass shootings would be a thousands times worse if the random crazy was able to buy off the shelf grenade launchers rather than an AR-15.
Your average terrorist cell would be able to astronomical damage with a legally bought military grade bomb that has literally no use to the public at large.

Sure. I don't see the problem with proper training for firearms, and in this day and age the equivalent of a musket is a tank.

I fucking hope so. I have faith.

Slippery slope fallacy.

The slippery slope fallacy is a fucking meme.
You're just autistically taking principal to the point where it has absolutely no contact with reality.

...

You mean like where you are from and the basic right to self defence is verboten? Yes? Even animals have that right, meaning you are lower than the savage beasts. Good goy.

I'm against the vast majority of gun control you knuckle dragging moron.
I'm just not so much of a Jefferson-fellating AnCap that I believe in privately owned suitcase nukes.
You make yourself utterly ridiculous when you go from reasonably opposing restrictions on firearms to positively asserting the right to buy daisy cutters.

>I'm against the vast majority of gun control...

So you would infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms. It is clearly stated "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" in proper English. Military grade ordnance was available to anybody with the cash to buy it until the last century. There is a richfag in my city who collects military vehicles. He even has his own fighter jet. But he's not a nigger so everybody is cool with his hobby. Duh.

Hey, that's pretty good.

Sorry, but you can't have the bacon. But you still have the right to eat food. We just don't trust you with pork.

If it's well working for the defense and power of individual rights.

Since the militias have nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms, what's the point of this thread?

give an inch they take a mile fuck that noise