Well-regulated

>well-regulated

What did they mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

'Well maintained' in modern English.

Better question, cuccboi - why are the other 9 amendments about curbing the power of the federal government over the individual and states, but this one keeps getting interpreted as limiting the power of the individual?

supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

They meant that in order to have an effective militia, people need to have their own firearms.

"Shall not be infringed"

What did they mean by this?

>the right of the people
What did he mean by this?

If you're going to post a quotation, at least post one with correct commas, faggot.

They meant the government should pass laws to keep the militia's equipment to a common standard so that the logistics of resupplying them would be easier. In other words, anyone showing up for militia service should arrive with an AR-15 chambered in the standard military round, six magazines, and a load bearing vest.

The real question is why hasn't society purged you literal retards yet.

No niggers and no Jews.

fuck you dickwad

And the comma makes a separate clause. As in "this" and "this". The second amendment isn't going anywhere and the day they try will be a bad day for them.

Vikings get it.

in working order

Hmm...

According to the Supreme Court they meant every citizen capable of fighting

It means well-maintained

>tfw you live in a country that allows illiterate retards to vote

The word regulated refers to the militias. The comma begins a second clause clearly states the people have the right to bear arms.

>A well regulated militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringe

that argument doesn't work because the guy had an illegal weapon to begin with. if anything, it proves that gun regulation is pointless since people are still gonna get their hands on em if they really want em

It means Marx was right about white privilege and deconstructionism

It says a well regulated milita. Not gun laws nor people.

I seriously do not understand why we haven't outlawed killing people yet. With all this talk of banning (or not) guns, why don't we go straight to the point and just outlaw killing, period? Then we don't have to worry about guns and we don't have to worry about poison, or knives, or bombs, etc.

Fagtifa will die

>that argument doesn't work because the guy had an illegal weapon to begin with.

Your argument about an "illegal weapon" presupposes that the congress has the ability to outlaw weapons... that is directly contrary to "shall not be infringed" which, written in the passive voice, makes the actor irrelevant focusing instead on the action.

Moreover, given the connection to the militia, if there were "selective protections" then it would obviously mean that any military weapon was protected as being usable by the militia: so the prohibition against machine-guns would obviously be invalid on its own.

I might be wrong but given the period it was written it could mean regulars as in line infantry which was the hallmark of most armies at the time. So enough equipment to form a proper infantry unit.

>Your argument about an "illegal weapon" presupposes that the congress has the ability to outlaw weapons... that is directly contrary to "shall not be infringed"
this

all laws against carrying knives, swords, guns, etc., are unconstitutional and I am seriously pissed about this every single day

In case you're literate, the US Supreme Court answered such questions in D.C. v Heller: supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

......the Heller decision is binding on all other courts in the USA.

READ IT.....or drag your ass back to the short bus.

>"They meant"
>"In modern English it means"
>"See if you read it like this"
The problem with these kinds of documents is a lot can be left up to interpretation.

Only if you're a brain dead, illiterate liberal.