The 2nd Amendment is about militias

"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 well regulated Militia
>regulated Militia
>Militia

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
archive.org/stream/jstor-25119439/25119439_djvu.txt
youtube.com/watch?v=xuF571GyK6k
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

So we can form militias and fight you when you come to grab the guns.

>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
Congratulations, you played yourself

Yes, and every able bodied male and now female between the ages of 18-45 that is a citizen of the US is part of that militia, and can be called by their states govenor or other responsible party.

second amendment support thread

If one of the Christians had a gun in that church he could have defended himself from the atheist

time to repeal it

Militias consist of people

You've got to go back

you can form militias to fight back against the government (hypothetically)
That was the intent

But militias are institutionalized, regulated things connected to certain cities and townships.
They aren't just rabble, they train, follow procedures, do drills and shit.

This amendment was obviously talking about the right of the people to keep militias, not the right of everybody to walk around with guns as their own personal militia. Obviously it's prudent for certain places to have gun bans, I'm sure there were restrictions even back then on where you could carry a rifle

They actually removed the jewy commas you kept in in order to clarify the meaning:

>Here is the amendment as ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, the Secretary of State:[33]

>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.

Anyway in this case, "well regulated" just means "orderly", not "federal regulations", which were not a concept at the time.

So if the people can't own weapons how the fuck are they going to form a militia?

"A well regulated Highway, being necessary to the mobility of a free State, the right of the people to keep and drive Cars, shall not be infringed.
>A well regulated Highway
>regulated Highway
>Highway

Every armed citizen is the militia.
lol

militia = rwds

>I failed basic English grammar
Hey OP do you know what a predicate is? No, apparently you don't.

Now read up on who comprised the militia

Americans people of peace and democracy

You highlighted "Militia" but missed the most important part:

>SHALL

>ignoring the next part of the sentence
>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
kys

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

Pic related

The right of the people to keep and bear arms, in the context of militias

a well balanced breakfast, being necessary to a good start of the day, the right of the people to buy and eat oatmeal, shall not be infringed

who has the right to eat oatmeal?

a. the well balanced breakfast
b. the people

It was penned by men who were masters of the English language.

>archive.org/stream/jstor-25119439/25119439_djvu.txt

>I propose to state briefly the provisions of this Act.

>The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and forty-five, and divides the militia into two classes — the organized militia or National Guard, and the unorganized or reserve militia.

people themselves are the militia

You can't form a militia if you're not armed.

The entire point of the second amendment is to ensure you are armed to do just that.

Militia is an adult male.

Regulated is a military term meaning well trained, not a Jewish term meaning under control of the state.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." is called an introductory clause, meaning it is offering additional explanation but is ultimately meaningless to the line "the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed"

I responded because many people are still ignorant of the meaning, intentionally or otherwise. Sage

So then we form a militia and start drafting autists at the tax payers expense.

I just checked and I have guns.
I guess what you think the law says is different from what is practiced.

No you idiot. The 2nd Amendment states that a well regulated militia is necessary for the preservation of a free state, FOLLOWING THAT STATEMENT, they specify that individuals have a right to be armed, to check the power of the state milita/military.

>"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
>what is the militia?
>it is the whole people

t. George Mason, 2nd ammendment co-author

youtube.com/watch?v=xuF571GyK6k

>in the context of militias
>hurr durr let's ban all guns
>what do you mean you can't form any militias goy

SAGE

A "militia" is called up in a time of crisis and is made up of "the people". Also, "well regulated" at that time means well trained/practiced. Look it up, that phrase was used in other documents and it's meaning is clear.

> muhlishu

Which came first, the militia, or the right of the people to keep and bear arms?

This

isn't that exactly my point? See here:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
>the right of the people
>the people

Go away. Brush up on your Supreme court law.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

People more intelligent than you already figured it out. Thanks for your (wrong) insight.

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, as a militia

OK, so you can have a militia to fight back against tyranny by the government. But the government gets to hold all the guns and will give them out if it thinks you need them.

>no stickers on his helmet

what a basic bitch

On second thought, perhaps the wording, "Citizens can have any firearm they want. No (((gun-control))). Srsly, don't fuck with guns." might have worked better.

No we are the goverment, the goverment has a right to bear arms against us.

But the founding fathers knew this so they reversed it.

'well regulated' meant highly functional, not in the way we would think of the term today. The phrasing is implying that because we want an effective militia, we should basically let them have at it when it comes to bearing arms. That's all it means. I'm British and I know this, you miserable fool.

The amendment doesn’t say the right of the militias, it says the right of the people.

>muh militia
>being this retarded

>it's about militias, that means you can't own guns
>so if i can't own guns, how will we get guns to form militias
>lol umad?

yes, the right of the people to form militias for the purposes of bearing arms

Honestly I’m starting to warm up to the idea of keeping the military grade stuff in the hands of milita groups. It would encourage people to seek or form their own groups. Way I see it, the one who could give out the weapons could be an elected leader of that certain militia. We could keep our 2nd amendment and the freaks would only be able to use their trucks to kill people.

im pretty sure im not the government

It's the equivalent to suggesting that an effective library system should imply that people are free to write and read whatever books they want.

>The 2nd Amendment is about militias

All able-bodied men were/are automatically part of the militia.

you cited a case that has nothing to with Militias.
it's a case about banning people from owning guns and making it illegal to have a gun loaded at all times.

I dunno where people get this hunting bullshit from.
And it is a right to bear ANY arms be it knives, swords or firearms, anything.

The 2nd amendment is needed because its America's check against a tyrannical government. However, this doesn't mean this is the correct solution.

You should just do what every other good country in the world does and have a monarchy as your anti-tyranny measure. Means you don't get shot every week.

I mean seriously, look at this map. Have you noticed that despite being Arab nations, the constitutional monarchies in the ME are some of the most stable and prosperous. No civil wars or Islamist rebels there.

You don't seem to understand how militias actually worked at the time of the founding. They were not standing armies. They were organizations that were mustered when needed, and disbanded when not. When they were mustered, members were expected to bring their personal firearms. That's why the 2A is worded as it is. The right of the people is with the people, because people and their personal weapons are what comprise any given militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason

if you knew english (you dont because youre a spic) you would notice that the sentence presents 2 points:

1) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
2) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Yes, it actually is, it's one of the most ambitious and egalitarian concepts ever created in the history of man.

The founders envisioned a federal government completely protected by the people, with no power of its own, the USA is only supposed to have a standing navy in peacetime and its only supposed to protect shipping lanes.

Every single able-bodied American who does not refuse to fight due to religion is supposed to replace the need for a standing army.

All of you, you're all supposed to be trained, and if not armed directly, then with access to communal armories with everything needed to protect the mainland. Which these days would mean more then guns, far more.

Read the debates by the founders regarding this topic, read the correspondence they engaged in on this subject.

They tried to create an entirely new paradigm; a state incapable of exerting tyranny.

It's ridiculous how nobody seems to know this, it was one of the most important moments in human history, landed gentry who had just freed themselves of a crown and who could do anything that they wanted at all were literally trying to dismantle the concept of state power itself, and bring about a new age of actual tangible freedom.

All it required was for citizens to uphold their responsibilities and manage their own civil defense, as the founders had when they fought for independence.

...

First of all, the first part is just giving one reason not to remove the right. That is not a limitation on the right. Also, the militia was not professionally trained nor issues guns. They were just proficient with firearms through their common use and used their own guns. Also, you use regulated wrong in this historical context.

Here, I will try to apply this phraseology to another right so you understand better:

A free press being necessary for an informed citizenry, the right of the people to speak freely shall not be infringed.

Also worth noting is that every other original enumerated right belonged to THE PEOPLE, so it would be very odd indeed to have one that was defending government rights. This has been decided in the SCOTUS and this debate is over, you are wasting your time. If you want the amendment repealed, fine. However, don't lie about what it is saying.

>All able-bodied men were/are automatically part of the militia.
It doesn't have to be. The town can set up rules and qualification standards

Also, being part of a militia means you have responsibilities associated with that.

this.

it basically says that for a well regulated militia to exist, we must allow the citizens to own guns

a militia would be pretty shitty without weapons.

Would the government be the government without "the people" ?

>A free press being necessary for an informed citizenry, the right of the people to speak freely shall not be infringed.
This would mean that people have the right to a free press for the purposes of speaking freely

It would say nothing about restrictions on speech such as pornography or violent videogames. Since these aren't related to the press

towns can stockpile weapons, there's no reason it has to be everybody's personal weapons
This is how they did it in 1700, not today

the people in the government arent really people though

There is no membership in the militia, this no restrictions that can be placed on you by extension. This was not some official thing with rules and prerequisites. You have lo legal responsibilities unless you are drafted, you are just a regular person. You are trying really hard but it's obvious you are full of shit, an idiot or both.

Fuck off. It's about parity.

>nobody possessed personally owned fierarms in Colonial America

To say that is false would be an understatement.

You ignored the rest of my post, indicating you are not interested in the truth, you are only interested in winning an argument. Anyway, you are wrong in this post and every other post you have made in this thread. I'm done with you, try to take my guns and you will get the bullets first. There are millions like me that would do the same.

you got that bass ackwards
the right of the people to bear arms for the purpose of forming militias

Exactly, people owned warships. People owned the RPGs of the day, the cannon. People owned the heavy machines guns of the day, the Gatling gun. People owned all manner of explosives with no restrictions.

So you gonna gamble the town will let you have those weapons in time of need. Why don't you just give those weapons to feds directly and ask if they want to give them back when you want to overthrow them.

>There are millions like me that would do the same.
because you've been incited by talk radio idiots to think this way, even though you're wrong

these fat boomer fucks who love guns so much are complete pussies anyway. They aren't rebelling against shit, they just like the fantasy

the shooter was stopped by an armed civilian. he'd have killed every single person in that church if it weren't for the 2nd amendment

...

> literally does not have an argument anymore
tragic

If another "common sense law" is what's needed to stop these kinds of mass murders, it seems that that

the best law would be to make it a crime to shoot people.

However, if we insist upon shredding the Bill of Rights and try to ban guns every time some mental

patient goes on a shooting rampage I might suggest we are going after the wrong amendment. The problem

lies, not with the second amendment, but with the first, and its glorification of violence.

I call for an immediate return to the Hollywood Motion Picture Production Code in use from 1930 to

1967, to apply to all forms of popular entertainment, movies, television, video games, books,

magazines, web sites and music which will go above and beyond the original mandate to include a ban on

the depiction of violence, armed or otherwise, or its result, in any form, and a ban on the use,

depiction or glorification of guns or any other weapon in any of the above genres.

Other provisions of the code should be re-instituted at once.

General Principles
No picture shall be produced which will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the

sympathy of the audience shall never be thrown to the side of crime, wrong-doing, evil or sin.
Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be

presented.
Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.

Things which are included in the following list SHALL NOT APPEAR:
Pointed profanity.
Any licentious or suggestive nudity, in fact or in silhouette.
The illegal traffic in drugs.
Any inference of sex perversion.
White slavery.
Miscegenation.
Sex hygiene and venereal diseases.
Scenes of actual childbirth, in fact or in silhouette.
Children's sex organs.
Ridicule of the clergy.
Willful offense to any nation, race or creed.

For further information, please search for the Hays Code or Production Code.

23 to 1 ratio before he was stopped

we'd just be back to this when las weaponary comes around

The "Citizens can have any firearm they want. No (((gun-control))). Srsly, don't fuck with guns."does not apply to lasers, it was designed with only firearms in mind, you don't need a laser weapon, a black powder should be sufficient.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

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. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

>23:1 vs noguns
>1:1 vs guns

You clearly do not understand what a militia is.

>It referred to the property of something being in proper working order
yes, the militia needs to be well regulated, and in proper working order

>read this
>see naval militia
>wat.bmp
>search it
>see what Wikipedia says, because every other site tl;dr
>"A naval militia in the United States is a reserve military organization administered under the authority of a state government. It is often composed of Navy, Marine Corps, and Coast Guard reservists, retirees and volunteers. They are distinguishable from the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary which is a federally chartered civilian volunteer component of the U.S. Coast Guard and falls under the command of the Commandant of the Coast Guard through the Chief Director of the Auxiliary, and the United States Maritime Service and United States Merchant Marine, both of which are federal maritime services."
>"Under Title 10 of the United States Code, naval militias are treated differently from maritime state defense force units not primarily composed of reservists from the sea services. Naval militias are considered parts of the organized militia under federal law and thus members have a slightly different status.[1] Naval militias, though they are state armed forces, may receive federal supplies and use Navy or Marine Corps facilities available to Naval Reserve or Marine Corps Reserve units subject to certain restrictions."

Sounds fucking awesome, who wants to play pirates Sup Forums?

The "militia" in the amendment was first legally defined in the US as every white male between 18 and 45, and later expanded to include all races, adult ages, and women as per later amendments of equal rights.

All literary and constitutional analysis of the terms, and the amendment itself supports this, have supported this for centuries, and will continue to support this, regardless of your lack of intellectual strength.

I think it would technically be playing privateers, but sounds comfy.

and a militia is made of free people with individual rights to own firearms.

its not like you have to first start a militia to own a gun its the exact opposite

>Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.

COMMA
O
M
M
A

A militia is all the adult male citizens of the country, and the right belongs to the people - not the militia.

>Militia
I am a one man militia.

AKA: the militia

...

The event still does not change my opinion on the 2nd Amendment. Be strong, burgerfriends.

Americans should be doing more to organize and train with other citizens so that we can in fact present a more credible resistance to our own Govts. tyranny. The Constitution formally recognizes the essential importance of this.

There is a lot of utility to that rifle

it's all bullshit, nobody is rebelling.

Idiots at Bundy Ranch figured it out the hard way

Sexist faggot.