what don't you understand about WELL REGULATED militia
What don't you understand about WELL REGULATED militia
Colton Ward
Jaxson Flores
SHALL
Gabriel Sanders
NOT
Elijah Gutierrez
>what don't you understand about WELL REGULATED militia
Why you fucks don't understand the meaning of those words in the context of when they were written. It's not fucking difficult - many linguists have discussed it.
Zachary Parker
BE
Gabriel Turner
>Why you fucks don't understand the meaning of those words in the context of when they were written. It's not fucking difficult - many linguists have discussed it.
What's it mean then. Muskets?
Aiden Kelly
They don't understand that a sentence is read as a whole, rather than an individual clause taken out of context.
However, decent B8, M8.
Justin Ross
First amendment means and quill and paper
Carson Taylor
supremecourt.gov
supremecourt.gov
Since I’ve actually read the legal standard I understand correctly that to keep and bear arms is an individual right that neither federal nor state governments can take away.
Hudson Clark
>the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
Faggot
Wyatt Clark
Updated text.
>A well functioning Militia, necessary for the security of freedom, the right of the people to keep and bear any weapons, shall not be infringed.
Noah Green
>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.
What don't you understand about "the right of the people?" It's pretty obvious what the law means. The first part is stating that a well armed populace is necessary for a state to remain free, the second part is establishing the law that the people shall be allowed to own and carry arms, and that it shall never be infringed upon. Places like California are illegal states.
Easton Edwards
What don't you understand about ", being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."?
Tyler Flores
No you haven't. From Heller, clear as a bell, from Scalia himself:
"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."
Bentley Collins
...
Jaxon Nelson
shut up before I put you in a coil
Ayden Thomas
I actually have read both and predicting your post is why I’ve included McDonald v. Chicago. OP alleges in the initial post that the right is for militias and not individuals. OP is legally wrong.
Yes heller wasn’t exhaustive, it left out parts that were addressed in McDonald.
Dominic Morgan
You do know there’s 200,000 laws on Us books concerning guns, right?
Jaxson Jackson
...
Cooper Wilson
Well, go read it and tell us. Look "Dick Act of 1903" that makes gun control ILLEGAL
THIS
Austin Sullivan
You may want to check your state Constitution skippy. Mine is quite explicit 12th amendment states all able bodied citizens are part of the militia.
Don't be so damn stupid.
Zachary Long
This is literally all you will ever need to shut down OP's retarded argument. It's irrefutable, everybody in this thread should just save it right now and post it as much as possible in any other threads that pop up asking the same bullshit questions. YOU CAN'T ARGUE AGAINST THIS PICTURES LOGIC.