Why does everyone always gloss over the "regulated militia" part?

Why does everyone always gloss over the "regulated militia" part?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xuF571GyK6k
youtube.com/watch?v=diz-8FzHOLM
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)#The_reserve_militia
law.gmu.edu/faculty/directory/fulltime/lund_nelson
law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment
youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Because they are two separate but related clauses. Learn English gooder, retard

Nobody glosses over the "well regulated" part. Liberals insist on it to argue that the Founding Fathers meant "government regulated", and people who understand American history and law point out that in the context of the Constitution's signing in the 18th century, "well regulated" meant "well armed".

'' , " lok at it
loook at it motherfucker

A government-regulated military did not exist in the 1700s

Do not reply to troll threads. Report them and drop a saged redpill.

"A well educated electorate, being necessary to the stability of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

Who has the right to keep and read books, the "well educated electorate", or "the people"?

Why does it matter what the fuck they meant? They should be considering what's best now.

There's an amendment process for that.

Because they used the words "right of the people." Every other time they used that term, it was in reference to an individual right, not a societal right.

Well regulated means "having good regulations", which basically means that the milita which is necessary to the free state, must be under the control of the government (ie, following regulations), not a lawless band of resisting freedom fighters doing whatever they want. The phrase "well regulated" has very little to do with SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED except that the well regulated militia could become a tool of oppression against the people, and for that reason, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.

People arguing this are stupid, the Supreme Court has clarified this many many times. If they want to take the guns, they'll have to do it via constitutional amendment, and that WILL kick off a civil war, which is why the Dems didn't do it in 2009-11 when they had control over all three branches of government.

I would unironically love living among stereotypical rednecks.

Bump

It matters because it's the current most important document when it comes to the subject of law in the entire nation, and because it records the God-given rights of US citiziens.

If you're unhappy with it, amend the Constitution.

I have lived among them before, and I can honestly say I'd rather hang around a guy who fucks his sister/cousin than someone who thinks the constitution was written on a bar napkin.

>Well regulated means "having good regulations", which basically means that the milita which is necessary to the free state, must be under the control of the government (ie, following regulations)

Wrong, didn't read further

Except it doesn't. Sure, "regulated" nowadays means "overseen", but not at the time of the signing. The Founding Fathers fully meant for the militia to be government independent.

go ahead and try to drag people away from their phones and day to day shit long enough to throw together a true militia. see how long it lasts before the police fill you with holes or the feds mow you down. and then spin it on the news to make you look like terrorists or a cult that had to be put down.

false

I wish I was rich, white trash.
No life must be more fun than that.
Do nothing all day, just hang out with lowlifes and secretly be rich and take vacations or something different from the day to day. But then getting back to the countryside and hang out with trash again is always the prize

>Why does it matter what the law meant, just nigger it however you want it to mean
Turns out, laws are not supposed to change what they mean based on how the people in power feel that day.

Read the actual definition of Militia by the Founding Fathers to start with

>mocks rednecks
>can't even read

wouldn't the modern police force be considered militia? If so why are they not well regulated?

That's not really the same...
The more books you read, the more educated you become (to varying degrees).

The more guns you shoot... that doesn't create militias

Sage

They are "well regulated", because they're trained, and armed. But you couldn't really consider a cop on duty to be part of the militia, seeing as he is an agent of the state and given the fact that the whole point of the 2nd Amendment was to guarantee the common citizien's right to defend himself against a tyrannical government. A private citizien who just happens to be a cop when he's on working time however, is a perfectly valid member.

>"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

>What the constitution says:
Seeing that you need a well regulated militia for free state, you can't stop people owning guns
>What idiot liberals think it says:
You're only a person if you're in a militia!

>what are redcoats and who do they fight for

Yes, it is the exact same thing, both say that the right belongs to the people. Neither says that the right belongs to the educated or the militia.

"Well regulated" in this context actually means a PROPERLY EQUIPPED AND TRAINED

>regulate
To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
to regulate a watch, i.e. adjust its rate of running so that it will keep approximately standard time
to regulate the temperature of a room, the pressure of steam, the speed of a machine, etc.
To put or maintain in order.
to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances
to regulate one's eating habits

So you could rephrase it to be "A well ordered milita, being necessary to the security.."

For what it's worth, a militia is by definition not formed up of soldiers but of the general citizenry. Only the above definition of the phrase "well regulated" makes sense in the context of the proceeding clause of NOT IMPOSING RESTRICTIONS ON THE OWNERSHIP OF ARMS.

Why doesn't the government train a militia?

Very few states have state guards.

National Guard has been used like regular army since the Second Iraq War.

>well regulated milita
>posts Continental Army

Americans in charge of understanding their history and law. No wonder me an my ace iCeBrEakEr elite Hachiroku hacker squad totally owned your noob elections. Eat dust, goobers

1. "Well-regulated" means "well-equipped" and "well-trained"
2. The need for a well-regulated militia is why the people's right shall not be infringed. It is a reason, not a condition.
3. It is not "if". It is not "when". It is not "as long as". It is "because". Even if a militia does become no longer necessary, it doesn't matter; the people's right still cannot be infringed
4. The people are a militia
5. It's the people's right, not the militia's

mi·li·tia
məˈliSHə/
noun
noun: militia; plural noun: militias

a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities, typically in opposition to a regular army.
all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

Why do liberals think that just because the definition of a word changes it means that the original piece of a work changes too?

Also if you want to argue: de second amendment was 4 de government only, why were arms not removed from civilians after the Whiskey Rebellion

youtube.com/watch?v=xuF571GyK6k

I'd rather take someone's opinion who's well-versed in the subject.

Because it just says why it's important to let people have guns.
People owning guns is the requirement for a trained militia, not the consequence.

...

inb4 this is submitted as evidence to the Mueller probe and gets declassified in 50 years.

>the right of the people
Who are the people? The population of the US
>to keep and bear arms
Arms being firearms and being able to keep them.
>shall not be infringed
This right shall not be taken away or lessened.
If you use context from founding fathers it is even more backed up that they wanted people to be armed not just a military

The second amendment doesn't say "you can have guns if you're part of a well regulated militia", it says "citizens can have guns because the militia needs guns"

SHALL

>Why does it matter what the fuck they meant? They should be considering what's best now.

Literally get shot kike, thats not how law works

D.C. v. Heller (2008)
Scalia gave the majority opinion
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.

(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28.

A well regulated militia simply means a general populace that as a whole can correctly use and maintain a firearm, is well trained in that firearm and has some sense of group tactics. It doesn't mean that you are required to officially belong to an officialised membership of an organised local militia group or anything of the sort. The PEOPLE are the militia. Anyone who is able to bear arms.

youtube.com/watch?v=diz-8FzHOLM

Mark Passio breaks down the second amendment very nicely in this video, spread it far and wide for 2nd amendment naysayers and disinfo proliferators.

Isn't White genocide going to start back up in your country soon?

Why is it that the country operated under the premise that the second amendment meant the people for 200 years and only now enlightened liberals are "correctly" interpreting it?

I'm only partially being factious with such a question. Why did it take 200 years for the wording to come into question? I feel like anyone who argues that it only applies to militias really needs to provide an answer. Why didn't the founding fathers start rounding up the guns after the founding of the country or pass laws to regulate their use?

This is the militia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)#The_reserve_militia you are already a member

...

>too stupid to understand the 2nd or willfully ignorant
>paint you opposition as the dumb ones
Ah, I see Alinsky's strategies are still going strong

Honestly, it's so clear and unambiguous that you can only misinterpret it on purpose.

This is yet another one of those instances that proves liberals are actually dumb as rocks low IQ low information voters while conservatives actually do research and understand the ins-and-outs of what they're talking about.

According to your own logic, when the founding father wrote that they:
>gave themselves the right to bear arms.
>gave the people the right to a well regulated militia.

Fuck off.

Because the US militia is ONLY white males.
It was never intended to have Mexican gangs, Black gangs, Jewish gangs or Indians be able to own firearms.
Militia=White

The entire point of the amendment is to make the threat of organized rebellion (as the writers had JUST RECENTLY UNDERTAKEN) a real force and action of last resort in politics.

Fuck. Off.

go read the Federalist Papers
s

I'll agree to gun confiscation if we can have militarized police roaming the streets like in the holy Roman empire. Also start shooting drug cookers and smugglers, and put the dealers away for a long time. Guns won't be necessary of we can get rid of crime.

It's called the supreme Court dumb fuck and precedent.

200 years of precedent made it so you foreign cucks couldn't steal ours guns and force your socialism down our throats.

>regulated militia
Because a militia is a group of individuals. A group of individuals cannot form a militia unless they are individually armed. How is this difficult to grasp?

>it's not the same because it defeats my argument

We don't want to end up like your country

See "Aaron Burr - The Great American Rascal". Rebellion was a common event in our fledgling nation. There were many men who wanted things to have happened very differently. America almost became a monarchy! Can you believe that? You probably never heard that.

>Why does everyone always gloss over the "regulated militia" part?
Well regulated meant that you practiced with the fucking thing often enough to hit your target.

I know that Congress salivates at the word "regulate" -- it's their favorite thing to do whether they have the right or not.

The Militia is the whole body of the people, citizens, you and me. Get a rifle. Learn to use it. Be ready.

Why do people think the commas don't separate independent ideas like they do in the first amendment? Perhaps you think that freedom of speech, religion and press only apply when suing the government for redress of grievances?

>Minimum wage shill thinks we glossed over it
SAGE

The well regulated falls on the responsibility of the government to offer military training to those not in the military. Besides Cruz was allegedly trained so this makes your point moot. All training would do is make them more efficient. You're once again being your own worst enemy.

Firearms are well regulated. They're very reliable, very safe, and a lot more accurate than they were in the past.

If you read the wording carefully you will notice that it does not say that being part of the well-regulated militia is a pre-requisite for owning firearms. It just says that because that well-regulated militia is important, the people's ownership of guns shall not be infringed. It's quite basic really.

It's kind of like saying, that because a well-regulated diet is important to a healthy body, the right of people to keep food shall not be infringed. It says nothing about what the people are allowed to do with that food, it simply says that the people's access to food shall not be infringed, so if the people want to eat in an un-regulated and unhealthy manner, that's up to them, the law though is clearly put there in place to ensure that the people CAN eat healthy if they would like to. The same way with the 2nd amendment, it's clearly there so that the people CAN form a well-regulated militia and keep their state free and secure.

I wish we had that in Sweden but the gubernmint already took our guns.

Go ask the “well regulated” Broward County Sheriff's Office, faggot!

I came here to post this.

SHALL

NOT

Why is it that a person that doesn't have the legal rights to own a firearm, was able to buy one (if I'm not mistaking the boy had a record of psychiatry which excludes him from being able to own one) why do we only talk about this after a school shooting? Yet when niggers kill people for whatever reason they get the he din do nuttin pass? Does that mean that the government is incapable of enforcing its laws? If that is the case why would you want to give up your rights to bear arms, if you can't trust your government it's your right to defend your rights given to you by the constitution of the country you live in.

You can't get rid of crime; guns are always necessary for when that militia comes for YOU. That's the whole fucking point you stupid burger.

Prefatory clause does not condition or modify the operative clause, jew.

Literally no one does, faggot. Some of us just capable comprehension and of reading more than 4 words.

"well regulated" means precisely that. The militia should be used to defend the state.

There were militias that took government orders.

The militia should be used to defend the people, not the state

Wrong. Well-regulated means effective in this context. It means that a militia of the people should be armed equally to agents of the government in order to make sure that the state stays free instead of tyrannical.

I think you mean civilians there. The state can turn on its own citizens, so they should be able to defend themselves against the government.

Well if you consider what's best for you right now it's to not get murdered by blacks.

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

Can't get any more clearer than this.

>haha all gun owners are rednecks and hillbillies

Wanna know how I know Trump is going to win in 2020 aswell?

Stereotypical rednecks are good people, just usually not very educated in the traditional sense. They can fix literally anything though and have unlimited practical knowledge. The whites you don't want to live among are the ones that act black/Urban. They will steall all your shit and do whatever they can to fuck you over.

But that's wrong, and not at all what the 2nd amendment meant. The express purpose of the militia is to protect the people from the state, and not the other way around.

fuck

It is explaining the context within why the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
it is to bear CONTEXT.

for the purpose of keeping the state free from tyranny, thou shalt not infringe on the right to bear arms.

anyway, it's the RIGHT to bear arms.
RIGHT

as in they chose it to be a RIGHT.

you are all so stupid and illiterate.

The police are not a militia.
>you can't get rid of crime
Tell the to Nazi Germany.

>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
Why do people think that the comma after militia is just a fuck up and not a seperation of thought. I guess the founding fathers only fucked up with that in the one specific instance huh?

Also wrong. YOU are the militia. That's why your right to bear arms shouldn't be infringed. Because otherwise you can't be a well-regulated militia.

NRA buys scholarship at ASS(H)OL Law School
law.gmu.edu/faculty/directory/fulltime/lund_nelson

NRA is a terrorist organization!
NRA is a terrorist organization!
NRA is a terrorist organization!

Heller v. DC decision was a farce, Breyer dissent NEEDS to be LAW OF THE LAND. Justice Scalia ignored Textualism!
Justice Scalia ignored Textualism!
Justice Scalia ignored Textualism!

In the context of how the state should act (which is what the constitution deals with), the militias should defend a free state. There's never been any legally backed interpretation AFAIK that holds that the 2nd amendment is meant to let people revolt against the government.
law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment

>a nigger
>that time preference

Color me surprised.

Right. I know I'm the militia. That's the point. So I can defend myself and fight against anyone or any organization who seeks to infringe on that ability.

Unironically doesn't understand the function of a comma, beginning a new but related topic

Yes you are the militia but that's not the point after the fragment regarding militia it then goes on to say the right of the people meaning all people again it's disturbing that Americans don't understand the function of comma

youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

fpbp /thread
>and an herb with which to cast this shilling thread

What do you think it means by regulated? Regulated by who?