A well regulated militia

Well/pol/, what do you take this to mean? Concentrate on 1. Well regulated, 2. Militia, 3. The people. Let's be clear headed about this.

Other urls found in this thread:

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Certainly didn't write the right to shitpost into the constitution.

SHALL

NOT

Im in one and the US Military treats us like fucking garbage they throw fits and bitch and complain when we go to their bases and wouldn't even let us buy tobacco on their bases

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

BE

KANGZ

You're in a militia? Can you tell more. Funding? Arms? Structure? Training? Rights of access/movement? Jurisdictional boundaries?

INFRINGED

No infringement on individuals having weapons.

Whatever weapons they want.

Fuck off, slave.

Who defines what is a well regulated militia? The government? The people? No one?
What makes you think that regular gunowners wouldnt be considered a militia?

>Who defines what is a well regulated militia? The government? The people? No one?
>What makes you think that regular gunowners wouldnt be considered a militia?

SHALL!!!

None of those matter. You cant define what is a militia and what isnt. Basically every linked legal gunowner is part of a militia if they claim to be

Finnbro, see All able bodied citizens, used to be men but thanks to the 14th amendment that changed, are apart of the militia.

This goes back to a tradition of American Military history where settlements would conduct raids on hostile indians.

Pls ignore this i misread your message

>well-regulated
high-functioning
>militia
a group of citizens armed and organized against a threat, may be independent of government
>people
all citizens, both as a collective and as each individual. the group to which the right is granted. the amendment does not grant rights to the militia

Part of the issue is that when they wrote the 2nd amendment they had no idea what kind of destructive power weapons of today vs weapons back then would have had because to them it really didn't progress all that much up until that point they had at best cannons and delayed guns. Then there comes to disconnect of the power a militia would have vs the budget of the us army.

The prefatory clause does not limit the effect of the operative clause and state militia system is currently regulated under the Dick Act of 1908.

Yeah I'm in my states militia thats protected in our constitution so they can't disband us like other states.

>funding
We do it for free, only paid when deployed

>structure
The structure is really fucking shitty but I decided to stay and stick it out.

>training
We just got back from a anual US Army base training and it was okay. We meet once a month for drill and have to take FEMA courses

>arms
They took those away after Katrina because some jack ass showed up drunk as hell with an automatic weapon. I bought my own weapons because of this

>rights
Not as much as the US service men, we are treated like retards

>boundaries
This is my Governors choice, not the Feds. We can't be drafted too which is nice because most of us hate the Fed

kekek

There being a need to eat bananas, no man's mouth should be sewn shut.

Does that mean men may only eat bananas?

The reputation of "militia" is embarrassing. Ive never seen militia when i was in the army buying smokes or anything. Did you wear the same uniform pattern as them? If yes you deserve it you fucking sperg

We call it a militia, it basically is.

We wear the standard ACUs with our state flag not the US flag, that we have to buy ourselves

Because a militia is necessary, the people should have the right to keep and bear arms. This establishes several things.

First, the militia is not a federal military. It comprised of the people using arms and ammunition that is available to the people at all times.

The right to keep and bear arms is for the sake of operating in a militia. It is not for hunting or self-defense.

This also means that military arms are certainly the ones protected by it, making an AWB unconstitutional. This was also implied by US vs Miller, where the US Supreme Court ruled that because a short barreled shotgun was not in common military use, it was not protected by the 2nd amendment. The obvious corollary to that is that a weapon in common military use would be protected by the 2nd amendment.

The founders clarified their meaning many times after writing it. Feel free to look it up. The militia is the whole people, well regulated means well equipped.

In Washington's writings, he defined and understood "well regulated" to mean a well equipped and disciplined force, ready at a moment notice to defend the state they lived in. This is important to understand as the Founders did not believe that a large standing army was a good thing to have.

The militia was and is to be composed of all white males aged 18-46, who are to come from all facets of society and provide their own armament, hence the need to protect the right to bear arms, so that the people, who constitute the militia, can be mustered and man it. Read a book user.

This has already been decided. The militia is every able-bodied male. Non-discrimination means that the militia now = everybody. Well-regulated means that laws exist about guns (ie, I can't buy a gun legally without being of legal age, etc.)

They also didn't know that the US would have nukes. Maybe then they wouldn't have created the Federal Gov't at all?

This post's second point is completely inaccurate, disregard.

Yeah I basically included that in what I said, they really had no idea that humans would eventually have the potential power to blow the entire planet up multiple times over. But we can't fault them for that of course, why they put the amendment process in there because they knew shit would have to evolve.

Did George Washington know about the jews?

At least in a way to distinguish yourselves from regular army. AZ regulates ATACS as their uniform. What state are you?

So does that qualify as well regulated? Or is 'well regulated' beyond definition?

Synonym for in working order.

Well regulated just means functioning.
constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

And that part is irrelevant to the right itself. It's merely an addendum to say that it is necessary.
It's "The right of the people", not "the right of the well regulated militia".
So you can't weasel out of it that way.

Thank for the reply. So who pays for your uniforms, equipment, facilities, if any?

Already been in and through the court. Rights are for the people, who can create a militia (meaning every able bodied man over 16) with or without government consent.

You tell me

You cant regulate militia? I'm an ex-warlord. Trust me.

I'm not weaseling. Just asking.

RARE FLAG
A
R
E

F
L
A
G

>We do it for free

>im the captain now

GET FUCKED, COMMIE!

It's not what we take it to mean... the congress explained it when they wrote it... it took a months of debating exactly how it would be worded.

Militia = THE PEOPLE of the USA.. not the federal army, and not state or local police... THE PEOPLE of the USA are the militia, and they explained it.

They also explained that not only is it a right to be armed, but the the people of the USA "MUST" be armed to have enough power to overthrow a tyrannical government. They debated for 3 months to add the word "must".

So whether you like guns or not.. it is your duty to buy a fully automatic weapon even though it is illegal, and keep it in your house. And as long as you don't use it to shoot an intruder or take it outside, they can't come in and take it from you. It's your constitutional right. It's to overthrow a tyrannical government and protect the other amendments.

ARRR!!

The militia pre-exists the constitution and is composed of the body of the people, it's everyone. "Well regulated" means a militia that isn't run like dog shit. Militias had a bad rap for being disorganized and full of untrained hooligans, so they expressed well regulated as an ideal.

It's not the be confused with the organized militia that congress organizes and arms, which is a select militia of able bodied white males. And even if it did, equal protection and due process would crush that.

The people is everyone. Right of the people refers to a pre-existing individual right, it does not grant that right, it only enumerates it. This usage is consistent with the god damned english langauge and the 1st and 4th amendments.

Everyone should read SCOTUS's ruling on DC vs Heller, Justice Scalia totally dismantles and decimates the argument that the 2nd amendment only guarantees a collective right to weapons in service of a militia. The left is grasping at straws, cherry picking text, and stretching the meaning of text to bullshit as hard as they can.

MAO TOOK THE GUNS.

It means gun production and sales better keep chugging along for the free populace in order to have a fighting chance against the corrupt, cuck world that the founding fathers fought tooth and nail to get the hell away from.

The 2nd Amendment is literally the only thing keeping the US alive.

I would actually argue against having a fully automatic weapon. Unless you intend to engage in squad level suppression fire, all you should really have (and all you need) is a semi-auto.

I actually have a theory that if they made it mandatory for all weapons to be fully automatic, we would have fewer deaths from mass murders. Almost everyone, even people with modest training, would end up wasting all their ammo and hardly hitting a damn thing.

People really misunderstand the purpose and practical use of automatic weapons.

>Part of the issue is that when they wrote the 2nd amendment they had no idea what kind of destructive power weapons of today vs weapons back then would have had because to them it really didn't progress all that much up until that point they had at best cannons and delayed guns.

Thomas jefferson outfitted the lewis and clark expedition with this rifle

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Girandoni_air_rifle

Held 20 shots, could shoot 30 in succession, and shot barely slower than a bolt action. There were also predecessors to the revolver and Gatling guns. They knew shit was going high capacity and high speed. And they knew if we had a problem with it, we could amend the constitution.

It still serves its purpose perfectly

If the majority of the population is willing to fight to overthrow the government and reboot it, the state does not stand a chance, even if most of the military did not defect

It has to be reiterated whenever this is brought up:
There is no way to be basically literate in the relevant history and still be confused about any of this without lying.
George Mason said the militia was the people.
The Founders were intimately familiar with the English tradition of the yeomanry and of how universal armament kept the Glorious Revolution bloodless in their living memory.
The notion of redundant state armies that keep their weapons in a centralized armory was brought up multiple times in the Framing and was soundly rejected every single time.
There just isn't any ambiguity at all.

Yeah, he chose the word 'people' with that in mind to exclude them.

Any book suggestions?

and, like modern day tanks, predator drones, and gatling guns, they were only used by expeditionary forces.

You don't get it bogan.

The government never said what we could and couldn't do. They put in wiring that all of our rights were GIVEN and also outlined what they themselves couldn't do. The people regulate the militias because we are the militia. It never had to be a specific size or follow any other specific guidelines. Do you see a list of rules regarding militia anywhere else in the constitution? I sure didn't.

>flag

...

STALIN TOOK THE GUNS.

Read the god damn federalist papers shitpostastan.

This, full auto is expensive and useless, you don't need it. Noguns fetishize it just like they think a pistol grip is the end of the world.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(United_States)

>The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

Recently they opened the draft to women, so EVERY US citizen that can hold a gun between the ages of 17-45 are the militia.

Austrian army used it

>Do you see a list of rules regarding militia anywhere else in the constitution? I sure didn't.

Actually there is, but that's the organized militias, not the militia the 2nd amendment refers to

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution

Just Ctrl+F and type militia

What about the First Amendment vis-a-vis blogs and what not overtaking the established news? Or just modern technology that they couldn't have imagined in their time?

Should freedom of speech and of the press be limited to pamphlets printed on period appropriate printing presses?

>1500 pumps to 800 psi
>750~ fps 13mm~ projectile
>30 shots on a charge

>soldiers issued 100 projectiles and 3 air cans

>lethal to 125 yards

That's fucking space age holy shit.

If the founders wanted to limit the weaponry in use by the people, they would have specified some limit in range, power, rate of fire, etc.

How does any of that make me wrong. I made no assertions. My questions were intended for clarification. Maybe I should have gone to /his/, where there are far fewer autists.

why do you think that post was directed specifically at you

Fuck off aussie

>Part of the issue is that when they wrote the 2nd amendment they had no idea what kind of destructive power weapons of today vs weapons back then would have had because to them it really

they knew

...

>A sell regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
This is a statement, stating that a well armed people are necessary for security of the nation.
>the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
This is why I say "people" above and not a military. "The right of the people to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms" can't get any more clear.

I also did remove 2 commas to make it easier to understand. Overuse of commas is common in the founding documents, as it was the writing style of the time. There's like 10 in the first amendment, that doesn't mean free speech should be limited to the military.

Can't be drafted? So in the event of a world war, all we would need to do is say "nope not going im joining a militia" and we'd be cool?

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE

>THE RIGHT
>THE PEOPLE

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Was he supposed to erase the YOU ARE WRONG part of the image just for you? It's posted for explanatory value, sheesh

...

The comma indicates that the right to bear arms belongs to the people, not to the militia. The founders understood the militia to consist of all able-bodied adult men in the event of a crisis.

At least the fatboys running around playing pretend soldier didn't lose 2 wars in under 10 years with people who recreationally sodomize goats.

The truth is, crypto-fascists and even most liberals know this, they just don't care.

>implying those aren't the same thing

If you're in America and not in a militia you need to get the fuck out.

If it is not the right of the militia, then the militia and its members must not be allowed to bear arms.

It's not about the start...but the end.

>...,the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed


That's all besides the point. I don't need a piece of paper to know that. I already know it and it doesn't matter what they legislate. It's already buried in the subconscious of america....the piece of paper is not there for the person who wants a gun...simply there to remind those that want to take them.

What's stupid is the "well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state", and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" started out as two separate thoughts in state legislation and proposals that proceeded the second amendment, with different choices of words. Yet leftists want you to read it as:

"A well regulated militia, ... , shall not be infringed."

Which makes less grammatical and logical sense. THEN they have the gall to accuse the right of ignoring the regulated militia clause, when in fact, the left blatantly ignores "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". I can't think of another issue where the left is more dishonest. History and the english language is not ideological and the case is so cut and dry there's little room for opinion.

Regulated is a word which has accrued new meanings since the founders day. This is why it can seem an odd word to occur there, even mysterious, today. However it's clear from books and papers of the time how it was used then.

wrong

Excellent. Thank you for the answer.

They meant militia, not people. The guns will be taken away.

Where did you guys go? I miss 2003

>Um why are we invading iraq? Saddam has nothing to do with bin laden, al queda, or 9/11. Where are the WMDs?

IF YOU DONT LIKE AMERICA YOU CAN GET THE HELL OUT

>2016
>Fuck this white racist hitler country. We're getting socialism and sharia law, and turning this place into honorary mexico so the oppression will finally end. COME ON, It's 2016!

*tumble weed*

Well regulated doesn't mean to have regulations applied.

The last big thing the militia did was take over that reserve in oregon or whatever. Then when their idiot leader got captured they all caved and went home.

Pathetic really. We have militias that don't believe in what they are standing for, and will quit when the going gets tough.

They should be appearing in courts as support, defending businesses from riots, feeding the poor and all that shit. They simply arent thinking big enough. The militias should have entered the business world and started putting real funding behind their views instead of playing army man in the desert.

To be fair, the fellow on the right doesn't necessarily say "give us your guns" but it's more like "don't use them against us."

The one on the right wants to abolish guns in the hands of citizens completely.

There's a difference in being in defence of your country and your people and supporting invading another country.

If you're not willing to defend the country in a time of war with a potential invasion or insurrective response on our soil then why are you even here?

Why ACU? Do you live in a gravel pit? Why not woodland or desert MARPAT?

>tfw AZs militia disbanded because they felt disrespected.

Bunch of faggots. Disrespect comes with the territory. What if the entire US army disbanded every time a liberal said mean things about them? Weak.