What is it about "well regulated militia" you gun toting hicks don't understand? The 2nd amendment only applies to militias, which back then would have been POLICE AND MILITARY.
Not you dumb rednecks, no one needs an assault weapon or a military weapon.
Discuss
Pull it
>reading comprehension
SHALL
>The 2nd amendment only applies to militias, which back then would have been POLICE AND MILITARY.
... this is bait, yes?
RARE
I'll never understand why people want to willingly hand over god given rights.
Switzerland has a system where a WELL REGULATED MILITIA involves each and every man in the country, and they go off to training to become WELL REGULATED and an actual MILITIA instead of just some fat gumbo slurping on some high fructose soda whilst pawing an assault rifle with their greasy, pudgy fingers
This is actually somewhat close to an important point.
The concept of a militia and the reasons behind it being enshrined in the second fucking amendment have been forgotten by all these fucking hicks that just want their funs.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
I agree OP. Have you read the dissenting opinion in Heller? Makes some great points.
Militias important, so people need access to guns
what's an assault weapon?
You hair-splitting trolls are so obvious at this point in an election cycle it becomes difficult to stomach new phrases of argument without sounding repetitive.
Why does Switzerland seem like such a wonderland? It's everything I wish the UK could be.
Separated by comma and not by "--". They could be saying the militia protects the people
>the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
What were you saying about reading comprehension, dumbass? It says a well regulated militia is important because it is necessary for a free state, and then it says people can have guns. That's not "militias can have guns".
And honestly, who gives a fuck? If you want my guns, come get them.
Because the only blacks are rich people like Tina Turner.
>an era when there were privately owned warships equipped with multiple cannons.
>the right to arms only applied to the military
Why are you a faggot Op?
The people as in the populus (el pueblo), not the persons
press-pubs.uchicago.edu
for anybody who actually cares about the second amendment beyond muh guns, the founders constitution has some really cool commentary relating to its creation. The house rep discussion on it is pretty neat.
>Post DC v. Heller
>Still trying to make this argument.
Time for an English Exam
Question 1:
Whose right shall not be infringed: the well regulated militia or the people?
You should be able to solve this.
RARE
A
R
E
A militia is a civilian army, not a government regulated one.
The founding fathers idea of regulating the state militia system was to make it mandatory for all free white men to own the main infantry weapon of that era.
en.wikipedia.org
What's the practical difference in this case?
>well regulated
>not a governement regulated one
Choose one retard
Come and take them, faggot.
You and all your ilk will fertilize the fields.
It will make for some epic YouTube videos don't you think?
If that's the case than militias need to incorporate into Private Military Contractors and Security Agencies.
If you've got an mercenary, bodyguard, private security outfit you can gear out like a boss.
I wonder if you can loophole into gun ownership by claiming you're a self employed private security expert that runs a 1 man militia.
The government regulation is that the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.
In what way is that not clear?
You really don't have any idea how the second amendment works. The decision of the supreme court on how the 2nd amendment works says that a person has the right to posses a pistol or rifle in your own house, and the government can't do shit about it. Before you are talking so much shit that I can see the words comming out of your mouth, read how Justice Scalia explains to retards like you how you have to understand the the 2nd amendment.
A well regulated militia means that it's a citizen army.
Police, military, FYI, etc are government entities and act according to Governors, presidents and congressmen.
But all that is moot when you realize government is oppressive shit lords and want to make you defenseless while making themselves stronger.
Fuck that. I hope those faggot commies and libtards get raped by imam and ahkmed. I'll laugh in my cozy apartment with my collection of less than legal firearms.
You can stop now. Its getting sad.
I don't think you know the definition of regulated.
Yeah the government gives freedoms to tell people what to do (ie how to regulate 'their own' militiæ
There were a lot of reasons, but the militia bit is more of a side note. Reading the arguments between federalists and anti-federalists will tell you a lot more about the thoughts of the time than what ended up in the final draft.
For example, did you know that up until a few weeks before the signing, slavery was going to be outlined as illegal in the declaration?
Edward Rutledge led the group that refused to sign until that line was stricken
Really wish the Founding Fathers had the foresight to realize including that Militia line was only giving retards centuries in future a tiny thread of logic to yank apart the entire Bill of Rights.
2008 - District of Columbia vs. Heller
2010 - McDonald vs. City of Chicago
COME
semantics.
Security guards, mercenaries, bodyguards... probably rely on the second amendment.
What about non-profit mercenaries, bodyguards, and security guards?
Can't neighborhood watch be called a non-profit security company or militia? You should be able to legally obtain police grade weapons for that purpose.
>government is a bloated bureaucratic mess that wastes billions in money and resources
>"only government is competent enough to regulate a militia"
topkek m8
That's what they get for their fancytalk. Also they were masons so god given means nothing. Also commonlaw sucks
In the off-chance of this not being bait,
What the fuck does militia mean, then?
You can't have a militia without arms, genius.
why the fuck would you need an amendment saying the army can have guns? retard
It clearly says, that both the well regulated militia and the right of people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infriged. It doesn't say that the arms are only for the militia. It says that the existence of the militia and the existence of the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be messed with. Fuck off gun grabber.
...
Our Constitution doesn't 'give' freedoms. It limits the government's ability to interfere with them.
According to OP
A balanced breakfast, being necessary to the security of the human body, the right of the people to keep and bear bacon, shall not be infringed.
Means that people cannot own bacon.
well regulated meant a militia able to supply it's own ammo, food, and uniforms fit for battle
you're applying a common day definition to a document made over 200 years ago
a gun behind every blade of grass, remember that
>the government gives freedoms
no they don't, they have obligations placed onto them by the constitution, those obligations turning into rights for the people based on the fact that a government obeying the constitution is a lawful one and one not obeying the constitution is a tyrannic government that should be overthrown
the government doesn't give freedoms or tell people what to do, the only way it can exist is by people being willing to participate in it
>fancytalk
the type of wording in the constitution was literally at the level of a normal person of normal educational status in that era
You can literally have a private army for profit and have liberals suck your dick.
What do you think private security companies are?
Any company that organizes armed bodyguards, private security, armored cars should be correctly identified as a militia or para-military organization.
Yes, your post is bait. A militia is exactly the opposite of a police and military force, which is comprised of standing professional forces.
"A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."
So it's all fiat money then like our social security strawmen names and registrations for various bonds and taxes
The state militia system is currently regulated under the Dick Act of 1903. During the revolution there were militias that were well regulated under the other usage of that word that did not work directly for the Continental Congress.
Check the dissent I posted earlier, that lays out the argument. Even if you disagree, it's interesting.
everything you do is god given, government only just takes some from you.
Reminder that it is actually your American duty to own a gun
> we need to write an amendment to the constitution allowing police and military to have weapons.
Jesus. Fucking. Christ.
Don't WEW me or my wife's lad ever again.
But it doesn't say the militias right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
>Not realizing "well regulated militia" meant every white citizen in the state.
LIBERALS ARE THIS STUPID
For-profit PMCs are legal but non-profit PMCs (volunteer Militias) are not?
Blackwater/Academia... private army, militia. Federal government gives them shitloads of money to train cops and kill bad dudes.
Hillbilly Militia... wants to keep house safe and train for fun like a volunteer firefighting unit. Nah... man. That's nuts.
Fucking insanity.
yes, you are at no point required to follow any law in any country
money is paper that we assign a value, social security names are meant to track the use of money for a theoretical enforcement of laws, which are again theoretical and only put into practice by law enforcement
registrations for bonds and taxes can be entirely ignored with a gun and a few hostages, etc
the only reason the US still exists is because A: people are willing to put up with the government and B: people are willing to work for their fellow man
everything is fake, everything is manmade, we just pretend it isn't. you have complete freedom
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
>A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, AS WELL AS the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
Side note? Hardly. It was the entire driving force behind it because a citizen militia is infinitely preferable to a permanent standing army if you're trying to maintain a state that doesn't have to live in fear of its own government.
The proto-2nd amendments in some states and the congressional debate when they were writing it revolved heavily around making sure the federal government couldn't fuck up the citizen's militia game and make their own armies. The second part of the amendment was one of those safeguards to keep them from doing shit like the English game hunting laws that disarmed the britbongers.
Why not
Back in the day a comma used to mean something.
This is bait but somewhere I forgot where atm, it says that the militia is all abled men over 17.
I still think an argument can be made for what I said. I need to read that dissenting opinions post
Militia was every man. Stupid gun-grabbers always forget the second line, where the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is not a right that comes from the government, nor is it a privalige. It is a right given by God to protect oneself, family, and property.
It will never be changed. Get over it, pretentious city morons that don't want to be responsible for their own safety.
Right of the people or right of the person. Comma. Shall not be infringed. I think the whole damn thing is talking about the first part
You have the right to be autistic mr leaf
Stopped reading after "legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms" because it's a strawman and it's based on a faulty premise. The Heller decision didn't strike down any Federal gun laws and that statement assumes that the Federal government has an enumerated power to completely ban certain weapons. The courts may pretend that such a power exists under the expanded interpretation of the commerce clause but during the 18th century no such power was even thought to exist.
>reword the whole thing
>hurrr I think it was all talking about the first part
god damn leaf
Because militiæ come from both people and persons and protections and rights for arms can be protecing those people no matter how they're setup
They were free associations of men equipped using private funds. They had no legal obligation to follow orders given by the Continental Congress or it's military officers.
aint no government int he world ever had to specify that they have the right to keep a military, the right to form a militia and for individuals to keep and bear arms are specified, separated by a comma
militia's are non-government controlled, but well regulated as specified, meaning that the government can say "hey you can't just keep massive caches of explosive ordinances in the woods come on now"
while the right of the people to keep and bear arms specifies that individuals can and should have guns and use (bear) them
Everyone over 18 who registered for selective service is in the militia you fuck nut.
thats what vegans think to
wanna avoid the draft?
>joint he military
>wait til things are "too hard"
>cry you wanna kill urself
>they take u to a doc
>waah why is life hard?
>never have to go back
>"We need to make sure that our own military and police have the right to keep and bear arms, because tyrants disarming the means by which they enforce their own laws has always been a problem in the past." - Benjamin Franklin, from his book titled Shit No One Would Say
Nice flag
>Bill of rights
Understand every item in this list was designed to protect the rights of all Americans.
To assume that any part of the document suggests otherwise, is a deep display of ignorance regarding the document's very purpose.
I think was smart to use militia because i think (im probably wrong) that mercenaries should be illegal but if uncle sam wants to invent arpanet then let him
R A R E R
A
R
E
R
I skimmed to the next paragraph where they try to pretend that US v. Miller actually set a coherent legal standard. US v. Miller stated that sawed off shotguns could only be banned because they were not "military style" weapons which means that if the so called Miller standard were applied to the whole NFA most of the machine guns and cannons banned by the NFA would be completely legal again because most of the are "military style" weapons.
Triples gets it
replace both commas with the word "also"
"...free state ALSO the right... "
"...bear arms ALSO shall not... "
*all 3 commas
Weak b8 here, m8.
Try harder next time.
At the time it was written, a "well regulated militia" consisted of convincing the townsmen to show up for target, marching, and formation practice by offering free beer. So citizens hanging out getting wasted drinking beer and shooting guns is a "well regulated militia."
What flag is this?
Someone post the pic of the grammatical breakdown of it. Please.
What part of reading a whole fucking sentence do you not understand OP? And again, this argument is completely invalidated by the fact that US law and most state constitutions recognize the people as the militia.
That flag must make all the romanians jealous, clearly the superior clown tent.
Dumbass.
'The militia' is not a sanctioned Military from the government, retard. It's civilians. And yes, they do need assault and military weapons.
Are libcucks really this illiterate?