What about this is so hard to understand again?

What about this is so hard to understand again?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_organizations_in_the_United_States
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

>A well regulated militia

So surely that just means an army? Like the US Army?

I.e. it means you have a constitutional right to an organised army, and you won't infringe that army's rights to bear arms.

It doesn't mean any Tom Dick or Harry can buy guns whenever they fucking please.

How stupid are you?

>I can't read

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State--and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power."

SHALL

Do you understand what a comma does?

FPCP

apparently the ''shall not be infringed'' part

A patriot citizen is armed. A subject is not.

NOT

...

Militia is not the army but nice try

The second amendment is every American's duty to defend their freedom by any means necessary. I know older generation democrats with stockpiles of guns. It's deeply troubling that people read the 2nd amendment as some government institution's duty.

>liberals still can't figure out how a comma works
>"It's just not very well written! Why couldn't the Constitution have hashtags!?"

PASS

>paper having authority to do anything or restrict anything
you're so pathetically naive.

I think more now than ever it's necessary for a free state. With media brainwashing and lefty election rigging the only thing to protect ourselves is our right.

And yes, 80+ million armed Americans would decimate our military regardless of technology just by pure numbers.

Because the founders decided to protect the government in a document meant to restrict it after being concerned about standing armies..

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

Because an effective civilian fighting force is needed for when the security of a free state comes under threat, all person's of fighting age should be allowed to own and bear arms (as to become proficient and accustomed to them), and that right shall not be infringed.

From (((Wikipedia))):

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)

And because of the 14th Amendment, this is basically expanded to include everyone.

The thing that aggravates me the most is how most gun grabbing dems claim to be "for the 2nd amendment," when it's clear that a lot of them would straight up repeal it if they could.

Does it read:
>A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.

No. The part about the people keeping and bearing arms has a reason as well.

So the 2nd Amendment is actually calling for regulation??

The 2nd Amendment is your most important right, cuck.

Let me put it to you in modernized English so that a pleb like you can understand:

>In order for the existence of a well-regulated militia, which is necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This interpretation has been uphold continuously by the Supreme Court throughout United States' history and its interpretation is crystal clear in light of the philosophies of some of the founding fathers, including the Father of the Constitution, James Madison.

It means that in order for militias to be able to exist, the people must have the right to own weapons.

Got it?

Democrats hate foresight. They hate how republicans logically follow a chain of events that leads to a negative outcome. They want republicans to think "If I let him have this that'll be it".

Wrong. The U.S constitution is unique in that it ensures so called 'negative rights' -- meaning it does not give you rights, it reinforces natural, God given rights, and regulates the government's ability to deprive you of these rights.

This is different in comparison to European constitutions. For example, the 1st Amendment to the U.S constitution is short and simple, and ensures a natural right. European constitutions for free speech is not one paragraph long declaring that "Congress shall make no law ..." (like the U.S one). Instead, EU constitutions are 1000 pages long, listing all the things you are not allowed to do. The Swedish "free speech constitution" is something like 700 pages long and lists the things that are not allowed under our free speech laws.

There is not only a difference in principles, there is a difference in the underlying, fundamental philosophy of the entire constitution.

>god

lmao

learn English

this is by no means a healthy or balanced breakfast you Amerilard

Why is this lacking 2 commas compared to the ammendment?

SHALL

NOT

BE

INFRINGED

Exactly. This is the correct interpretation.

The Founding Fathers knew that in order for well-regulated (well-functioning, good) militias to even exist, individuals need to have the right to bear arms -- otherwise such militias can not properly form.

Just pointing out the way the Founding Fathers saw things. People use the terminology "natural" or "God-given" when referring to rights that are considered inherent to human existence in Western philosophy. Doesn't matter if you're religious or not, because atheist scholars have agreed to these same principles throughout history.

This lacks the commas

You are a retarded gun freak

Stop trying bro, the constitution is just another meme

The part about muskets which was written in invisible ink that only liberals can see

hey I found a picture of you

...

The fact that women suck at teaching both the English language and respect for authority

If there is a gun ban all you gun nuts will just acquire guns illegally anyways. What difference does it make?

>What difference does it make?

Because if it's illegal, the government can crack down on anyone owning a gun, which is like 80% of the U.S population. You're a traitor if you want to abandon the 2nd Amendment.

The word "Amendment", it seems.

Yes I understand commas, apparently you don't

>Militia is not the army but nice try
You're right it's not because back in the day, militias were just guerilla fighting units, the people coming together to form their own armies

However, that's not allowed anymore - it would be classified as vigilantism, which is illegal. America, like every other country, evolved to have a single state Army. So the biggest analogue to "militias" these days is the Army

Stop being so stupid please

Hahaha fucking nigger you are so dumb, please name any single time when that has ever happened in the last 100 years, when a "civilian fighting force" has come together to fight for the security of the US because the Army somehow wasn't able to do that job, despite being the biggest and most well funded in the world. Go on, I'll wait

>The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias.
Well then why aren't there state militias anymore then?

Yes because otherwise those militias would be unarmed. It's saying the militias have an enshrined right to guns. Those "militias" evolved to become the US Army.

Well it's not my right because I'm not American

The people have a right to an armed militia (which these days is the US Army). Why can't you understand English?

>So surely that just means an army?

Are you fucking retarded? You have no idea what the word "militia" means do you? No, wait, that doesn't matter. Want to know why?

Because the Second Amendment doesn't create a militia. It simply states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The "militia" it is referring to is not an established governmental organization or military. It is a hypothetical force created in a time of need. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

This is a very simple logical statement. It follows all principles of classical logic and stands on its own as a self-justifying provision for the continued existence of a free state.

So I ask again: Are you fucking retarded?

Why can't you understand US law? Oh, because you're a fucking Paki living in London. That's why.
>£0.07 has been deposited into your account

Exactly

In order for real gun control, we need to repeal the 2nd amendment

The amendment is quite clear that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Also, militia refers to a fighting unit made up of non professional fighters, as in, not military.

That's what you should have told the migrants you Bavarian cunt

> A well regulated militia
> regulated
> ruled by law, whatever that may be

Sounds like any infringement of the 'people's' right to bear arms is secondary to the regulation thereof, hence government may do as it pleases with the 'militia', whatever they be.

And it's poorly written.

Tell me then why there are no militias anymore and why there haven't been for a very fucking long time

If you think the constitution preserves your right to a militia then where are the militias?

Either you preserve the 2nd amendment for its true purpose (enshrining the right of militias) or you don't.

Yes, the people who form militias. People don't form militias anymore. If they tried to they would probably be locked up.

you bongs are still BTFO from getting kicked out of the colonies by militias aren't you

we don't have militias right now because they are temporary. think of a posse.
also
>>£0.07 has been deposited into your account

> happened literally once
> and with French military backing

There are HUNDREDS of militias you fucking idiot. Go type "United States Militia Group" into google. Holy fuck you're ignorant.

This enrages me beyond all belief.

>Tell me then why there are no militias anymore

There are like thousands of militias, and people form local militias all the time in the U.S. It's so great.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_organizations_in_the_United_States

US law states that all able bodied males age 18-45 are part of the militia retard

I, for one, applaud my American friends and their passion for guns.

There was a time when governments would think it 'none of their business' to ban anything.

>People don't form militias anymore. If they tried to they would probably be locked up.
People form militias all the time. And guess who's gonna come protect you when shit hits the fan?

you know, the shills really should just be using american IPs as i'd be more inclined to believe they're just being stupid rather than being paid

Question.

So does that mean that all Americans are technically 'combatants' in war, and therefore can be fought without reprisals for war crimes?

>Hahaha fucking nigger you are so dumb, please name any single time when that has ever happened in the last 100 years
I keep a couple fire extinguishers in my house even though my house has never caught on fire.

No? Bongs shitposting is cancer

It will be repealed finally by Hillary's pick

no, because its possible to commit war crimes against an organized fighting force regardless if they're a formal military or if they're a local militia

you should be focusing on saving your nation from the EU, not shitposting

Dubs to confirm. Thread

FUCKING MUSKETS

SHALL

It was a non-banterous, serious question.

So an invading force met local, armed civilians, there would be no prosecutions for killing them?

All these responses and no mention of Heller v. D.C.
Based Scalia (may he rest in peace) outlined it all for us. God bless that man.

The part where is says "shall not be infringed" really leaves me confused

>Well it's not my right because I'm not American
Actually, it is your right. All men were endowed with these right by their creator. Your government merely denies it to you.

...

>literally had this conversation this morning
>"WELL REGULATED MEANS GOVERNMENT"
that makes no sense, a British government militia would have meant no US revolution
>"US MILITARY OUTGUNS CITIZENS ANYWAYS"
tell that to Iraq and Afghanistan where the US can't maintain control
>*GLARES IN CONTRADICTIONS*

>Well then why aren't there state militias anymore then?
There are, under different names. There are also smaller community militias who go under the name militia however our government hates the small militias and sees them as a threat

> creator
Ah, the American in his natural environment.

>so euphorically enlightened by his intelligence that he don't need no john locke

>guaranteed
>only 38 out of 50 states have to ratify
That scares me a bit fampai, should it be true.

Shall not be infringed !!!!!!
Well regulated means WELL TRAINED
REeEeeeeeeeeeEeEeEeEeeEeEeEeE

Do you deny the creator? Yes or no.

Do you know what 'militia' is?

The 2nd Amendment creates no less of a right than:

1. Freedom of Speech
2. Freedom of Press
3. Freedom of Assembly
4. The right to vote
5. The right to privacy
6. The right to due process


None of those rights are above or superior to the right to bear arms.

It doesn't say people have the right to an armed militia, it references ***the people's*** right to ***keep and bear arms.***

Humans were not 'created', Sven.

It merely states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, without actually calling for one.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, while somewhat related, _____ ___ __ _________

It took a Swedebro to remind us how important American freedoms are

BAIT
A
I
T
S
A
G
E G A S
A
G
E
S
A
G
E
R
I
No
O

>atheist bongistan
No wonder God abandoned that shithole.

Even if you don't believe in God, you cannot deny that we were created by nature, in nature. Nature endows certain inalienable rights, these rights are intrinsic and supercedes the authority of government

To put that in perspective the Red Bloc in the US is 17 states that have voted Republican consistently for 50 years.

You'd need to swing 5 of those states for an Amendment to repeal the 2nd

Without any swing states moving into the Red camp to oppose it.

It doesn't mention anything about feelings.

I heard you guys have large militias, right up there with military standards or higher and with a great public image

Here there's only a few groups in some states and the media sees them as mini-kkkhitlers

If you put the commas in yourself, it still makes the same sense doesn't it?

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.


>, being necessary to the start of a healthy day,
I think this part is just like additional information so if you remove it, it'll be
>a well balanced breakfast, the right the people to keep and eat food, shall not be infringed.

I still think there is an 'is' missing but Idk.

Someone help me with this.

>even in cities that don't want them to
? ? ?
How does NYC and California get away with their blatant violation then?

Rights don't exist, my man.

The Universe cares not whether a 'sentient' bag of water on a rock around a star 'lives' or 'dies'; the concept of 'life' being vague at best.

Nor does the Universe care whether said meat bag has a wooden-metal mechanical contraption to throw pieces of metal very fast.

Still pretty spooky desu, I'm worried about future generations forgetting the need for guns.

When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, not even blue or light blue states would ratify its removal. You'd possibly get 5-10 states to ratify it imo.

Really? Can you prove that?

>Rights dont exist
>Muh nihilism
Just because you don't have them doesn't mean they don't exist, Jafir.

It's a 'nominative absolute'. Latin has a similar 'ablative absolute'; a kind of half-sentence which restricts the meaning of the main sentence. They are these days more usually introduced with 'as' or 'while'.

[*As* a well balanced breakfast is necessary to begin a healthy day], one ought always to eat breakfast.

They're full of politicians that the people elected, so they get what they chose.

It's common knowledge that you don't live in those states if you care at all about firearms freedoms

Here's a better wording.

> Really? Can you prove that?
You are making the positive philosophical point, therefore you must provide the evidence. How can anyone prove the non-existence of anything? Come on, Ahmed.

If all humans were to become extinct suddenly, what 'rights' remain then? Exactly, Chad.