She does have a point, you know?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
billwhittle.com/firewall/your-second-amendment
youtu.be/eZo4hbGJjVI
youtube.com/watch?v=wZrcR3guGG0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

...

How am I supposed to forget about it if it's all these chucklefucks bring up?

May I remind you op, of two most important things.
First, you are a faggot.
Second, if the state regulates what defines a well regulated militia, then what will define the rebels who eventually conquer you?

What about the explicit mention of the people?

Isn't it possible that the intent is for the people to be armed for numerous reasons, namely, though not exclusively, as members of an old fashioned late 18th century militia?

The Supreme Court has reaffirmed an individual's right to bear arms, regardless of whether they are 'war-useful' weapons.

Don't bump this thread after my post.

Reminder to every idiot that actually believes this: every adult is considered part of the state militia.

>the security of a Free State

No one knows what this means, tho.

Learn grammar faggot (pic related)

/thread

solomente un post para id

A militia can't fight if it's limited to single shot bolt action rifles. Honestly the militia (that means every citizen of the US btw) should be able to have selective fire firearms as well.

Really makes you think

Regulated in traditional parlance is a synonym of equipped, standardized, and organized.

The long-term liberal strategy is to change the very concept of the word over time.

Well Regulated in those days meant in working order. Not overly legislated.

>during the Tiananmen Square Protest. Before arriving to the U.S., she remembers sucking on a popsicle and observing the people as they gathered around to protest.

LOL
& she still wants to ban guns like her glorious people's republic of China did, that she left

Fuck i hate immigrants who come & bring their failed policies with them

Words don't mean what you think they do.

>Fuck i hate immigrants who come & bring their failed policies with them

Literally this. I wouldn't mind Hispanics half as much if they dropped their retarded leftist leanings when they came here, their neighborhoods turn into Little Mexico overnight, complete with police corruption and cartel hideouts.

>de-federalize the military
>states now have teeth when they threaten secession

Probably won't happen

>1 post by this ID

>we just wanna take away automatic weapons
>we just wanna add restrictions
>we just wanna ban semi autos
>the 2nd amendment means the national guard, only police and the military need guns

Militia Act of 1903
Shall not be infringed
Fuck off commie.

The US hardly had an army at the time. Common sense "well regulated" meant properly trained. And 1903 militia act cements that US citizens are the militia.

Says the gook. Nothings more annoying then non-whites trying to tell you what's right and wrong in your own country

The answer to this question is well explained in the DC vs Heller Supreme Court Ruling in 2008 I'll paraphrase:

At the time, well equipped professional soldiers were referred to as Regulars and rag-tag militia-men were known as Irregulars. Regulars (being well equipped) all had muskets of the same caliber allowing them to mass produce bullets and distributed them as needed. Irregulars brought their guns from home, each in it's own caliber with it's own tool to make bullets. They tediously melted their own lead to make their own bullets after every engagement. This gave Regulars a huge logistical advantage. A "well regulated militia" simply means well equipped, able to fight on par with a real army.

We know the founders didn't mean "Well Regulated" as in "strict government regulations" for 2 reasons:

1st because the bill of rights was always written with the perspective of of preventing the government from infringing on individual rights (they CAN'T infringe on free speech, they CAN'T force you to be a witness against yourself, they CAN'T seize your property without cause..ect.) The whole point of the bill of rights is to establish things that the government cannot do to the people. To interpret Well-Regulated as giving the government power to limit an individual right would be the contrary to the rest of the document.

2nd: If they meant that the government can establish a militia to which it has strict control (government regulations,) why would they include the second phrase "..., the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?" It completely contradicts the idea of government regulations. Well-Regulated couldn't have meant "government regulations" or else the entire amendment would've been a contradiction and essentially meaningless.

Just read DC vs Heller, it covers everything including "assault weapons." Well regulated=well equipped flows right into protections on weapons in common military use.

>Shocking fact: it is not ACTUALLY your God-goven right to own a private arsenal
Straight into the trash.

>witnessed tiananmen square as a child and saw what a government that is no longer afraid of its citizens is capable of doing
>writes about a dystopian society where a militarized government oppresses its powerless citizens

>"having guns in 2016 is bad and wrong, turn them in to the government, you can totally trust them"

>1st because the bill of rights was always written with the perspective of of preventing the government from infringing on individual rights

Forgetting about the 10th amendment aren't we? The second as with the 10th is about protecting the domain of state sovereignty.

The militias are the state armies. The second amendment exists to prevent the federal government from disarming them, as the enumerated powers of the federal government include the power to define the discipline of the militia and to provide them with arms.

I thought the "well regulated millitia" was referring to the people being able to band together to take on tyranny?

Not the people. The state.

If the people rebel against perceived tyranny, they will be subjugated by the state militias. This happened on several occasions.

heller also upheld the idea that the 2nd amendment has limits, but people ignore that and just spout "shall not be infringed" like retards without understanding anything about the constitution or their rights

>Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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.

She's probably a Chinese plant.

>pic-related is a true Chinese immigrant

Where are you guys getting this idea from? That everyone is in the militia? Not disagreeing with it, I've just never heard that before and I'm curious where it came from. Did the Founders say that?

Wew

>also known as the Dick Act
Can't make this up

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.

THE RIGHT OF

THE PEOPLE

SHALL

FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF

Where was this image yesterday when I really needed it.

NOT

BE

What occasions? You're wrong btw...

INFRINGED

The Supreme court did, but the intent of the founders was that the US had no standing army, so to defend herself every able man with a rifle was a member of the militia if we were invaded, or our government became tyrannical.

>liberals not understanding grammar or historical context

Not surprised

According to the law as it stands, absolutely not.

Yes, there are limits--just like how you can't yell "fire" in a crowded building. So no nukes (but tanks are still totally legit.)

I remember them saying that weapons in common military use are protected under the 2nd and that cities can't really restrict concealed carry. Overall I thought they came down squarely on the pro-gun side of the issue.

...

...

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

suck my cock fagget.

people also tend to conveniently forget the lack of an abortion and marriage amendment

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, §1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

SJW ASIAN BITCH

This. Imagine being so desperate that you disregard a very basically structured sentence to make your argument sound more legitimate.

Leaving alone the fact that a militia is usually comprised of unprofessional fighters and citizens anyway. It's not like it's specifying a paramilitary group or something.

Shay's rebellion doesn't count?

Yes, well-regulated was a phrase used at the time to me "level headed, as usual, or as one would expect to function."

So read in modern parlance, the 2nd amendment means that in order for a militia that you would expect to be able to properly perform its duties, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Cause the amendment literally says People need to be able to own guns in order for well regulated militias to be formed. Are people this spastic?

Saved. Thanks bud.

I can't handle this much freedom.

Was it the people rebelling or the state?

>still not getting it

It literally calls for a domestic police state.

People

I'm not sure I follow your train of thought. Are you saying that there's never been armed revolts in the US?

Liberals tend to forget that "well-regulated militia" constitutes the general public and is cited an example for necessity, not a prerequisite.
In short, she's a dumb cunt.

Also,

>1 post by this ID

The person I was responding to originally said well regulated militia meant the state and not the people. Maybe I just interpreted it wrong.

Women can't own guns. Ok.

Even if you completely ignore this a militia is just a group of people that bring their own arms, you can't be in a militia without having the right to keep and bear arms.

>every person is a member of the police
Huh?

You're a fucking retard.

The militia composed all men able to bear arms and was intended to empower the states and the people as a check on the federal government. Here's a relevant passage from the author of the constitution, James Madison (Federalist paper 46):

>Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.
>The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms.
>This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men.
>To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
>It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
>Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it.
>Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

no, it means that only us citizens should be allowed to police us citizens. it's like in italy, where the cops are chinese nationals. how would you feel if Juan Pedro, a mexican citizen, was the one pulling you over in his taco wagon?

it goes a little further but essentially we police ourselves for our own protection

should have payed attention in them ESL courses
shiiiieettt

K i get your point now. I thought you were arguing against it.

Thanks for the incorrect information yet again, OP.

Sex classifications arent given the highest level of scrutiny and even if they were they could be justified on grounds of biological sex differences.

Does it say "the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms..."? No, it doesn't.

What is a militia comprised of? People with arms.
And there are two types of militia: the National Guard and the unorganized militia.

Well it doesn't guarantee you win your rebellion. It gives you the right to try.

>they forgot to put screaming eagle in the background.
But no kidding, based Lily

Once again the based asians prove themselves worthy of being honorary whites.

Dipshits tend to conveniently forget the part where it says civilians owning guns is the only way to ensure that militias can form themselves and become regulated.

The militia is a state run organization. It has people in it.

billwhittle.com/firewall/your-second-amendment

Watch or read, if it was like those Facebook liberals say, then the discussion would be over in a day at the Congress

for more random facts look up police state and it's original definition

HOW MANY POSTS BY THIS ID?

Culture is a racial construct.

Considering she has no idea what the term means, no.

If you think she's based check out this mother fucker

youtu.be/eZo4hbGJjVI

I don't work for the state and I'm still part of the militia.

>"it's not your God-given right to own a personal-arsenal"

Can't you burgers own tanks, jets, attack helicopters and battleships legally?

Because the state has the right to conscript you into public service.

youtube.com/watch?v=wZrcR3guGG0

Steven Crowder did a pretty nice video on the whole "its just for militias dumb conservashits XDD" argument .

> also I will probably never own an AR 15 during my lifetime
> pic related

Of course.

SHALL

>You will never be so mad you have to furiously edit in your argument you never made to some image you saw as a "controversy section".

Yep.

Your non sequitur is not an argument.

It was already posted in this thread, but if you need help interpreting it, I will be glad to help.

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, §1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, §524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)

it's for home defense *cough cough.

I fucking love you Americans.

>also known as the Dick Act
I guess that's why it's just pussies that want to ban them

Shocking fact: despite 80% of them having poetry or literature degrees, liberals don't know what a comma is

So true, Roger. So true.

/thread