What does the second amendment even mean?

Copied from Google:
"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."

Grammatically speaking, since there is a comma and not a period, the collective noun "People" refers explicitly to the "Militia".
Also, if they were separate ideas, the first half would just be some statement that wouldn't have a place in a law-founding document.

There's the argument over what the militia is, but I had the idea that the second amendment really establishes the army and it is simply saying that the military should be armed with guns.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/MW_noXjj6w8
youtube.com/watch?v=Hx23c84obwQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

...

>Copied from Google:


OP is a faggot.

People does not refer to the militia. People refers to general populace like it does in the rest of the constitution. It is meant that the people have the right to form militias without approval from the government.

Shut your stupid fucking mouth.
Literally every one of the founding fathers wanted the citizens to be armed. It is undebateble what they meant originally.

youtu.be/MW_noXjj6w8

kys

Seriously anyone saying anything differently cannot read or is being deliberately disingenuous

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 collective noun "People" refers explicitly to the "Militia"

This conclusion does not follow from this premise:

>there is a comma and not a period

>1080p
>1366x768
triggered

The militia were the people.

People refers to the same thing every other instance of People refers to, everyone.

> a well REGULATED militia

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

"the right of the People shall not be infringed"

It doesn't say "the right of the Militia", it clearly says "the right of the People"

If you want to make the case that the second amendment should be changed, then by all means make that argument.

Don't make the argument that it's unclear, or that it only refers to a militia.

Both arguments are retarded as fuck, but arguing that it's unclear is even more retarded.

The fuck is wrong with you? English isn't even my first language and even I know that the first part before the comma is like a major example for why the right of the people to bear arms is a good idea.

It's like saying: Water being necessary for forest growth, the right of plants to have water shall not be infringed.

The People have the right to keep and bear arms, and because well armed patriots are necessary to prevent assholes having their way at everyone's expense, that right shall not ever be infringed upon in any way.

>There's the argument over what the militia is

I believe it was John Adams or James Monroe who clarified that and pretty much said that the militia explicitly refers to any US citizen.

>"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."
A militia is necessary to freedom and security so let the people keep guns.

Try this...

OP post best post

Never mind - found the quotes - it was these guys:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.

Now how this translates to a modern society is somewhat arguable, but it's pretty clear that the original meaning of militia was the people of the United States.

>but I had the idea that the second amendment really establishes the army
really establishes.... where?

Honestly it might've just been so generic as to just mean that everyone should be able to join the army and defend the country, as would've been sensible considering the independence war they fought.

Holy shit that guy looks like me. Same hair color, same hair style, face looks eerily the same. If I had never started lifting that would be me

"security of a free STATE".

That doesn't mean an army operating as part of the federal government. I believe that is important as it allows the States to keep the fed. gov. in check to some extent; whether through a State spoisoned militia, or by free individuals exercising their right to own a firearm.

let me further state:

the idea that general populace has a right to bear arms was simply a given.
people need air to breathe and their going to have air to breathe, it's not something that even needs to be stated because it's so fucking obvious. well,
>Being necessary for the survival of a human body, the right of the People to breathe air shall not be infringed.

frankly I'm a bit apllaed our forefathers didn't have the foresight to include something like this in the bill of rights

I've always felt that the second amendment should have the word 'because' at the start (other wording changes just to make grammatical sense):

Because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

You're absolutely right. Now let's take a look at the Militia Act of 1903.

>"Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support." (wikipedia)

Able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45 are automatically regarded as a militia.

do you think you could just show up and they hand you a rifle and tell you to wait till you see their whites? Pretty sure they didn't have some massive government contract to produce rifles and arm everybody. the war was fought with rifles owned by the men who brought them to the war effort.

they are literally trying to make this impossible, and if they succeed, humanity is fucked, absolutely guaranteed.

To argue that anything in the bill of rights is to give power to the government shows how ignorant you are of it.

Best post tbqh. The Bill of Rights doesn't tell us what rights we have, it tells the government what rights it can't touch.

The early republic could not afford to maintain a standing army, but was also surrounded by numerous existential threats. Like the Native Americans, or revanchist European empires.

It was neccessary as a matter of national defense for people to own weapons. As part and parcel to this however, all weapon owners were also required to be registered with their State Militia, to be activated at any time if required.

The idea that the 2nd Amendment was intended to be a check on the power of the US Government is a modern interpretation. Frankly, the founders would have been appalled at the notion of a Government created by wealthy land owners and New England bankers having an armed mob as a "check" on its power.

The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

A free state needs a militia to be free

COMMMAAAAAAA

the right for people to have guns shall not be infringed


What they're saying is, quite CLEARLY
is that to have a secure and free state there need to be militias.
Militias can only exist when the common folk are armed.

Many founding fathers came to define what a militia means. If you take the lifespan into account back then, it pretty much meant any man that could still walk and wasn't shitting himself.

To put it into perspective, the retirement age to collect social security was only placed at where it was, because it was the average age where men died. If you didn't die of old age(unlikely) you got social security.

Now take that into consideration when you notice this was like 200 years before the SS pyramid scheme.

Nice rephrasing, except it says the militia is necessary for the security of a free state, not the right to keep arms.

youtube.com/watch?v=Hx23c84obwQ

No.

There is no militia if the right of the people to keep and bear arms is infringed.

There is no argument about what a militia is.

I really need to make a single 2nd amendment image rather than having a few scattered ones...

Exactly what it says people should own and know how to use a firearm and the people should have their own organized militias to defend them that report to the people not the government. By being able to fight and defend your self you are free from the government running your life. Our current government is what the founding fathers feared a huge machine that controls all aspects of life.The people should be the ones telling the government no you cant do this or that not the other way around.

...

Well-regulated means "in working order"

A proper militia cannot be well-regulated without the people's right to bear arms. Because the founding fathers knew we're fucked without guns.

>300 years
What? Even with rounding , the constitution isn't that old

If "the people" in the bill of rights means the militia then that means the 10th ammendment applies to only states and militias..

...

There is literally no argument here. Gun grabbers like to pretend that they're illiterate. They think pretending to be stupid is going to help them pass laws.

It's working very well for them.

The right exists because people believe it exists, not because a piece of paper says it.

>But it can be regulated as much as the people want.

That meme-magic doesn't make sense.

>"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."

Let's imagine >pic-related were the amendment in the constitution that's under scrutiny:

>A well balanced breakfast
A breakfast that is moderated and scientifically nutritious.
Not allowed: Junk food (coco-pops, waffles, nutella, etc).
Not allowed: Excessive, uncontrolled eating.

>The right of the people to keep and eat food
Not any old food, just food that is objectively part of the aforementioned "well balanced breakfast", as specified by nutrition scientists that are qualified in dietetics.

Now let's swap back to the 2nd amendment:

>"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."

>A well regulated militia
A "well regulated" military force that is raised from the civil population; an ordered civilian militia that is structured to mimic military hierarchy and codes. It does not specify individuals owning guns for their own protection; it indicates a controlled paramilitary organization.
Not allowed: guns for personal protection
Not allowed: guns for hunting or sport
Not allowed: guns for hobby / interest / collection

>The right of the people to keep and bear arms
As participants in the aforementioned "well regulated" civil army, members of this armed paramilitary organization shall be entitled to wield arms in discharging their roles.

(*When I say "Not allowed" above, I mean to say "Not provisioned for as a guaranteed constitutional right", and therefore within the bounds of control by the legislature.)

Wait

So why doesn't every state have a militia? It seems the second ammendment is less about gun ownership and more about states having theit own militias so as to actually be able to have some kind of actual violent authority over the federal government to not fuck them over.

>Wyoming militia

right so check this out
right now, sitting in a car, probably stuck in a bit of traffic, you know big city living and all that

He has just finished work at a office or warehouse or supermarket it dont really make much fucking difference just trading time for money

On his way out of work he says goodbye to sara working at the front desk (a spicy little number)
he jokingly asks if shes got any plans for the weekend "oh not much just hang with the boyfriend i guess"

A slight chuckle is all he can mange as he turns to the exit , a rage so pure and intense like gouts of flame spike into his soul all he can think about as he walks to his car is violently beating and raping the stupid whore sara fucking dumb bitch ill fuck life out of her he thinks has he brings his 1993 honda civic to life

he is on his way home now where soon he will lock all the doors, close all the blinds then put on his $10,000 usd pink and blue wolf furrie costume

and spend the rest of the night shoving bigger and more complex looking dildos up his arse, stretching out his urethra with a ballpoint pen and masterbating to child porn all live on webcam

this is the real world, people like that exist and worse they vote for hillary

all interpretation is lost just under the surface, can you tell the difference between a smile and a crocodile? are you sure? am not.

this is the real world, a world of illusions

If you've got social problems, go to
If you're thinking of an hero, call a friend or helpline

...

There are militias in this nation, democrats aren't trying to protect their rights.

OP eternally BTFO

>"militia"
"The militia refers to the entire pool of citizens, no longer just men capable of military service"
>Source: legislation written after the constitution was written

That fallacy... This is apex cherry-picking. (As is the definitions given for "well regulated", of which there would be countless examples from around that time which would indicate the meaning to be "moderated and controlled".)

No, you're mixing up words and also eliminating ambiguity.

>It's like saying: [word related to water and plants] being necessary for forest growth, the right of plants to have water shall not be infringed.

americans : too dumb to understabd their own laws,so they ask foreigners to explain it

>mfw this entire thread is Australians trying destroy Americans freedom to own firearms

Shitposting for life.

Are you sure of that?

2nd part I mean.

Your reasoning ignores the Constitution and makes no sense.

Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S Constitution grants congress the ability to fund, provide and call fourth an Army Navy and Militia.

Why would the founding fathers write a separate amendment giving the government the right to do something they already have the power to do given to them in the Constitution? Why would the founding fathers have to write a separate giving the government the right to own guns?

I'd interpret it as:
>"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
Establishes a reason, perhaps what they considered the most important reason at the time given the circumstances. It's not meant to be specifically or exclusively for a militia, but to drive home the point that it's purpose is important
>the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Declares that any and all persons able to bear arms shall not have that opportunity infringed by the government.

Circumstances do change over the centuries, but the spirit of the 2nd amendment is and has always been to allow people to bear arms as a natural right. Any form of gun control should not infringe upon the scope of this right but instead focus on training and personal responsibility in the spirit of "well regulated" (which means well-trained according to the language at the time). Limitations on ownership should be based on what individuals are physically able to demonstrate in terms of mastery and personal security of their firearms. If you can't keep or use a firearm in a safe, responsible and effective manner despite all the training courses you take, fuck you, no guns for you.

kek I remember the OH asspain when we swapped in '04. Same time as W and the infamous Joe Deters write-in.

Good times.

Get rid of the 2nd amendment and make an n+1th amendment just saying "MUH GUN RIGHTS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED", so even libtards get it.

Federalist No. 42 shits on you. The founding fathers didn't want the federal government to have an army of professional soldiers to call upon to oppress the people.

but go on and

>muh culture and muh history

No, it doesnt mean people means militia. Its saying that tge populace needs to be armed to maintain militias. If only people in government approved militias are armed, then it defeats the point.

SHALL

grammatically, you don't know what you're talking about

NOT

BE

BE

It means I as a Citizen of the United States can own a firearm. I may use it for sport, for hunting, for protection. I do not need to explain myself or state a given reason for owning one. It is a Bill of Rights. Not a Bill of Wants.

Fuck off nigger.

INFRINGED

INFRINGED

>Grammatically speaking, since there is a comma and not a period, the collective noun "People" refers explicitly to the "Militia".

ding ding ding

>
There's the argument over what the militia is, but I had the idea that the second amendment really establishes the army and it is simply saying that the military should be armed with guns.

God damn it you HAD it and you still missed it.

>Confirmed. OP is a faggot.

The key word for modern readers is "regulated".

Back in the day, "well-regulated" meant "well-equipped". That is, loaded up with the best guns and ammo of the day.

The idea that a militia can be "regulated" (using the modern meaning of the word) is laughable since a militia is, by definition, a loose association of armed citizens. How can you "regulate" that?

Therefore, "well-regulated" means "well armed" (aka "armed to the teeth").

It was absolutely the intention of the Framers to ensure that random citizens would be able to form armed militias with sufficient firepower to compete with the "official" soldiers of the day (at least have such numbers that the army would have to think twice before, say, declaring a nationwide curfew).

For this reason, I consider *ANY* limitation on gun ownership to be a violation of the 2nd Amendment. I should be able to own a machine gun precisely because US soldiers and the state police have access to machine guns.

>votes for a desert nigger president
>is surprised when SJW legally turn his consitution into a bill of gibsmedats

The swcond amendment is designed, among other things, to protect you from your own government

tree of liberty, blood of tyrants, etc.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, FAGGOT

What part of shall not be infringed are you having trouble with ?

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.

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians.” – George Mason

“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves.” – Richard Henry Lee.

>implying I voted for obongo
Just because you sound alike doesn't mean you can shitpost with the big boys faggot bait.

I don't really care about this one way or another, but

>the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Would imply, regardless that the regular people of the state shall not, under most circumstances, be allowed to take away their arms.

>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State
>Well regulated
This could imply that if the police force/militia is not well enough to protect the people, then the people could form their own militia, or just simply protect themselves with their arms.

I mean either way. If you take guns, then people will just stab, which to me sounds a hell of a lot worse then just being shot and killed nearly instantly most of the time, I would hate to be stabbed again and again and bleed to death. Or if not knifes, it would be baseball bats, or poisons, or whatever. The sad truth is that only those not in the right state of mind would want to kill, and if they want to do so, they will do by any means necessary. Of course a firearm makes it much easier for them to do so, however in any other case innocent people can defend themselves from other cases with arms, better then the reliance upon the police, or whatever they have on them.

Then there is the problem that a country like the US is too open and wide, meaning a strict ban would only benefit criminals who could still acquire them easily. This isn't like Japan, where most of the population is relegated to a very small, very closed off city, where most people have to walk to locations anyway.

youtube.com/watch?v=Hx23c84obwQ

/thread

>just being shot and killed nearly instantly most of the time

being shot is not like video games. it takes a while for you to bleed out, much like a knife wound.

The majority did (twice, because muh it's so progressive and you will get Shillary next because muh womyn president is even more progressive), so tell my why it's wrong to assume the typical American I see is a leftist retard?

If the 2nd amendment was constitutionally removed through state ratification, is that technically legal since the whole "shall not be infringed" bullshit?

It is a lost cause arguing language man.
Just go with intent.
Did the founding fathers want the people to have equal firepower with the army or not?
If no, start collecting guns and civil war now.
If yes, how does a government honours that while keeping people not shot.

It's still a matter of national defense for people to own weapons.

Ask a Jap.

1 post by this ID

>1 post by this ID

IF someone wanted to kill me with a gun, they would go BANG BANG and I would be dead.

If they wanted to kill me with a knife, I would be stabbed again and again and again feeling it each time, it would be horrible.

Also most games allow you to be hit by an absurd amount of bullets before dying, and you can even recover just by resting after getting hit. That's not a great comparison.

Militia is people.
Do you think they were so dumb as to not have the word military in their vocabulary?


It's very plain and specific if you read anything else written by the founding fathers.

Sage and delete this retarded thread

Technically Americans could own nukes befor the Supreme Court dicked you.

You can still own tanks and battleships though

Because Sup Forums is 99% hard right Trump loving Nationalist once free to express their honor voice under the veil of anonymity because of the all too real and vicious career ending attacks one is condemned too for speaking out against the PC mandated narrative?

Again, your shitposting is weak. Go home and be a family man.

Depends on which gun we're talking about. Shotgun, maybe. Depending on range you'll still run until the adrenaline wears off and bleed out either way like a knife wound.

>Not allowed: Junk food (coco-pops, waffles, nutella, etc).
>Not allowed: Excessive, uncontrolled eating.

>Not any old food, just food that is objectively part of the aforementioned "well balanced breakfast", as specified by nutrition scientists that are qualified in dietetics.
Fuck off, nigger. if my right to keep and eat food shall not be infringed, I'll eat whatever disgusting rotten food I see fit and you can fuck off.

In fact, my breakfast isn't even a God-given right restricted from being infringed upon by the government in the Constitution and I'll still eat some garbage I find outside my apartment. Suck a dick, faggot.

No, it refers to the free state because that is the last noun.