Alright Sup Forums it's friday night, let's cut the bullshit, what the fuck does it mean:
""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
must gun owners be members of a militia? how are we to regulate those militias?
it really does NOT appear to say "free gunz for everyone!"
Literally, it means that a militia (all able bodies men of America) is necessary for the security of a FREE state.
Since the militia is necessarily separate from the government, as it is intended to overthrow a tyrannical government, the people collectively must not be barred from owning weaponry in order to form said militia.
That being said, I do not support the 2nd amendment in its current incarnation. It gives far too much power to the common plebe.
>must gun owners be members of a militia?
No.
It's a prefatory clause, provided as a form of justification but which is ultimately optional.
If you want to interpret it any other way you have to reimagine the fundamental facts of contract law which is at the end of the the backbone of our entire society.
>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.""
WRONG
THE RATIFIED VERSION DOES NOT HAVE THAT COMMA
THAT COMMA IS ONLY USED BY SHILLS
IT IS NOT LAW
...
so in my interpretation of these posts the "militia" is just anybody, literally synonymous with citizen. why would they have not used the word citizen then?
both of you also dodged the question of the regulation of the militia, which is clearly stated.
>so in my interpretation of these posts the "militia" is just anybody, literally synonymous with citizen. why would they have not used the word citizen then?
Because not all citizens are able bodied mens, and the militia is further comprised of only those citizens who wish to join in it.
As for the well regulated part, I'm not entirely sure, someone else will have to explain it.
>Too much power to the common pleb
Blow it out your ass
:^)
Well regulated doesn't mean what you think it does shill
YOU DODGED THE FACT THAT YOU PUT A COMMA THAT IS NOT ON THE RATIFIED VERSION
WITHOUT THAT COMMA IT IS AN UNBROKEN STATEMENT
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
The mention of regulation is irrelevant since the entire clause is irrelevant. We could talk about the changing meanings of words, how in the 1700s 'regulate' had a more similar meaning to 'maintain' than the connotations of oversight regulation it has today, but there's no point, since the Amendment, from a legal point of view consists of "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, and by implication the right of the citizenry to bear arms is necessary for the existence of a well-regulated militia of whatever form)".
Militia =/= citizen. A militia is made up of citizens, and so all citizens are potential militia members, but they're not interchangeable.
Is punctuation really that mysterious to you op?
No serious constitutional scholar has any doubt as to the meaning of the Second Amendment
...
Learn to English, faggot (and NO, I don't mean cigarette you cunt).
We've had an English professor break the fucking wording down, and what was the result?
You and your little mindless drones pushing gun control are wrong. Also - how does it feel being so weak-minded and weak-willed that you eat up lies from the left because they just laws thing as being "moderate" and "sensible" when it is everything but.
The stats fucking prove the left is insane and those following them are fools. With this globalism seeping through the political woodwork, we can also see that bans are in fucking favor of protecting non-residents who rape, murder, and beat the citizens of the country they are guests in. IE: gun bans protect globalists slave labor force. Also - it doesn't create jobs for people, it takes jobs away from some and gives them to others. How the fuck can you people believe in this bullshit.
It means that since it doesn't specifically mention America, we have to make sure that people all over the world can keep and bear arms just like us. SHALL
It's invoking centuries of English tradition, demonstrated nearly a hundred years earlier in the Glorious Revolution.
I honestly want a rule where you need to have read certain things before talking. I realize that's unenforceable and impossible but OP would have no point if he knew any history. At least watch In Search Of The Second Amendment.
You do not have a right to an opinion on something about which you know nothing.
Plain and simple
well to bad thats how its been interpreted. no going back. you can talk about what you think it means all you want. state level adjustments are as much as you will get
"Because a well-equipt militia is needed to secure a free state, the right of people to have to own and use arms can not be taken"
...
>to wrongly limit and restrict
Does this imply that it can be rightly or justly limited and restricted?
>to
>Equipt
Stop being stupid, Sup Forums.
I agree, wording needs to be changed, in no place does it say you can take rights away from specific people, like criminals.
If they decide to use a gun illegally, tough shit, shoot them dead and the problem is over.
At that time, well-regulated was synonymous with competence, orderly, working.
>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
So what its saying is since a competent and capable milita is important to maintain a free state, the government will not infringe upon the possessing and utilization of arms.
Reminder this is what the REAL America was about, and how they handled problems before the communists took over.
>the right of the people
>shall not be infringed
Thanks for Correcting The Record
They handles problems like that because there was very little government or civil infrastructure on the frontier, leaf.
Bounty and vigilante justice were the only ways to have a modicum of rule of law in the west, and sheriffs were an attempt to at least have a modicum of regulation and official sanction.
>in no place does it say you can take rights away from specific people, like criminals.
Also, it should say that somewhere in the constitution, it sounds like an excellent amendment.
>le typo invalidates argument
That's pretty much implied in English common law.
Because we need a militia that can hit what it's aiming at... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...
All guns are protected.
this is the only post I see that seeks to define "well regulated" and it's definition is pretty weak. I'm not an anti-gun shill I'm literally curious and trying to inform myself to the views of those who care a lot about guns.
"a well regulated militia" is the clause that gun grabbers attack from what I see, as it seems to imply the government is capable of issuing regulations to these militias, or at least determining if they are "well regulated."
just fuck off with your comma, faggot. literally everywhere has it present and it doesn't even make a difference.
> ,
What did they mean by this?
a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
any other interpretation is intentionally disingenuous
The only two pictures that need to be in these threads. I'll admit it's been a while since I've seen anti fun shills around here.
kys
Such an uncivil retort - plebs are trash!
there is absolutely nothing to interpret
>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
>SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
fuck off
You mean "the right of the people (comma) shall not be infringed"
Was it just a typo or wtf? I would love an explanation of this
The new world order wants to ban guns before they take over so they can come in with little opposition.
Gun control is whittling away americans right to bear arms until there is nothing left.
If we are to prevent the take over of the world then we must do our duty to keep armed.
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
This is commentary, merely justifying the part that has actual force:
>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This does not define or describe a right, but *references* one, which was commonly counted among "the absolute rights of every Englishman":
en.wikipedia.org
The primary justification for the American Revolution and establishment of the United States of America as an entity independent of British rule was the claim that the colonists were being denied their established rights as full citizens.
For instance:
en.wikipedia.org
>subjects who are Protestants may bear arms for their defence as permitted by law
So it was referring to a complex and nuanced feature of the English common law, in which it was understood that, unless special disqualifications applied, men had a general right to own conventional weaponry such as firearms and swords, and to carry them in a ready-to-use condition under many common circumstances, subject to various limitations and restrictions (for instance, none of the founding fathers would have objected to the idea that people may be prevented from entering a courthouse or drinking establishment armed with a loaded pistol, or prevented from storing several large barrels of gunpowder in a house in the middle of a dense city).
In any case, as originally written and interpreted, the US constitution could only restrain the federal goverment from interfering with the right to keep and bear arms, not state or local governments. This was stated in stronger terms than the first amendment, which says only that "Congress shall make no law", but it amounted to the same thing, right up until the time of Lincoln, who invented the power of the federal government and its constitution to control the laws of the states.
the fact that the phrase "shall not be infringed" is in there should be a pretty big giveaway
'Well regulated' was a common phrase amongst the settlers and old english which honestly could be synonymous with "well equipped". It is not talking about government regulation
But it reads, "a well regulated militia, (), shall not be infringed"
no it says "(), being necessary to the security of a free state, (), ()"
In the writing style of the day, commas were inserted arbitrarily at convenient times for the reader to take a breath.
In modern punctuation style it would be:
"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."
Every other argument is moot. This is the correct answer
Thanks thats a decent explanation but I will have to verify it. Im progun but that comma is the lefts best shot (lol) at killing the 2nd A
breakfasts aren't needed. calories that meet the TDEE are. you fat shit. stay off of fit, you're not even worthy to fill the captcha out.
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
Given that this statement is true
>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
We propose the following be part of our constitution.
It doesn't imply that you must be in a militia to own a weapon. It says you should be able to own a weapon given the possibility that a militia needs to be formed.
Here's a long writeup on this subject.
There really is no simple explanation when you get into analyzing original intent
What if liberals purposely changed our venacular through the schools to render the Constitution meaningless?
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE
H
E
R
I
G
H
T
O
F
T
H
E
P
E
O
P
L
E
A well educated citizenry, being necessary to the longevity of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.
that is honestly what I'm wondering while reading through .
regulate:
1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.
3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.
4) To put in good order.
[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.
the obsolete version really seems to be the one that pertains here. really giving me a sense of futility of law given the morphing nature of our language (and especially the rate of change in modern society). only the jews and their traditions of mythological law passed down through rabbis seem to be able to prevail.
1. "Well-regulated" means "well-equipped" and "well-trained"
2. The need for a well-regulated militia is why the people's right shall not be infringed. It is a reason, not a condition.
3. It is not "if". It is not "when". It is not "as long as". It is "because". Even if a militia does become no longer necessary, it doesn't matter; the people's right still cannot be infringed
4. The people are a militia
5. It's the people's right, not the militia's
Ok, here's the breakdown. Militia is generally defined as a (very0 basic fighting unit made up of the general communities men/teens. They were well regulated to a point, they had cohesion and knew how to conduct battle. They were necessary because redcoats, and because redskins. It would take months to move armies across this vast land. Help would never come.
Now people just seem to forget this or just don't give a fuck; "being necessary to the security of a free state.". The colonies became states. Each state had their own governments, laws, and currency. Eventually the 13 original colonies/states decided to form a federal government to make standards that carry across state lines, think currency, units of measure and such. Back when these words were written, states had much more power than the federal government. Only in the past 150 years (see civil war and who won) The Federal Government that controls everything came about, and oversteps more each year.
Reading this amendment and breaking it down like that make me believe that the founders wrote it strictly for thesituations we've been finding ourselves in.
And no not free gunz for everyone one, but guns for the people smart enough that they don't want america's boot on their neck anymore and would want to be in that milita. Can have a militia without people that have guns.
Citizens need to remember that there is such a thing as states rights, the state can tell the federal gov to fuck off in some cases. Citizens need to realize just how much power the federal is grabbing, and god willing if they could read and comprehend, they would get fucking livid and start protesting while forming a state militia on the side. (yes it is a thing, and don't putt that "source" bullshit on me. just type with your sausage fingers "pa state militia")
Why can the militia not be supplied with arms from the government?
>the states should have rights
That would imply the states have sovereignity over the federal government, which is absolute ludicrous.
The federalists were right and the anti-federalists were absolute idiots.
Because our government and representatives are so far disconnected from the people that elected them (and continue to elect them or at least not impeach them) that they have formed their own tribe from the bowels of DC and now live to serve their corporate overlords and will suck as much dick as they can to make as much money as they can before the entire operation either implodes or is beaten senseless.
Disarming citizenry is step 1 in any successful oligarchy.
It doesnt imply that at all.
Rights simply limit the scope of federal jurisdiction. Individuals have rights but are not above the federal government
Spoken like a true bootlicker. What is wrong with confederation? Many of our problems could be solved if the power came from the people, moved to the state government, and then moved to the federal government.
Wow.... just wow. I thought I did a decent job writing that out so any 4 chan moron could read it and hopefully learn something. Learn to read and comprehend before coming at me kiddo.
>today sucked after all
youtube.com
This video is all you need.
OVER MY COLD DEAD HANDS
We should all remember the state of the American governmental system at the time of writing. The federal government was an absolute husk of what it is today. You would not fear the federal government stepping on YOUR rights, but the rights of your state. If you had personal fear of a tyrannical government it would be local/state.
In either such case, it would be necessary for the common people to unite against such tyranny, or at the very least act as a deterrence from such tyrannical actions as to prevent there occurrence in the first place.
It is in this essence in the extreme, that THE PEOPLE themselves are their own best defense.
As such, their RIGHT to keep and bear arms, for such security of our free state, shall not be infringed.
Why would I trust the people who elected those idiots in the first place?
>What is wrong with confederation?
The articles of.
I did learn something, and I learned that you're an absolute cuck who is supportive of what amounts to nothing more than overblown administrative regions telling their immediate superiors to fuck off.
Kek, the government already has its own militia. Its called the fucking armed forces.
Now lets say our federal government decides to declare martial law and get every citizen organized, chipped, educated, and working in a utopian society. I have a feeling that many people on this board wouldn't like that and would rebel against this government,
oh noes, where do we get guns user? i don't think our kitanas are a match for soldiers. if only we hadn't let them take our guns we would have already formed a militia and have been fighting for our freedom!
holy fuck you kids these days are dense as fuck.
militia and people are referred to separately.
Well-regulated in the context of the English language at the time means functioning as in functioning weaponry.
constitution.org
Because the Constitution Starts with "WE THE PEOPLE" you dumb fuck. The document is meant for everyone of the United States of America. Only elite reptile aliens make it separate
>""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.""
yay freedom and social responsibility
>must gun owners be members of a militia?
in a way yes as in all male citizens over the age of 18 are legally in a militia anyway -see militia act laws-
>how are we to regulate those militias?
we already do with the draft register, census, and social security numbers being more then that is required to regulate a citizen militia
>it really does NOT appear to say "free gunz for everyone!"
in effect it does as it says any free citizen can and really should own a weapon independent of government services and regulation to help defend "the people" from "enemies foreign and domestic"
US v Miller, 1939.
And here comes the cuck calling. how about instead of being 15 and trying to be edgy you go read a book. Maybe something along the lines of the birth of the United States. Oh but before that practice your reading and comprehension skills! Once you do these two things hopefully you'll learn the the US is actually a REPUBLIC, and miraculously you may learn that CONFEDERATION is a form of government.
>articles of the confederation. holy kek. you better start to learn and think for yourself or you're going to find yourself on the wrong end of the rope kiddo.
ctrl-f SHALL
........................................................
SHALL
In my views, I believe that "Well regulated" means well equiped and armed.
"properly trained" seems to be the consensus, but yeah, same shit.
it appears to me that we should have to have an amendment to the constitution just to institute gun registration laws, is this Sup Forums's view? does Sup Forums believe we should be able to freely own nukes?
>Now lets say our federal government decides to declare martial law and get every citizen organized, chipped, educated, and working in a utopian society
Wew lad, this is some primo fucking projection. You might want to stop watching those dystopian movies, and stop jacking off into 1984.
>he disagrees with me
>which means he knows absolutely nothing!
Top zozzle lad.
>Once you do these two things hopefully you'll learn the the US is actually a REPUBLIC
No fucking shit, Sherlock; it's a republic, as it should be.
> and miraculously you may learn that CONFEDERATION is a form of government.
NO FUCKING SHIT, SHERLOCK. The difference between a republic and a confederation, is that a confederation is absolutely pants-on-head retarded, and I'm glad America ditched the idea early on.
>holy kek. you better start to learn and think for yourself or you're going to find yourself on the wrong end of the rope kiddo.
>he disagrees with me, therefor he's a prisoner of wrongthink!
I'll save a chip, just for you, user :^)
Read as such
>(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 second part of the sentence is the active part of the sentence. The first part is an adjunct.
There was literally no such thing as U.S. citizen ship until the 14th amendment, that's why you shill.
state also means both the USA and each individual state
>Own nukes.
I can't tell if your baiting or not.
But if you aren't here's the thing: A nuclear weapon is completely different from a firearm. A nuke can wipe out an entire city and then some, an AR cant.
So you're saying that weapons should be restricted based on their destructive potential; where do you draw that line?
Can citizens own missiles?
How about artillery or cannons?
Heavy machine guns?
Vehicles mounted with non-small-arms?
Grenades?
He's being stupid. Only a few people have the money to maintain everything for a nuke. I don't have the money for an AR yet but have hand guns.
Holy kek I really hope you're just trolling the shit out of me and not really this retarded. Reading your refutations is actually depressing for lack of understanding even one thing I've wrote.
>Kek help us all.
I think a big thing to consider when escalating to the topic of nuclear bombs is to understand HOW they are different.
A rifle, a cannon, a sword, all have a distinct target size of "a group of men" or smaller.
modern bombs could certainly be said to have a more indiscriminate character to their ability to kill unintended targets, or a necessary collateral damage, that puts them in a different category of arms.
They already can.
But if you're to stupid to draw the line and you have to make the "LOL SHOULD CIVILIANS BE ABLE TO OWN NUKES?" argument.
Yeah, but still, he's using the same libtard argument.
GTFO filthy europoors
we know, not even Iran can make one but when the nine years now are up they can buy everything for one.
It doesn't matter. We have common law. Written things don't mean anything. Whatever the judges of the day decide the written shit means? The written shit doesn't even then need to be changed. Just. They talk. Nothing in addition gets written. You need to figure these all out. And they are now just like the written. But more powerful and retarded
>Holy kek I really hope you're just trolling the shit out of me and not really this retarded.
It's about 87.5% trolling, famillia. Checked btw.
What about very large cannons then that shoot powerful explosives?
What about the vehicles used to mount them?
What is the appropriate number of men I should be able to kill, by myself or with a small group, with a single weapon?
>They already can.
Yes, but SHOULD they be able to? Where should the line be drawn?
a well regulated militia armed with ARs could take out an entire city too, so what?
>shall not be infringed.
Focus on the commas it uses
A well regulated militia armed with AR's is not a singular weapon, it's alpha strike is considerably less than that of a nuclear weapon, and its potential for collateral damage is also quite low.
if you have enough power to convince not just the us government, but the other governments in the world that you should be allowed to have a nuke, you're already well above the level where you care about federal law.
Wex legal dictionary has the comma.
>american flags