What did they mean by this?

What did they mean by this?

Other urls found in this thread:

constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm
guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Shall not be infringed. Even if the economy topples we must have at least one person on payroll in the military.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

national guard

The syntax of that whole sentence suggests that all citizens should have a right to own guns and one of the benefits of that right is that there would a well-armed militia.

it means that today everyone should have AR-15s and plate carriers with thousands of rounds of ammunition

>What did they mean by this?
Clearly that Cletus in Alabama has the right to own a tank because tyranny

They meant a well-equipped and well-trained populace.

Shall not be infringed. All people must be allowed to have guns so some may form a militia.

One-posts are not content. They are paid trolling. Sage and hide or ignore.

That the militia should be allowed to arm themselves with modern, working gear.

The militia is all men over 17, by law.

that a well regulated militia is a right of the american people and nothing should be done to impede citizens from forming into one. including the ownership of weapons

It means we have the god given right to organize and train militan groups in America sofar as they're following the constitution.

& also probably on a murderous rampage but we also pet the clintons do that so...

The use of the word "arms" certainly suggests military-grade equipment, no?

Post the entire thing you retard.


SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Then you'd agree the government has the right to regulate it to whatever degree they see fit?

Something archaic, that has long since lost it's purpose.
If anything, it just means The Military now.

You can buy disarmed tanks no problem, yet you don't see anyone driving them around. Price, supply & maintenance costs will always be the biggest factor when someone considers arming themselves.

Well regulated just meant well armed at the time.

It just says arms. That's a very wide umbrella. Let every citizen decide what arms it wants. If there is a seller for it, there should also be permitted a buyer for it.

SHALL

NO
Are you a fucking retard?
Wait, don't bother answering, your original comment is more than enough evidence.

Obviously they were suggesting that our military should have the right to bear arms. There's really no other way to interpret it. Thanks to this amendment, we don't have to live in fear of our military not having any weapons. Truly ground breaking stuff from our founding fathers.

They meant a militia in good working condition, as that was the meaning of "regulated" at the time.

If you want to continue to argue semantics, we can look at the militia act of 1903 which actually defines the militia.

It would be all able-bodied males ages 17-45.
The 14th amendment extends this to all ages and women.

You can also look at first drafts of the 2nd amendment to see why they kept changing it to see their intentions. They also noted that the purpose of the amendment was self-defense and to give the means to citizens to overthrow the government if the time came.

You also need to learn grammar as
>A well balanced breakfast, necessary to the start of any good day, the rights of the people to keep and consume food shall not be infringed.

Which brings me to my final point.

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

>Reductio ad absurdum
Thanks for playing

it means restock your ammo

Well-Regulated = Normally organized and equipped(like what a standing army has)
Militia = Armed citizenry

>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.
It means that without the people's right to keep and bear arms, a well regulated militia is impossible.

NOT

They obviously meant a fat inbred redneck can stockpile 20 AR 15s.

disciplined and trained.

We don't need guns man.
We need love.

is there any proof of that because it sounds retarded
that's kind of for the government to decide, no? well regulated and such

constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

>The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

> 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

> 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

> 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

> 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

> 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

> 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

>The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

In the context of the time it was written, the term "regulated" is more akin to saying trained or an intimate understanding of its operation and use.

With the intention of the state's being sovereign and coming together under a common banner, the federal government was never supposed to have a standing army. And all citizens are responsible for ensuring that they are prepared to contribute to the state militia in times of war. That means owning and understanding how to use arms of the time.

why would they give the citizens the right to overthrow their government? that's retarded. they already had a democratic means for systemic change in their document.

the constitutional convention was called mainly because they were scared shitless after shays' rebellion and the weak government that allowed it to happen. if you recall, daniel shays was rising up against a government he saw as tyrannical with guns. why, on earth, would the government grant people like shays the right to rebel whenever they so pleased?

The Supreme Court decided it extends to individuals. Heller decision.

Well regulated meant some in proper working order, so It meant the militia which is the whole people, should be skilled with weapons and tactics

>constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
yeah half the links on this website are broken and it doesn't look like much more than an activist paleoconservative project

Well regulated meant in proper working order, so It meant the militia which is the whole people, should be skilled with weapons and tactics*

Not an argument.

>Supreme court changes american society in any way
"god damn those liberal activist judges"
>Supreme court legislates gun rights out of thin air, overturning previous unanimous precedent
"muh freedom"

If Heller decision ever gets overturned then theoretically the word militia could mean whatever the court interprets it to mean.

its not a militia at this point its an army lol

well-equipped

Well equipt and trained body of citizen soldiers.

It means the people shall have access to the most up to date weapons

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

i'm saying that a couple choice and unsourced quotes from 1714 about education don't mean shit, especially when the only legal backing this website has is a law professor's email address

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

>5-4
The 2nd amendment being an individual right is disputable at best.

Look mummy i can use latin

>why would they give the citizens the right to overthrow their government?
not like they'd had any experience in that regard or anything
it was a fall back if the democratic means for change was no longer feasible

Tomato is a vegetable for this reason. The supreme court decided. I could have sworn they ruled it was a fruit not a vegetable though. Guess I misremembered.

You have to remember this was written at a time where guns were pretty much the main weapon of the time, sure there were cannons and warships but if your rebellion just had guns you could have made a very big impact.

It really makes me wonder if the founding fathers could for see the military future that exists to do where any form of militia/rebellion could be easily stamped out by government owned armaments.

Here's one fully sourced
lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

>i'm saying that a couple choice and unsourced quotes from 1714 about education don't mean shit,
They are sourced through the Oxford English Dictionary, as the site says right there on that page. Stop being intentionally retarded.
>especially when the only legal backing this website has is a law professor's email address
Another ad hominem, and a strange one at that. Do you think that law professors aren't reliable sources of information about law?

literally nothing wrong with this if he can afford it, the citizenry should always have the option of being as armed as their government

SHALL

The Supreme Court Justices being unbiased is disputable at best.

fucken checked too

Wouldn't this just lead to corporate militaries fighting for power?

>well regulated
means that the militia can supply its own weapons an ammunition, and know how to use them

the militia would have to be in a well regulated state to maintain the security of a State, regulating arms falls under infringement

that seems kind of ridiculous, don't you think? The assumption that a tyrannical government whose citizens had long exhausted their means of changing the government would respect a byzantine and poorly worded law from 1791?

seems incredibly naive if you believe any of that bullshit

"[The Second Amendment] has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word 'fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime."
--- Former Chief Justice Warren Burger

I don't know user, did it?

well-regulated in those days meant organised, not restricted by government

Maybe it is, but that's what the intention was regardless of my opinion on how feasible it actually is

>mfw you see somebody this retarded

lol this guy is a breitbart writer, anyone with a law degree you can cite?

They started stamping out gun rights 100 years ago before WWII, so they never really got a chance to.

That the people can have guns so long as they are frequently checked and regulated by the government/police

There's a reason you didn't post the whole thing.

we need a a well regulated BY THE PEOPLE militia right fucking NOW.

TO ARMS
IF THE CUNT (((WINS)))
BURN THIS BITCH TO THE FUCKING GROUND
BETTER TO BURN THE WORLD THAN LET THE EVIL SCUM HAVE IT

properly equipped

regulated gun ownership, but the right to own gnus can never be revoked

>shall
>not
>be
>infringed

Yes. "Arms" as in armaments, which is basically everything from pea-shooters to howitzers.

the law definitely protects my right to a bazooka then, right?

A counterbalance to a standing army.

Unrelated to the second clause

yumadtho?

He is a lawyer

Yes. That is just a $200 tax stamp and a Form 4 away from being owned by any American..

...

Only the state run military should have guns and the government could take them away whenever.

They meant this:

That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

look i have links too

guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Yes.

This is the correct answer.

Large portions of the military would defect if anything ever happened which actually justified a large scale civilian uprising (not a group of schizophrenics in the woods, the common man).

However much smaller forces would defect if there was not already armed conflict and they just had to stand by and let the police round up dissenters with minimal violence. Which is why armed citizenry is important.

Also by the time the bill of rights was ratified there was already a repeating rifle in use by a major military power in the world (a pneumatic rifle. Say what you want about air pressure but it was adopted by a legitimate military and seriously considered by others). The founders also witnessed their citizenry, equipped in many cases with MORE advanced modern muskets and rifles than what the british had, leverage that advantage with superior accuracy.

Field artillery was also a thing, including explosive shells. To say that the founders did not foresee at least automatic weapons and more advanced forms of artillery is ridiculous.

Also at the time private ownership of warships was a thing, and there were plenty of privately contracted warships.

You can argue they might not have seen nuclear weapons or something, but anything the modern singular foot soldier has access too is easily something that could have been predicted at the time.

And regardless of all that, even if we do the stupid 'it means muskets only :^)' argument, that means i aught to be able to sail a 100 gun warship into a major port city. Something tells me they wouldnt let me.

An armed force of average citizens with relative internal discipline.

You can buy fully functioning tanks too...

Regulated, as in a well stocked and funded. As in citizens. Get over it already. Guns are not going away.

They meant the governemnt should be scared of the populace.

it means old navy can have guns to defend themselves from those albino abos that storm the place daily

Problem? ;^)

(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.

10 US Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

sexy

Correct. And current ATF destructive device taxes which make it moderately more difficult to own one are blatantly unconstitutional.

Everyone should decide for themselves what it means.

Why should we be forced to accept an interpretation imposed on us by nine unelected judges?

A kind of nine-headed pope.