"A well regulated militia"

[Dirty D]

I keep hearing and seeing debates about the meaning of "a well regulated militia", this is a total red herring argument and when I politely ask people if they are going to quote the 2nd to quote the whole amendment and not half of it. My request is usually met with blank stares and or silence. There are several forms of the 2nd floating around but the 2nd AS RATIFIED says:

"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."

Basic reading comprehension AND legal interpretation is that the militia part is dependent on the right of the people and the right of the people IS NOT dependent on the militia. I have cornered 3 different attorneys that are not 2a friendly and they agree that as written the right of the people is NOT dependent on the militia so please stop debating what a well regulated militia means and point out the rights of the people shall not be infringed.

eta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Back to your regularly scheduled fuckery

 

[_Windrider_]

one must understand what well regulated means in the Kings English. Its not regulated as in by the government. its regulated as in armed trained and ready.

 

[Veer_G]

I suggest that we all start taking laxatives and/or consuming bran.

I'd hate for them to argue that we don't constitute a "well regulated militia."

Or, at the very least, the thought that we might be as equally full of shit as our political opposition.

 

[2ndamendfan]

I have posted this before. Their "interpretation" is that Because we NEED and army (militia) then the people MUST have guns to control the Militia.
Watch before responding to my comments

 

[FS1]

I keep hearing and seeing debates about the meaning of "a well regulated militia", this is a total red herring argument and when I politely ask people if they are going to quote the 2nd to quote the whole amendment and not half of it. My request is usually met with blank stares and or silence. There are several forms of the 2nd floating around but the 2nd AS RATIFIED says:

"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."

Basic reading comprehension AND legal interpretation is that the militia part is dependent on the right of the people and the right of the people IS NOT dependent on the militia. I have cornered 3 different attorneys that are not 2a friendly and they agree that as written the right of the people is NOT dependent on the militia so please stop debating what a well regulated militia means and point out the rights of the people shall not be infringed.

eta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Back to your regularly scheduled fuckery

A regulated Militia in their day was disciplined drilled and a proper Chain of command.


I understand it to mean you have a right to bear arms and you may use those arms to form a regulated militia.

 

[2ndamendfan]

I understand it to mean you have a right to bear arms and you may use those arms to form a regulated militia.

WRONG!!!
Use those arms to fight the militia.

 

[_Windrider_]

I have posted this before. Their "interpretation" is that Because we NEED and army (militia) then the people MUST have guns to control the Militia.
Watch before responding to my comments

i always liked P&T. Libertarians.

 

[FS1]

The citizens are the Militia. They are not reg army they may assist the reg army or they may fight the reg army.

Look up the definition.

 

[Nik H]

I keep hearing and seeing debates about the meaning of "a well regulated militia", this is a total red herring argument and when I politely ask people if they are going to quote the 2nd to quote the whole amendment and not half of it. My request is usually met with blank stares and or silence. There are several forms of the 2nd floating around but the 2nd AS RATIFIED says:

"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."

Basic reading comprehension AND legal interpretation is that the militia part is dependent on the right of the people and the right of the people IS NOT dependent on the militia. I have cornered 3 different attorneys that are not 2a friendly and they agree that as written the right of the people is NOT dependent on the militia so please stop debating what a well regulated militia means and point out the rights of the people shall not be infringed.

eta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Back to your regularly scheduled fuckery

DirtyD,

Are you surprised? Look at the other thread in the pit where managers and cashiers at Walmart couldn't calculate what 90% off on the price of an item meant.

It is freaking sad and keeps America FROM becoming great again

 

[FS1]

It is sad with all the resources we have, basic skills are so lacking.

But we have always had those folks. Un-Educated does not make you un-American. Actions decide that. Many un-Educated died for our Flag.

 

[...]

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...."

meaning a well armed (read, 'regulated') populous (the 'militia' refers to common people coming together into fighting units) is necessary to ensure the freedom and safety of said people(read, 'security of a free state')

".....The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"

meaning the people have a right to own weapons( read, 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'), and no laws are to be made hampering that(read, 'shall not be infringed')


Im fucking dyslexic and i even my dumb ass can understand this......its not written in code.......its in fucking plain english.

 

[W54/XM-388]

The all important part is the comma.
It's a lot easier to pull the wool over the eyes of the stupid sheeple these days as so many in America are barely literate and don't understand how a simple , changes the meaning of sentence and why it was specifically put there.

Sometimes I think the problems we have with the constitution being shredded are helped along by the fact that the writers of the bill of rights were a bit too educated and loved their perfect sentences and educated structure. Perhaps if they had put things a bit more crudely and made it about 3 times as long by writing everything out including all the redundant things, we might not be in some of the messes that we find ourselves in.

 

[_Windrider_]

The all important part is the comma.
It's a lot easier to pull the wool over the eyes of the stupid sheeple these days as so many in America are barely literate and don't understand how a simple , changes the meaning of sentence and why it was specifically put there.

Sometimes I think the problems we have with the constitution being shredded are helped along by the fact that the writers of the bill of rights were a bit too educated and loved their perfect sentences and educated structure. Perhaps if they had put things a bit more crudely and made it about 3 times as long by writing everything out including all the redundant things, we might not be in some of the messes that we find ourselves in.

they spoke a very proper and different english than us modern day heathens do. I mean ebonics is a recognized dialect now. Thats all you need to know.

 

[...]

Sometimes I think the problems we have with the constitution being shredded are helped along by the fact that the writers of the bill of rights were a bit too educated and loved their perfect sentences and educated structure. Perhaps if they had put things a bit more crudely and made it about 3 times as long by writing everything out including all the redundant things, we might not be in some of the messes that we find ourselves in.

nope.....we absolutely still would.....its not how its written.....its written just fine and anyone that reads it knows what it says.....and if they try to argue other wise they are wrong and THEY know it.

the thing is....they dont care whats written.........they know what it means and they dont agree with it, so they try to find any excuse to justify their beliefs....making shit up if they have to.....and eventually believing their own lies.

the 2A could read "no laws are ever to be made about guns and gun ownership"......and you would still have people arguing that it doesnt apply.

ive heard more than one person say that they dont care what the Constitution says.....and the the law is outdated and doesnt apply anymore......

its not the wording....the wording is fucking black and white........its people not wanting to accept what it says, so they play ignorant in hopes of duping other people and finding justification.

 

[Dirty D]

The all important part is the comma.
It's a lot easier to pull the wool over the eyes of the stupid sheeple these days as so many in America are barely literate and don't understand how a simple , changes the meaning of sentence and why it was specifically put there.

Sometimes I think the problems we have with the constitution being shredded are helped along by the fact that the writers of the bill of rights were a bit too educated and loved their perfect sentences and educated structure. Perhaps if they had put things a bit more crudely and made it about 3 times as long by writing everything out including all the redundant things, we might not be in some of the messes that we find ourselves in.

Read it with and then without the comma, the bit about the militia is still a dependent statement and the bit about the people is still an independent statement.

 

[myronman3]

i dreamt about this post a month ago.....someone went off the deep end and got banned.

i have no idea why or how, but that was how my dream happened. one would think i could dream about things a helluva lot more interesting.

 

[Veer_G]

they spoke a very proper and different english than us modern day heathens do. I mean ebonics is a recognized dialect now. Thats all you need to know.

Well, Ebonics, or Black/African-American Vernacular English, is a dialect, and we do recognize it, because it's in common use, no matter how much that chaps your ass.

The wording of our historical documents was precise, according to the commonly understood standards of their day, where precision was of paramount importance to avoid attempts at partisan redefinition of intent or prevarication. The intentions were eternal in their truths, but the fact is that the cloth of language written then may not have worn well enough, or still drape properly, in order for the common man to easily absorb its unassailable truths. In that detail resides a gnarly jinn. And, in glaringly contradistinct fashion to my prior assertion, the Second Amendment lies open, exposed to argument, because of one iota of punctuation. I know in my heart its intent, but it has become a scab at which ardent revisionists constantly pick. I will brook no challenges to the Constitution and its Bill of Rights as the preeminent precepts of legal procedure and governance in this Republic, until such time as they are lawfully changed according to provisions already set forth by those who came before us, undoubtedly guided by the hands of an all-wise and benevolent Creator, so help me God. That is my blood oath.

 

[diverdon]

WRONG!!!
Use those arms to fight the militia.

The Militia is all of us.

 

[Spooky68]

I have posted this before. Their "interpretation" is that Because we NEED and army (militia) then the people MUST have guns to control the Militia.
Watch before responding to my comments

I never tire of watching this. I especially love how he ends it.

 

[QuickNDirty]

i dreamt about this post a month ago.....someone went off the deep end and got banned.

i have no idea why or how, but that was how my dream happened. one would think i could dream about things a helluva lot more interesting.

What's the deal with people dreaming about threads? I did that the other day... weird stuff going on around here.

 

[DuneBoer]

Been lookin’ at buying a well regulated 577 Nitro in a Westley Richards.

 

[pmclaine]

Every other freedom declared as hands off by govt intrusion in the Bill of Rights is an individual freedom yet the second amendment was intended as a right of the collective government?

Is that what we are to believe?

That argument fails on its face as well is not supported by source writings.

Anything but individual right is a lie.

 

[pmclaine]

Everyone of you needs to get a copy of the Second Amendment Primer.

https://www.amazon.com/Second-Amendment-Primer-Adams/dp/B000ZM34TW?tag=pda0ea-20

Its cheap, pocket sized, packed with source material. Buy the leather bound version its like a little work of art.

Instead of cheap ass made in china hats the NRA would be better served sending a copy of this to every member so they could go armed into the battle of ideas.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Let's not forget the phrase "being necessary for the security of a free state..."

Kind at the heart of the issue....

Cheers,

Sirhr

 

[...]

Every other freedom declared as hands off by govt intrusion in the Bill of Rights is an individual freedom yet the second amendment was intended as a right of the collective government?

Is that what we are to believe?

That argument fails on its face as well is not supported by source writings.

Anything but individual right is a lie.

Exactly.....

The constitution was designed to limit govt power.

People claiming we dont need guns because "the govt will protect us" is like saying a someone can violate a restraining order so long as they promise not to harm the victim

 

[_Windrider_]

Exactly.....

The constitution was designed to limit govt power.

People claiming we dont need guns because "the govt will protect us" is like saying a someone can violate a restraining order so long as they promise not to harm the victim

to limit federal govt power.

 

[...]

to limit federal govt power.

'Supremacy clause' Article VI of the constitution dictates that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and must be followed by state and federal govts.

 

[_Windrider_]

'Supremacy clause' Article VI of the constitution dictates that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and must be followed by state and federal govts.

agreed. but the free state language is so that the states remain superior to the federal government. thats the point right? to protect from an all reaching tyrannical federal government. we are splitting hairs. we r on the same page.

 

[pmclaine]

Exactly.....

The constitution was designed to limit govt power.

People claiming we dont need guns because "the govt will protect us" is like saying a someone can violate a restraining order so long as they promise not to harm the victim

Listen to this Constitutional scholar fuck that truth all up.....

 

[L.R.Novice]

If you fall into the trap of arguing about the second amendment you have already lost the debate. Because to get there you are conceding that guns caused these tradegies but they can’t take them away because we have the second amendment.

Stay on topic. Firearms are not the cause. Banning firearms is not the solution. You won’t even need to fall back on the second amendment.

And if it comes down to it, we don’t need to argue about the second amendment. The Surpreme Court has ruled multiple times that the second amendment applies to the common citizen. Everyone else’s opinion is worthless

 

[ArmyJerry]

Well, When it really comes down to it we don't have to argue about the 2nd Amendment, or any amendment for that matter, because of the 2nd Amendment. I just tell people I ain't giving up any more rights and if they want to take my guns come over and do it yourself, that always shuts them up.

If you fall into the trap of arguing about the second amendment you have already lost the debate. Because to get there you are conceding that guns caused these tradegies but they can’t take them away because we have the second amendment.

Stay on topic. Firearms are not the cause. Banning firearms is not the solution. You won’t even need to fall back on the second amendment.

And if it comes down to it, we don’t need to argue about the second amendment. The Surpreme Court has ruled multiple times that the second amendment applies to the common citizen. Everyone else’s opinion is worthless