do you people even know what the 2nd ammendment says ?

[C_Clayton_Jones]

it gives the right to bear arms to a "well regulated militia", not to people, not to individuals or home or business owners, that was to legislate for the raising of a police force. lawyers argued that you or your house or your family could be considered a militia, which is why you have guns now, but that was never the intention and its not even what the constitution says.

The Constitution, as with the Second Amendment, exists only in the context of its case law.

The case law states there is a Constitutional right to self-defense, and to possess a handgun pursuant to that right:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[RetiredGySgt]

it gives the right to bear arms to a "well regulated militia", not to people, not to individuals or home or business owners, that was to legislate for the raising of a police force. lawyers argued that you or your house or your family could be considered a militia, which is why you have guns now, but that was never the intention and its not even what the constitution says.

The militia's were made up of private citizens. Another libtard trying to justify gun control. The Gov't., dimwits, want to take our guns so we can't protect ourselves against their socialist acts.

Okay, smartass, then you can own 1-2 of these ARMS:

And after you pass the background test... 1 of these:

Fine if we use your logic then you have no freedom of speech on the internet, on a computer or phone. Further you have no right to privacy while using a phone, the internet or any other modern device.

 

[AmericanFirst]

it gives the right to bear arms to a "well regulated militia", not to people, not to individuals or home or business owners, that was to legislate for the raising of a police force. lawyers argued that you or your house or your family could be considered a militia, which is why you have guns now, but that was never the intention and its not even what the constitution says.

The militia's were made up of private citizens. Another libtard trying to justify gun control. The Gov't., dimwits, want to take our guns so we can't protect ourselves against their socialist acts.

Okay, smartass, then you can own 1-2 of these ARMS:

And after you pass the background test... 1 of these:

I would love to own one of those classics to go with my ar15, 2 9mm's, and my remington 870 12 gauge pump, that I am allowed to own under the US Constitution.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The militia is comprised of private citizens, not the army...That's why there are two separate words to describe and discern between them.

You really suck at the English language, dontcha?

Why not personal nuclear weapons? What's having a mere gun going to do against the power of the state?

The conservative interpretation of the amendment is pretty dangerous.

I quoted it provide us the justification it does not say an individuals right to possess and own a firearm is not to be infringed.

 

[Sallow]

Clearly, you have NFI, or you wouldn't have needed to copy-n-paste that dreck.

The 2nd Amendment militia comprises private citizens...Always has, always will...Period...End of sentence.

And your grasp of English still sucks.

so what, the army is composed of private citizens, so can people have a tank if they want too ? idiot

The militia is comprised of private citizens, not the army...That's why there are two separate words to describe and discern between them.

You really suck at the English language, dontcha?

Original intent had the army made up of people from the militias.

We weren't meant, at least constitutionally, to have professional soldiers.

 

[KudoZ]

The intent behind this was for the American People to have the ability to form a militia should their own government become too oppressive and thus have the ability to protect themselves. The abuses are in the history of all of Europe and the great minds of our new world, which came from all of those countries knew it had to be a part of this new nation. The individual had to have the means to defend himself against his own government. It's pretty damn plain if you just look a little deeper.

 

[Avorysuds]

OP starts thread on 2nd Amendment but doesn't even understand it!

Typical "low information" Liberal/Socialist/Communist.

its conservatives not understanding it thats the problem, nowhere does it say people can have guns, never.

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.


Seems simple... a little too simple... So of course it must actually mean you ~!don't!~ have the right to bear arms... Yes, that's it!

 

[konradv]

The militia is comprised of private citizens, not the army...That's why there are two separate words to describe and discern between them.

You really suck at the English language, dontcha?

Why not personal nuclear weapons? What's having a mere gun going to do against the power of the state?

The conservative interpretation of the amendment is pretty dangerous.

Hell, it's the same logic they use when they go from same-sex marriage to questioning if that means polygamy and beastiality would be legal too.

 

[Sallow]

The militia's were made up of private citizens. Another libtard trying to justify gun control. The Gov't., dimwits, want to take our guns so we can't protect ourselves against their socialist acts.

Okay, smartass, then you can own 1-2 of these ARMS:

And after you pass the background test... 1 of these:

Fine if we use your logic then you have no freedom of speech on the internet, on a computer or phone. Further you have no right to privacy while using a phone, the internet or any other modern device.

As per the Bush administration..

You don't.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Every time there is a tragic event like this, the "anti-gun" crowd comes out with more pure bullshit. The "gun" didn't kill ANYBODY. The mentally ill crazy son of a bitch that plotted this crime is what did the killing. He used a gun but he could have just as easily of used a baseball bat. Want to ban baseball bats too?

Quick question.............do you think that this individual would have been able to kill 20 children aged 7-10, and 6 adults with a baseball bat before being brought down?

If you do, you're stupider than I thought.

 

[AmericanFirst]

OP starts thread on 2nd Amendment but doesn't even understand it!

Typical "low information" Liberal/Socialist/Communist.

its conservatives not understanding it thats the problem, nowhere does it say people can have guns, never.

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.


Seems simple... a little too simple... So of course it must actually mean you ~!don't!~ have the right to bear arms... Yes, that's it!

Nesta is simple minded and wrong.

 

[Oddball]

so what, the army is composed of private citizens, so can people have a tank if they want too ? idiot

The militia is comprised of private citizens, not the army...That's why there are two separate words to describe and discern between them.

You really suck at the English language, dontcha?

Original intent had the army made up of people from the militias.

We weren't meant, at least constitutionally, to have professional soldiers.

No...The professional army was federal, while the militias were strictly state-run organizations.

A professional army was provided for in the Constitution and its funding is limited to 2-year periods....You can look it up.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Why not personal nuclear weapons? What's having a mere gun going to do against the power of the state?

The conservative interpretation of the amendment is pretty dangerous.

Hell, it's the same logic they use when they go from same-sex marriage to questioning if that means polygamy and beastiality would be legal too.

You said it logic, something libtards lack.

 

[Sallow]

The intent behind this was for the American People to have the ability to form a militia should their own government become too oppressive and thus have the ability to protect themselves. The abuses are in the history of all of Europe and the great minds which came from all of those countries knew it had to be a part of this new nation. The individual had to have the means to defend himself against his own government. It's pretty damn plain.

No it wasn't.

Congress has the power to call out the militia to suppress insurrection.

Read the Constitution.

 

[ABikerSailor]

OP starts thread on 2nd Amendment but doesn't even understand it!

Typical "low information" Liberal/Socialist/Communist.

its conservatives not understanding it thats the problem, nowhere does it say people can have guns, never.

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.


Seems simple... a little too simple... So of course it must actually mean you ~!don't!~ have the right to bear arms... Yes, that's it!

Would a "well regulated militia" allow their guns to be in places that they could get ripped off? Would a "well regulated militia" allow their members to go in movie theaters and kill over 30 people?

Doesn't sound very "well regulated" to me. But then again, I was actually IN the military, and I know about the procedures that MUST be followed when checking a gun in and out of the armory, as well as know about the behavior expected of us while carrying said gun on patrol.

 

[Sallow]

The militia is comprised of private citizens, not the army...That's why there are two separate words to describe and discern between them.

You really suck at the English language, dontcha?

Original intent had the army made up of people from the militias.

We weren't meant, at least constitutionally, to have professional soldiers.

No...The professional army was federal, while the militias were strictly state-run organizations.

A professional army was provided for in the Constitution and its funding is limited to 2-year periods....You can look it up.

Oh right.

Which is why the Continental army was disbanded.

No professional army is provided for..

 

[konradv]

OP starts thread on 2nd Amendment but doesn't even understand it!

Typical "low information" Liberal/Socialist/Communist.

its conservatives not understanding it thats the problem, nowhere does it say people can have guns, never.

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.


Seems simple... a little too simple... So of course it must actually mean you ~!don't!~ have the right to bear arms... Yes, that's it!

It says "the people", i.e. a complete gun ban would be unconstitutional. It does not prohibit preventing certain individuals from owning weapons. So, things like licenses and background checks are only common sense methods for making sure they don't fall into the wrong hands. If the amendment was meant to be universal, they would have used the word "person", as found in other amendments.

 

[Sallow]

its conservatives not understanding it thats the problem, nowhere does it say people can have guns, never.

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.


Seems simple... a little too simple... So of course it must actually mean you ~!don't!~ have the right to bear arms... Yes, that's it!

Would a "well regulated militia" allow their guns to be in places that they could get ripped off? Would a "well regulated militia" allow their members to go in movie theaters and kill over 30 people?

Doesn't sound very "well regulated" to me. But then again, I was actually IN the military, and I know about the procedures that MUST be followed when checking a gun in and out of the armory, as well as know about the behavior expected of us while carrying said gun on patrol.

Heh..seems the defense of the state and the well regulate militia stuff is just fluff.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The intent behind this was for the American People to have the ability to form a militia should their own government become too oppressive and thus have the ability to protect themselves. The abuses are in the history of all of Europe and the great minds which came from all of those countries knew it had to be a part of this new nation. The individual had to have the means to defend himself against his own government. It's pretty damn plain.

No it wasn't.

Congress has the power to call out the militia to suppress insurrection.

Read the Constitution.

Helps if you actually read the Constitution.

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

Article I | U.S. Constitution | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[Againsheila]

it gives the right to bear arms to a "well regulated militia", not to people, not to individuals or home or business owners, that was to legislate for the raising of a police force. lawyers argued that you or your house or your family could be considered a militia, which is why you have guns now, but that was never the intention and its not even what the constitution says.

It's intention, according to our forefathers, was to arm the populace so that we could overthrow a corrupt government.