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

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:

image.php


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

3.jpg

Okay, Smartass, YOU show me where the Second Amendment lists the SPECIFIC "arms" which we have the right to keep and bear, and then we'll concede the point. If it doesn't list any specific arms to which we're limited, I guess you're full of shit.
 
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.

Do you live in this country?
 
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? :lol::lol::lol:

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.

The leftist interpretation of the Amendment is even worse.
 
the one that was keeping the peace in classrooms full of small children it seems
 
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.

OK let's take a look at the second amendment it's a two part amendment

the first part is
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
Which gives the state the right to have a militia

The second part
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Gives to people the right to keep and bear arms to form that militia.
Now the supreme court has ruled that the only firearm that is protected by the second amendment are those of common use by the military.

I hope this helped.

exactly, you make my point for me, the right to keep and bear arms to form that militia, meaning guns are fine within the context of a militia, not individuals owning guns just cause they want to and might fancy shooting someone someday, so they can form a militia ie police force national guard border patrol etc.
 
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.

LOL...poor widdle liberal..never heard of "The Minutemen" have ya!



too funny.....
 
Then you neither know English nor that the militia is made up of individuals.

So far, you're O-fer. :lol:

the dictionary definition of militia, youll note individuals are not included

The term militia ( /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] or irregular army, is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[2] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. It is a polyseme with multiple distinct but related meanings. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:
Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.[3]
The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces.
The national police forces in several former communist states such as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries, but also in the non-aligned SFR Yugoslavia. The term was inherited in Russia, and other former CIS countries. See: Militia (Police).
In France the equivalent term "Milice" has become tainted due to its use by notorious collaborators with Nazi Germany.[citation needed]
A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population,[4] often politicized.

However, the right of the people to bear arms sounds to me like it means individual citizens. Otherwise, the authors of the amendment were trying to justify the bearing of arms only by people representing the government even if the government were tyrannical.
Bearing arms was for owning guns for livelihood (hunting game) and also to fight tyrannical government.

Banning guns won't stop gun massacres. The gun laws in Mexico are more severe than ours and look at how easily they obtain guns.

erm yeah, they obtain guns in america you clown lol
 
thats why the mexican govt has asked you to sort out your gun laws, most of the murders committed there are using guns bought in america.
 
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

I believe you actually CAN buy a tank, if you can afford it.

decommissioned you can, not with the weapons system intact you cant. you can buy a figher jet too, but they take the rockets and machine guns off before you get it.
 
the dictionary definition of militia, youll note individuals are not included

The term militia ( /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] or irregular army, is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens[2] to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. It is a polyseme with multiple distinct but related meanings. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:
Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.[3]
The entire able-bodied population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or state defense forces.
The national police forces in several former communist states such as the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries, but also in the non-aligned SFR Yugoslavia. The term was inherited in Russia, and other former CIS countries. See: Militia (Police).
In France the equivalent term "Milice" has become tainted due to its use by notorious collaborators with Nazi Germany.[citation needed]
A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population,[4] often politicized.
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

Really, there is no need for you to sign your posts...we already know who and WHAT you are....:badgrin:
 
Sorry OP....this guys words count for a LOT more than yours!

"The most important reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, if necessary, at last resort to protect themselves from tyranny in government."

Thomas Jefferson
 
thats why the mexican govt has asked you to sort out your gun laws, most of the murders committed there are using guns bought in america.

Illegally obtained firearms. They broke the law to obtain the firearms, so putting more laws in place will cause more laws to be broken.
 
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

Really, there is no need for you to sign your posts...we already know who and WHAT you are....:badgrin:

:lmao:
 
In 1939, the Court defined militia in US v. Miller. Might check Cases v. US also. If those cases have not been overturned by now they just may stand for our lifetime. Court hates to change its decisions.
 
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.

You are arguing with the wrong people, my friend.

IN spite of what anyone THINKS the constitution says, in reality it means whatever the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) says it means. The court has already determined that the Section you quote is an individual right independent of the need for a "well regulated militia." Since your interpretation of the Document is inconsistent with that of the SCOTUS, you are wrong. There is no debate, at least not with members of this forum. Your debate is with the SCOTUS.

Good luck on that one.

There are many SCOTUS decisions I disagree with, including those involving the "Commerce Clause;" however, once the SCOTUS has ruled, their determination is legally biding on the nation. There is no appeal from the highest legal authority in the country so you have to live with their rulings.

PS: There are many people who agree with your interpretation. Unfortunately, the only ones who count are the nine with the black robes.
 
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.

You are arguing with the wrong people, my friend.

IN spite of what anyone THINKS the constitution says, in reality it means whatever the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) says it means. The court has already determined that the Section you quote is an individual right independent of the need for a "well regulated militia." Since your interpretation of the Document is inconsistent with that of the SCOTUS, you are wrong. There is no debate, at least not with members of this forum. Your debate is with the SCOTUS.

Good luck on that one.

There are many SCOTUS decisions I disagree with, including those involving the "Commerce Clause;" however, once the SCOTUS has ruled, their determination is legally biding on the nation. There is no appeal from the highest legal authority in the country so you have to live with their rulings.

PS: There are many people who agree with your interpretation. Unfortunately, the only ones who count are the nine with the black robes.

What part of the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED don';t some people understand?
No court ruling congressional legislation or executive order as the authority or power to trump that.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top