Assault Weapons Ban would be unconstitutional. "A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
9,023
Reaction score
2,047
Points
290
Location
GNO
Thirdly, "the militia" now is the "unorganized militia" which is every male from a certain age to a certain age, and the National Guard. The "unorganized militia" exists as a non-entity to stop people demanding their right to "bear arms", otherwise known as the right to be in the militia.
This is the area that interests me. The 2nd Amendment seems pretty clear: 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.

Okay. So, a couple of points:

First, it doesn't say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's saying the people can join an actual militia to protect their security.

You are right, it does not say that so one wonders why you even bring it up as it is not relevant in any way.

What it CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY states is that the right of the people. Not the right of the state, not the right of the government, not the power of a state, not anything other than the right of the people. Period. End of story. ESDG

The second is clearly an individual right as are EVERY SINGLE OTHER RIGHT mentioned in the BoR. The BoR is, was and forever will be limitations on what the federal government can do. EVERY. SINGLE. AMENDMENT. All of them in the BoR are limitations on the feds in respect to the people. They are not prescriptions on powers the feds have which is exactly what you are making this out to be - a power that the feds or the state has rather than a right the people have.

That the AND is missing from the amendment does not mean the right of the people does not exist. Rather it directly contradicts your statement, if the and had existed THEN you might have a point in claiming you have the 'right' to join a militia however it does not. Even then it would be take pretzel logic to make that key point go away, that the amendment directly states the right of the people. The prefatory clause is clearly outlining the purpose of the right: Well regulated militias are important for a free state as the founders knew because the 'well regulated' militia was key in making the US a free state. Because the militia is made up of the people, they must both be armed and in well regulated order. That is exactly what Miller found:

" The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998). "

Heller also covers the idea that you 'can join' a militia as something you are simply interjecting into the meaning. The militia is, essentially, everyone.
"Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment , we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise … Armies”; “to provide … a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men."

Second, it's pretty clear when it says "well regulated". That means that the governing authority can regulate militias as it sees fit, just as it can regulate an army as it sees fit. So those who join the militia must submit to regulations.
Well, no and Heller addressed that as well:

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

Which has actually been used in the past but fell out of traditional use pretty quickly after the nation was established. Either way, the prefatory statement not only does not remove the individual right but it would be rather nonsensical to demand that the necessity of a well trained militia being necessary for a free state would somehow equate to removing the right that such a well regulated force would require to exist at all. It is an illogical conclusion to draw.

Nowhere does it infer that individuals can be running around like Yosemite Sam.
Nope, it never says we can run around like Yosemite Sam but no one anywhere is advocating for that so your straw man is pointless. You start out stating that the meaning of the second is pretty clear, make a statement about what it does not say and then go on to utterly and unequivocally ignore the text of the second applying what you want it to mean.

Here is the bottom line - it is a simple fact that the second protects your individual right to bear arms that are both in common use throughout the nation and in military use, period. Trying to read that out of the amendment is simply not possible while being honest with its intent or wording. I get it that many think the amendment is outdated and incorrect in a modern society considering the changes that have happened to arms in the intervening 2 centuries. However, it requires an amendment to change the second and nothing less will do. The left has been trying to pretend basic terminology means something it does not because they know that bar is high but that is simply not going to work. Stop trying to reinterpret the second to something it is not.
I just read the Amendment. I didn't add anything, I didn't subtract anything. Looks pretty clear.
No, you made up what you wanted the amendment to say as it does not say anything even remotely what you claim. I have shown you quotes from Heller that establish what those phrases actually mean.

Then, you ignore all of that, ignore the plan reading of the text and reassert you just 'read' the amendment. Try again.

Heller. A perfect example of the rampant cognitive dissonance of the right. They will talk and talk about how terrible judicial activism is, and then at the same time celebrate the greatest incident of judicial activism in American History, Heller.

conservative jurists were quick to criticize Heller as lacking two supposed hallmarks of judicial conservatism: an unbiased review of the evidence about the meaning of the Second Amendment and, given ambiguity about that meaning, judicial restraint. Justice Scalia’s opinion, these judicial conservatives argued, deployed an unbalanced historical analysis, reached a questionable conclusion about a constitutional right, and failed to defer to the judgments of elected officials.


Yes, the justices in Heller were definitely playing up to a base and not saying what they knew the Amendment meant.
Sure, because they disagree with you....

No, you want your narrative on top so you claim it is everyone else doing such. If you don't like Heller then address exactly why would be far more effective. The reality is the second is clear in one aspect, the right of the people. You can quibble all you want about what the militia is and means in the prefatory clause but that does not get around that simple fact.

Heller defines judicial activism because, for the first time in American history, the court ruled that the second amendment pertained to an individual right to self defense. Scalia, like he often did, twisted and distorted both the words of the founders and jurist prudence, to come up with a preconceived outcome that centered more on politics than legal standing. He was a disgrace to the legal profession.
That does not make it activism. You do not need to read a personal right into the second. The plain reading already has it there. Further, the BoR in its entirety refers to personal rights and they are there to outline rights that preexist government. Indeed, the BoR is a partial list of things that the government is forbade from getting involved in. To make the second about anything other than an individual right is not supported. Finally, making a judgment for the fist time is not activism or every single time a major ruling is made it would activism. To define the term that widely makes it useless.

Delusional, did you forget the tenth? And tell me, for two hundred years there was no personal right to self-defense read into the second amendment. Countless decisions by courts at all levels, and suddenly, everything changed with Heller. Like I said, Militia is in the second amendment, self-defense is not. Why?

Wrong.


“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776


“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787


“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787


“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776


“A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr, August 19, 1785


“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824


“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823


“I enclose you a list of the killed, wounded, and captives of the enemy from the commencement of hostilities at Lexington in April, 1775, until November, 1777, since which there has been no event of any consequence … I think that upon the whole it has been about one half the number lost by them, in some instances more, but in others less. This difference is ascribed to our superiority in taking aim when we fire; every soldier in our army having been intimate with his gun from his infancy.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to Giovanni Fabbroni, June 8, 1778




“To disarm the people…s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788


“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.” – George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788


“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.” – Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787


“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.” – James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788


“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778


The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms, like law, discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. And while a single nation refuses to lay them down, it is proper that all should keep them up. Horrid mischief would ensue were one-half the world deprived of the use of them; for while avarice and ambition have a place in the heart of man, the weak will become a prey to the strong. The history of every age and nation establishes these truths, and facts need but little arguments when they prove themselves.” – Thomas Paine, “Thoughts on Defensive War” in Pennsylvania Magazine, July 1775

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.” – Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,752
Reaction score
7,251
Points
290
All of the above pertains to a "Well Regulated Militia" which by the way was used all the way through the Civil War.

Nothing there has to do with personal protection.
 

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
9,023
Reaction score
2,047
Points
290
Location
GNO
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
Assault weapon bans are very constitutional. The US Congress passed one in the 1990s and many states have them.
What is an "assault weapon" ? I keep asking this question an none of you can give a straight answer.
 

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
9,023
Reaction score
2,047
Points
290
Location
GNO
All of the above pertains to a "Well Regulated Militia" which by the way was used all the way through the Civil War.

Nothing there has to do with personal protection.
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,752
Reaction score
7,251
Points
290
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
Assault weapon bans are very constitutional. The US Congress passed one in the 1990s and many states have them.
What is an "assault weapon" ? I keep asking this question an none of you can give a straight answer.
It is essentially semi-auto magazine fed long gun.
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,752
Reaction score
7,251
Points
290
All of the above pertains to a "Well Regulated Militia" which by the way was used all the way through the Civil War.

Nothing there has to do with personal protection.
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
For use in the militia...as per the 2A
 

AsherN

VIP Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2016
Messages
230
Reaction score
38
Points
78
Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is necessary to the security of a free State. The People are the militia.

The Framers also did not want or believe in a standing army, hence the need for a civilian militia
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
24,752
Reaction score
7,251
Points
290
Our Second Amendment is clear as to what is necessary to the security of a free State. The People are the militia.

The Framers also did not want or believe in a standing army, hence the need for a civilian militia
Of course we now HAVE the most advanced standing Army in the world and the militia doesn't exist any longer.
 

Viktor

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 21, 2013
Messages
2,420
Reaction score
2,524
Points
1,930
Location
Southern California
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
Assault weapon bans are very constitutional. The US Congress passed one in the 1990s and many states have them.
What is an "assault weapon" ? I keep asking this question an none of you can give a straight answer.
It is basically a semiautomatic rifle of medium length.
 

OldLady

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 16, 2015
Messages
68,562
Reaction score
18,714
Points
2,220
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
There is no states militia anymore.
 

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
9,023
Reaction score
2,047
Points
290
Location
GNO
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
Assault weapon bans are very constitutional. The US Congress passed one in the 1990s and many states have them.
What is an "assault weapon" ? I keep asking this question an none of you can give a straight answer.
It is basically a semiautomatic rifle of medium length.
That describes many hunting rifles. Try again.
 

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
9,023
Reaction score
2,047
Points
290
Location
GNO
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
Assault weapon bans are very constitutional. The US Congress passed one in the 1990s and many states have them.
What is an "assault weapon" ? I keep asking this question an none of you can give a straight answer.
It is essentially semi-auto magazine fed long gun.
And you have described many types of hunting rifles. I'm still waiting.
 

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
9,023
Reaction score
2,047
Points
290
Location
GNO
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.
There is no states militia anymore.
Citizen Soldiers otherwise known as the National Guard.
 

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
9,023
Reaction score
2,047
Points
290
Location
GNO

ThunderKiss1965

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
9,023
Reaction score
2,047
Points
290
Location
GNO
All of the above pertains to a "Well Regulated Militia" which by the way was used all the way through the Civil War.

Nothing there has to do with personal protection.
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
For use in the militia...as per the 2A
You must be dyslexic or something is really fucked up with you comprehension skills, because no where in that quote does it mention the Militia.
 

airplanemechanic

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
12,554
Reaction score
6,306
Points
1,065
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.


So?

We already have that.

It's called the National Guard. Every state has their own National Guard. I volunteered and was a member off the National Guard for my state when I was in my 20s. I have no doubt you never even took the entrance exam much less volunteered to serve our nation.

It is not unconstitutional to ban assault weapons.

Clinton did it when he was president. The law lasted 10 years. The bush boy was president when it ended with the republicans in control of the congress so they didn't renew the law.

Your post screams just how down right stupid and ignorant of the law you are.

Your post shows just how fucking stupid you are.

The Clinton AWB did NOTHING. It didn't even BAN THOSE TYPES OF WEAPONS. The bill didn't apply to ANY guns manufactured BEFORE 1994 so they could be purchased and sold just like any others. That bill was so full of holes they called it the swiss cheese bill.

The law stated if you purchased one it had to have at least 5 American parts. I BOUGHT an Ak-47 DURING the AWB with a background check from a licensed FFL dealer. It had the required American parts, not for long, but it did at the time of purchase.

Another AWB could only do the same thing. You cannot suddenly make 25 million Americans criminals when they wake up in the morning. The conservative SCOTUS would tear that apart in a minute.

I love how ignorant people call others ignorant.
 
Last edited:

CowboyTed

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 22, 2014
Messages
9,876
Reaction score
2,840
Points
290
Location
Ireland
The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

The National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

It would also mean they would have a list of men and the weapons (with serial Numbers ) they have.

As it is the Government job to uphold the law the state police (by federal law, in the constitution) should be able to check any back to the owner on a database within reasonable time...

Also a militia would have some responsibility for there members use and more importantly misuse of a firearm... To protect themselves they would need to avail of an insurance of the actions of all there members......

So not banning Assault Weapons but you must be a member of a well regulated militia..
 

Mac1958

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2011
Messages
83,183
Reaction score
27,392
Points
2,280
Location
Opposing Authoritarian Ideological Fundamentalism.
Thirdly, "the militia" now is the "unorganized militia" which is every male from a certain age to a certain age, and the National Guard. The "unorganized militia" exists as a non-entity to stop people demanding their right to "bear arms", otherwise known as the right to be in the militia.
This is the area that interests me. The 2nd Amendment seems pretty clear: 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.

Okay. So, a couple of points:

First, it doesn't say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's saying the people can join an actual militia to protect their security.

You are right, it does not say that so one wonders why you even bring it up as it is not relevant in any way.

What it CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY states is that the right of the people. Not the right of the state, not the right of the government, not the power of a state, not anything other than the right of the people. Period. End of story. ESDG

The second is clearly an individual right as are EVERY SINGLE OTHER RIGHT mentioned in the BoR. The BoR is, was and forever will be limitations on what the federal government can do. EVERY. SINGLE. AMENDMENT. All of them in the BoR are limitations on the feds in respect to the people. They are not prescriptions on powers the feds have which is exactly what you are making this out to be - a power that the feds or the state has rather than a right the people have.

That the AND is missing from the amendment does not mean the right of the people does not exist. Rather it directly contradicts your statement, if the and had existed THEN you might have a point in claiming you have the 'right' to join a militia however it does not. Even then it would be take pretzel logic to make that key point go away, that the amendment directly states the right of the people. The prefatory clause is clearly outlining the purpose of the right: Well regulated militias are important for a free state as the founders knew because the 'well regulated' militia was key in making the US a free state. Because the militia is made up of the people, they must both be armed and in well regulated order. That is exactly what Miller found:

" The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998). "

Heller also covers the idea that you 'can join' a militia as something you are simply interjecting into the meaning. The militia is, essentially, everyone.
"Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment , we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise … Armies”; “to provide … a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men."

Second, it's pretty clear when it says "well regulated". That means that the governing authority can regulate militias as it sees fit, just as it can regulate an army as it sees fit. So those who join the militia must submit to regulations.
Well, no and Heller addressed that as well:

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

Which has actually been used in the past but fell out of traditional use pretty quickly after the nation was established. Either way, the prefatory statement not only does not remove the individual right but it would be rather nonsensical to demand that the necessity of a well trained militia being necessary for a free state would somehow equate to removing the right that such a well regulated force would require to exist at all. It is an illogical conclusion to draw.

Nowhere does it infer that individuals can be running around like Yosemite Sam.
Nope, it never says we can run around like Yosemite Sam but no one anywhere is advocating for that so your straw man is pointless. You start out stating that the meaning of the second is pretty clear, make a statement about what it does not say and then go on to utterly and unequivocally ignore the text of the second applying what you want it to mean.

Here is the bottom line - it is a simple fact that the second protects your individual right to bear arms that are both in common use throughout the nation and in military use, period. Trying to read that out of the amendment is simply not possible while being honest with its intent or wording. I get it that many think the amendment is outdated and incorrect in a modern society considering the changes that have happened to arms in the intervening 2 centuries. However, it requires an amendment to change the second and nothing less will do. The left has been trying to pretend basic terminology means something it does not because they know that bar is high but that is simply not going to work. Stop trying to reinterpret the second to something it is not.
I just read the Amendment. I didn't add anything, I didn't subtract anything. Looks pretty clear.
you just glazed over the second amendment you cherry-picked certain words but overlooked keep and bear arms
Well yes. I thought that would pretty obvious. That's pretty much the point of a militia. Nice try.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top