Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"Well regulated militia" was probably put in there accidently.The rightwing will cite court precedent for this issue, but they don’t actually offer an explanation for why it should be interpreted this way.
Should this apply to 5 year olds? Should it be made legal for kids to buy firearms from a licensed firearm business because of how this is interpreted?
Lol is this a serious answer or are you telling a joke?"Well regulated militia" was probably put in there accidently.
The phrase can be confusing, it really doesn't need to be there.Lol is this a serious answer or are you telling a joke?
Then you should be able to just answer the question right now.You need to read and comprehend the entire wording of the 2A. Taking just one piece of it, is nonsensical and ignorant
The militia was we the people, more commonly known as any able-bodied male. That was the definition at the time of writing of the Constitution. Able body is any male that can shoot and defend their nation. 5 year old's is a real stretch...The rightwing will cite court precedent for this issue, but they don’t actually offer an explanation for why it should be interpreted this way.
Should this apply to 5 year olds? Should it be made legal for kids to buy firearms from a licensed firearm business because of how this is interpreted?
Great idea thread !The rightwing will cite court precedent for this issue, but they don’t actually offer an explanation for why it should be interpreted this way.
Should this apply to 5 year olds? Should it be made legal for kids to buy firearms from a licensed firearm business because of how this is interpreted?
Its only confusing to those who do not know the meaning of the language at the time of writing.The phrase can be confusing, it really doesn't need to be there.
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.Then you should be able to just answer the question right now.
Where is the justification in the constitution that it refers ONLY to able bodied men? If that were true, should we be making it illegal for a woman to buy a gun?The militia was we the people, more commonly known as any able-bodied male. That was the definition at the time of writing of the Constitution. Able body is any male that can shoot and defend their nation. 5 year old's is a real stretch...
The punctuation means things...Billy, you've lost this fight. The right to own firearms -- for any reason, or no reason at all -- is an individual right.
Have you ever read the Federalist papers? Studied them? They are the debate of why we do the thing we do and what the terms meant at the time. I suggest you do. They will answer a whole lot of the questions you ask.Where is the justification in the constitution that it refers ONLY to able bodied men? If that were true, should we be making it illegal for a woman to buy a gun?
a well regulated militia is a well armed and supported civilian military,,The rightwing will cite court precedent for this issue, but they don’t actually offer an explanation for why it should be interpreted this way.
Should this apply to 5 year olds? Should it be made legal for kids to buy firearms from a licensed firearm business because of how this is interpreted?
But why can we be sure the context of the right to bear arms applies to any context outside of a well regulated militia?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.
Answered.
Moron... "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" Note the words.. THE PEOEPLE. gender was not assigned.Where is the justification in the constitution that it refers ONLY to able bodied men? If that were true, should we be making it illegal for a woman to buy a gun?
because it says so right there in the 2nd ABut why can we be sure the context of the right to bear arms applies to any context outside of a well regulated militia?
