What is a “well-regulated militia” and why are we so sure it refers to everyone?

[Billy000]

It clearly doesn't apply in the context of a militia, which is why you have to edit it out every time, Simp.

And yet you still have failed to explain why the militia phrase is in there and what it means.

 

[kaz]

Uhh no. Kids have freedom of speech right away.

This doesn't contradict what I said, moron

Other laws have specific age requirements. Those aren’t the same thing.

No, and this still doesn't contradict anything I said

The first amendment can easily be compared to the 2nd.

In what way? How is giving a five year old free speech like giving him a gun? Wow that's stupid. You need to go back and think through your argument and stop babbling

 

[Lesh]

Who says?

Mrs. Grammar says

 

[kaz]

And yet you still have failed to explain why the militia phrase is in there and what it means.

It means the first use of guns was to protect citizens from the oppressive government that you support. Note again if you could read you'd notice it's an explanation of the right, not a limit on the right. Reading at this point for comprehension is obviously something you've given up on

 

[BS Filter]

Mrs. Grammar says

Wrong. You obviously don't comprehend why the comma is after the words "free state".

 

[Nostra]

And yet you still have failed to explain why the militia phrase is in there and what it means.

Because I don't need to, Simp.

 

[BS Filter]

This thread is a classic example of people that are indoctrinated to read something that isn't there, and reject what clearly is there. Cultic thinking.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Uhh we are talking about how laws are written here. The law makes clear on military age, driving, and alcohol. Those have specific ages involved. The 2 amendment does not have this. Take the 1st amendment for example. Kids have freedom of speech. That doesn’t start at a certain age. They just have it. If we use that same logic, you could argue we should be giving guns to kids. Since we all agree young kids should not have guns, we already have a gun control law in place and we are all fine with it. Any further ones should be allowed.

Really? so an 9 year old can tell their parents fuck you with no adverse effect?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Lol you righttards really struggle with basic nuance huh? It’s something beyond your comprehension I guess. Pushing for some level of gun control does not automatically equate to supporting gun confiscation and banning all guns altogether. It’s such a stupid, emotional, juvenile notion.

We can RIGHTFULLY assume that you INTEND to eventually ban and confiscate, given that your attempts to do so in pressing the Heller matter failed.

So, forgive us if we find your lying ass untrustworthy and believe that you FULLY intend to ban and confiscate. Your credibility is shitty.

And you don't even fucking know what the word "nuance" even means, you goddamn idiot. You just parrot it because your Marxist superiors told you to say it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

“A well regulated militia being necessary…”

Is simple one of any number of reasons the right exists it does not control nor limit the right, which if you knew english I wouldnt need to explain.

 

[Billy000]

This doesn't contradict what I said, moron



No, and this still doesn't contradict anything I said


In what way? How is giving a five year old free speech like giving him a gun? Wow that's stupid. You need to go back and think through your argument and stop babbling

It’s pretty simple how they can be compared. Neither one makes any mention of children being excluded from having the right, therefore you could interpret it to mean kids should be able to buy guns under or any circumstance. The founding fathers may not have intended that consequence, but a judge could make the argument if he or she wanted to because we don’t know for sure. Since it is illegal for kids to buy guns from a licensed business, we already have a gun control law. From there, it’s easy to justify having more gun control laws.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Is simple one of any number of reasons the right exists it does not control nor limit the right, which if you knew english I wouldnt need to explain.

Exactly. Who are the people who do not understand the term "nuance"?

 

[Billy000]

We can RIGHTFULLY assume that you INTEND to eventually ban and confiscate, given that your attempts to do so in pressing the Heller matter failed.

So, forgive us if we find your lying ass untrustworthy and believe that you FULLY intend to ban and confiscate. Your credibility is shitty.

And you don't even fucking know what the word "nuance" even means, you goddamn idiot. You just parrot it because your Marxist superiors told you to say it.

Lol wow that last paragraph really illustrates how stupid you are. Marxists did not come up with that word idiot.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Clearly… since it is mentioned first.. the. Militia clause is citing the reason for what follows

No it is simply provided one of what could be unlimited reasons it does not LIMIT the right, again if you knew english you would know this.

 

[kaz]

It’s pretty simple how they can be compared. Neither one makes any mention of children being excluded from having the right, therefore you could interpret it to mean kids should be able to buy guns under or any circumstance. The founding fathers may not have intended that consequence, but a judge could make the argument if he or she wanted to because we don’t know for sure. Since it is illegal for kids to buy guns from a licensed business, we already have a gun control law. From there, it’s easy to justify having more gun control laws.

Gotcha, well, that's true then. If we give 5 year old kids free speech then they are entitled to guns.

Wow, you're a fucking moron, and a racist

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It’s pretty simple how they can be compared. Neither one makes any mention of children being excluded from having the right, therefore you could interpret it to mean kids should be able to buy guns under or any circumstance. The founding fathers may not have intended that consequence, but a judge could make the argument if he or she wanted to because we don’t know for sure. Since it is illegal for kids to buy guns from a licensed business, we already have a gun control law. From there, it’s easy to justify having more gun control laws.

Ah, yes. The famed appeal to alleged fake tradition coupled with the strawman.

Why don't we start with what they actually wrote and stop adding bullshit straight from your gun-grabbing ass?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Since you are an asshole, your posts are pointless

Clearly the first phrase (followed by the comma) describes why the second phrase is there

It does not LIMIT it to ONLY that reason retard,

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Mrs. Grammar says

No it doesnt in english the part before the comma does NOT LIMIT the part after.

 

[Billy000]

Gotcha, well, that's true then. If we give 5 year old kids free speech then they are entitled to guns.

Wow, you're a fucking moron, and a racist

lol I’m sorry a racist? What? And yes, my point is could you argue that point if you wanted to. You already know exactly what I meant about this point. You’re just pretending otherwise. It’s so stupid.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And yet you still have failed to explain why the militia phrase is in there and what it means.

I will.

The founders just fought a fucking war with a tyrant who tried to take away their weapons and munitions.

Thus, we, the founders, are creating this FedZilla monster which will get way out of control if we don't lock it down.

Therefore, because a militia (separate from government) is necessary, we are not going to let this new FedGov infringe the PRE-EXISTING right of the people to keep and bear arms.

In sum, it is operatively a ban on federal authority.