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

[RetiredGySgt]

Not “limit” … it explains why the following is there

No it does not it simple provides one of any number of reasons. the militia part does not limit nor restrict the right of the people,

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The people in the context of a militia. Duh.

Reading comprehension and syntax isnot your strength:

The people have the right to food, but only in the context of a balanced diet, right?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It is the ONLY reason listed in the Constitution

So?

It still doesn't diminish the right of the people.

 

[Leo123]

No it does not it simple provides one of any number of reasons. the militia part does not limit nor restrict the right of the people,

Exactly!! As I repeated to these idiots, there can be no militia without a populace with the right to bear arms. These lefties have a penchant for reversing meanings.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

This isn’t in the constitution.

But it is a quote from a founding Father.

 

[Billy000]

Wrong again, a militia cannot be formed with unarmed individuals.

I’m talking about the ownership of their guns being used in the context of a militia only.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

No it does not it simple provides one of any number of reasons. the militia part does not limit nor restrict the right of the people,

And it doesn't say "as long as a militia is necessary." It makes a declaration of the same before CLEARLY restricting the federal government.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I’m talking about the ownership of their guns being used in the context of a militia only.

That's not what it says, dipshit. A militia is necessary. Not if necessary. IS necessary. THEREFORE the right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed.

 

[Billy000]

That's not what it says, dipshit. A militia is necessary. Not if necessary. IS necessary. THEREFORE the right of the PEOPLE shall not be infringed.

Lol umm okay it is necessary. A militia is. God it. What’s your point? That doesn’t somehow explain it.

 

[Leo123]

I’m talking about the ownership of their guns being used in the context of a militia only.

Again THERE IS NO MILITIA WITHOUT AN ALREADY ARMED CITIZENRY. That armed citizenry has to have the RIGHT to own and bear arms. What about that is so hard to understand?

 

[Nostra]

Wow are you unable to explain it in your own words?

I already have. I figured multiple Supreme Court rulings might make you less dumb.

My bad.

Stay stupid, Stupid.

 

[Leo123]

In the case of a tyrannical government, where the owning and bearing of arms is prohibited, citizens are not going to ask that government for arms to form a militia against that same government.

 

[Billy000]

Again THERE IS NO MILITIA WITHOUT AN ALREADY ARMED CITIZENRY. That armed citizenry has to have the RIGHT to own and bear arms. What about that is so hard to understand?

They could only be armed in the context of forming a militia. As I’ve stated before, your interpretation could be correct. I’m simply pointing out how vague this amendment is. Of course if your interpretation is correct, what would make it legal for citizens to form a militia? Why would they do it? I mean insurrection is definitely illegal.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Lol umm okay it is necessary. A militia is. God it. What’s your point? That doesn’t somehow explain it.

Let me type slowly.

because it is necessary, FedGov can't fuck with the right of the people

Are you going to pretend you didn't get it....AGAIN or are you really that dumb?

 

[Nostra]

They could only be armed in the context of forming a militia. As I’ve stated before, your interpretation could be correct. I’m simply pointing out how vague this amendment is. Of course if your interpretation is correct, what would make it legal for citizens to form a militia? Why would they do it? I mean insurrection is definitely illegal.

Not vague at all to anyone with at least a double digit IQ.

This explains why you are baffled by this clear and concise language "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

 

[Leo123]

They could only be armed in the context of forming a militia. As I’ve stated before, your interpretation could be correct. I’m simply pointing out how vague this amendment is. Of course if your interpretation is correct, what would make it legal for citizens to form a militia? Why would they do it? I mean insurrection is definitely illegal.

NO!!! Who the heck is going to arm them? Think of the Revolutionary War, do you think England would have armed the colonists?

 

[Billy000]

NO!!! Who the heck is going to arm them? Think of the Revolutionary War, do you think England would have armed the colonists?

What options did they have at that specific time? You didn’t answer my question though. What would the militia be used for?

 

[scruffy]

I’m talking about the ownership of their guns being used in the context of a militia only.

We know what you're talking about.

We've been trying to assist with your understanding and your education, but you don't seem to be paying attention.

 

[Leo123]

What options did they have at that specific time? You didn’t answer my question though. What would the militia be used for?

OK, I'll try again......They certainly had no government that could arm them. Everyone already had a gun or rifle. They were armed and were able to form a militia. It is not a militia that grants the right to own and bear arms it is the right to own and bear arms that allows for the formation of a militia.

 

[daveman]

Umm no. Some of you have defined what a militia is as far as the dictionary goes (stupid and pointless) but you failed to define in context in the amendment or why it is there.

No, really, it's all been explained to you. Your choice to ignore is on you; don't blame anybody else.