What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

OP
Billy000

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
27,871
Reaction score
8,213
Points
490
Location
Colorado
Oh I see....Now that you've been thwarted at every turn, suddenly the document is to blame!!! :laughing0301:
You’re the one so certain of what it means. That isn’t me. I’m telling you it’s vague and can be interpreted in contradictory ways.
 

Leo123

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
19,102
Reaction score
12,101
Points
1,415
Lol what point are you even trying to make? The point is, the government allowing militias without any specification of who is involved would obviously be problematic.
YES!!!! militias are SUPPOSED to be 'problematic' to a tyrannical government!!!
 

Leo123

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
19,102
Reaction score
12,101
Points
1,415
You’re the one so certain of what it means. That isn’t me. I’m telling you it’s vague and can be interpreted in contradictory ways.
I'm saying that YOUR interpretation is wrong and told you why. You claim there is a mandate to form a militia for the right to own a gun. That is dead wrong and exactly backwards. The right to own and bear arms has to be a mandate in order to form a militia because without a naturally armed populace there can be no militia. Geesh!!!
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
43,077
Reaction score
26,904
Points
2,615
Location
Tejas
I don’t know it’s a mystery. It’s a very vague amendment as I have said from the beginning.

You’re welcome.
Well, see. Here's the think.

We think it's pretty fucking clear, and since it is "vague" (inconvenient) to you, and you offer no alternative "interpretation" that makes a single lick of sense, we'll just go with our interpretation.

What do you say?
 

Leo123

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
19,102
Reaction score
12,101
Points
1,415
Well, see. Here's the think.

We think it's pretty fucking clear, and since it is "vague" (inconvenient) to you, and you offer no alternative "interpretation" that makes a single lick of sense, we'll just go with our interpretation.

What do you say?
Billy doesn't seem to want 'We The People' to ever be 'problematic' to the government. Disarming US is a big step toward central government control of everything. After all, only the government knows what's best for US.......:puke3:
 
OP
Billy000

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
27,871
Reaction score
8,213
Points
490
Location
Colorado
YES!!!! militias are SUPPOSED to be 'problematic' to a tyrannical government!!!
But they could be tyrannical to the current government. Do I really need to explain this?
 

scruffy

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
4,823
Points
1,893
Well this is a terrible plan because if anyone can form the militia, the very wrong people could. People with nefarious intentions.
Sigh

You mean like Democrats.

And their terrorist AntiFa goons.

Yes, we know.
 

scruffy

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 9, 2022
Messages
6,265
Reaction score
4,823
Points
1,893
You’re the one so certain of what it means. That isn’t me. I’m telling you it’s vague and can be interpreted in contradictory ways.

That's because you're a dumbass libtard with zero reading comprehension. :p

Depends what "is" is, right?

lol
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
43,077
Reaction score
26,904
Points
2,615
Location
Tejas
But they could be tyrannical to the current government. Do I really need to explain this?
So, the alternative is a monopoly on force?

Did you really think this through?
 
OP
Billy000

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
27,871
Reaction score
8,213
Points
490
Location
Colorado
So, the alternative is a monopoly on force?

Did you really think this through?
Uh no the alternative would be to not say citizens can form a militia in the bill of rights because that is a stupid, impractical idea that could easily become disastrous.

Again, you’re welcome.
 

Leo123

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
19,102
Reaction score
12,101
Points
1,415
But they could be tyrannical to the current government. Do I really need to explain this?
The current government IS tyrannical!! Lucky for them, We The People still believe in the vote. After 2020, fewer of US trust this government. Biden's government metes out suffering to the American people. The Founders gave us the option to vote them out or have our representatives impeach them. Those options are predicated on an armed citizenry capable of creating a militia.
 
Last edited:

BrokeLoser

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2016
Messages
32,177
Reaction score
15,206
Points
1,600
Location
MEXIFORNIA
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?
This thread is actually quite hilarious…
I wonder if Billy intended to make himself look like the ignorant fool he is?

LefTard Logic-
“Please Father Government, please deprive me of the rights gifted by our great framers, please protect us filthy Liberals from ourselves by controlling us via unconstitutional legislation.”

Sensible Logic-
“We need to keep guns out of the hands of dark Democrats if we want to solve our gun problems.”
 
OP
Billy000

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
27,871
Reaction score
8,213
Points
490
Location
Colorado
The current government IS tyrannical!! Lucky for them, We The People still believe in the vote. After 2020, fewer of US trust this government. Biden's government metes out suffering to the American people. The Founders gave us the option to vote them out or have our representatives impeach them. Those options are predicated on an armed citizenry capable of creating a militia.
I really just think you’re bullshitting this as you go along.
 

Leo123

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2017
Messages
19,102
Reaction score
12,101
Points
1,415
I really just think you’re bullshitting this as you go along.
No you just can't follow because you let your mind be contaminated by the Democrat controlled MSM.
 

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
18,235
Reaction score
3,813
Points
280
Uh no the alternative would be to not say citizens can form a militia in the bill of rights because that is a stupid, impractical idea that could easily become disastrous.

Again, you’re welcome.
Wait until they see "infringed" re-interpreted.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
43,077
Reaction score
26,904
Points
2,615
Location
Tejas
Uh no the alternative would be to not say citizens can form a militia in the bill of rights because that is a stupid, impractical idea that could easily become disastrous.

Again, you’re welcome.
People don't need to form a militia in the bill of rights. People are the militia. And it doesn't matter anyway (which you know, you're just lashing out because we made you look stupid) because it is the "what" that matters in the 2nd Amendment, not the "why."

Do we need to have that discussion again?

You're welcome
 
Last edited:

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
18,235
Reaction score
3,813
Points
280
You’re the one so certain of what it means. That isn’t me. I’m telling you it’s vague and can be interpreted in contradictory ways.
They have worked themselves into an untenable situation and can't find a way out. Because of their intransigence, they will end up setting themselves back much further than they could have. Reasonable approaches could have avoided what will likely be an unfortunate consequence.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
43,077
Reaction score
26,904
Points
2,615
Location
Tejas
You’re the one so certain of what it means. That isn’t me. I’m telling you it’s vague and can be interpreted in contradictory ways.
it cannot be interpreted in contradicting ways unless you ignore the operative clause or otherwise reach a nonsensical conclusion.

Clause 1: A militia is necessary
Clause 2: Don't take the people's guns

Explain to me how it's not that.
Explain to me how it is something else.

You can't.

The second amendment is a ban on federal jurisdiction/authority over arms. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing stupid like you want it to be.
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
27,989
Reaction score
15,869
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
it cannot be interpreted in contradicting ways unless you ignore the operative clause or otherwise reach a nonsensical conclusion.

Clause 1: A militia is necessary
Clause 2: Don't take the people's guns

Explain to me how it's not that.
Explain to me how it is something else.

You can't.

The second amendment is a ban on federal jurisdiction/authority over arms. That's it. Nothing more. Nothing stupid like you want it to be.
That last phrase... SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED has their panties in a wad... no wiggle room to regulate it.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$225.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top