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?

Hugo Furst

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
73,668
Reaction score
32,650
Points
2,290
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 telling you it’s vague and can be interpreted in contradictory ways.

I imagine many things are vague to you.

Most people dont' have that problem.
 
OP
Billy000

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
28,063
Reaction score
8,368
Points
490
Location
Colorado
I imagine many things are vague to you.

Most people dont' have that problem.
Well if you think a single sentence adequately explains a Bill of Right then you’re an idiot lol
 

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
18,245
Reaction score
3,829
Points
280
"Militia", "arms" and "infringment" are all vulnerable nouns. Seeing what the S.C. has done in the past, it is difficult to see how one can be so certain. Convinced, perhaps, but certain? The desperation sounds like an attempt to self-convince.
 
Last edited:

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
43,198
Reaction score
27,019
Points
2,615
Location
Tejas
"Militia", "arms" and "infringment" are all vulnerable nouns. Seeing what the S.C. has done in the past, it is difficult to see how one can be so certain. Convinced, perhaps, but certain? The desperation sounds like an attempt to self-convince.
Of course, this all started when idiots started saying that infringement does not mean infringement. It all started when those in power knew they would never get anything done because the will of the people would fight them all the way. So they started making the word something different.

The plain meaning of the word "infringe" means to encroach on someone or something, particularly rights. Certainly you are not arguing that limiting what bearable arm someone may possess is not infringement, right? Tell me you have not fallen down that stupid idiotic rabbit hole.

The plain meaning of the word "militia" is discussed by many founding fathers, indicating their intent. See Federal's Paper 29 and others. The meaning of the word militia is wholesale fucking irrelevant and ridiculous. It is not operative.

The plain meeting of the word "arms" means any bearable weapon. It has been decided plainly for years. Certainly, you are not arguing that "arms" means something other than, and to the exclusion of, firearms, correct?

We can get into this huge semantics discussion all day long, but the proper interpretation of a constitutional amendment is to give plain meaning to all the words.

States need a well regulated militia. Therefore, the right of the people to have weapons to allow them to serve in a militia shall not be infringed (at a minimum by the federal government, and arguably by any state or local government, given that the militia shall be called up by the federal government).

Now tell me where I got it wrong and stop saying all these words are vague. Provide a different meeting or shut your fucking communist pie hole.
 
Last edited:

there4eyeM

unlicensed metaphysician
Joined
Jul 5, 2012
Messages
18,245
Reaction score
3,829
Points
280
Seeing what the S.C. has done in the past, it is difficult to see how one can be so certain.
 

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
43,198
Reaction score
27,019
Points
2,615
Location
Tejas
"Militia", "arms" and "infringment" are all vulnerable nouns. Seeing what the S.C. has done in the past, it is difficult to see how one can be so certain. Convinced, perhaps, but certain? The desperation sounds like an attempt to self-convince.
And, by the way, it is THIS VERY BULLSHIT semantics game that PROVES 100% that you fucking cocksuckers want a complete ban and confiscation.

SO QUIT DENYING IT, YOU FUCKING LIARS!!!
 
Last edited:

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
43,198
Reaction score
27,019
Points
2,615
Location
Tejas
Seeing what the S.C. has done in the past, it is difficult to see how one can be so certain.
So, you admit that in the past, the SC has fucked it all up trying to get a particular result, rather than adhering to the plain meaning of the text?

I agree.

Time to FIX THAT SHIT!!!

No federal authority to regulate arms. AND no state authority under the 14th Amendment.

Don't like it?

Let's have a constitutional convention.
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
71,363
Reaction score
18,193
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
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.

I understood your point fine, racist. I have no idea what you're talking about, but then neither do you, you're an idiot. But I understood your stupid point just fine. If you give a 5 year old free speech, you have to give them guns to. As I said, you're a fucking moron. And you didn't understand my point because you're a fucking moron and a racist
 

kaz

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 1, 2010
Messages
71,363
Reaction score
18,193
Points
2,190
Location
Kazmania
And, by the way, it is THIS VERY BULLSHIT semantics game that PROVES 100% that you fucking cocksuckers want a complete ban and confiscation.

SO QUIT DENYING IT, YOU FUCKING LIARS!!!

Even sadder than the liars are the Democrats who actually have guns and don't want to ban them. But when the Democrat party does ban them, they will be silent
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$0.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top