2nd Amendment

“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.”

It doesn’t read,

“Bearing arms, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to form well regulated militias, shall not be infringed.”

The whole point is that you might, if things get ugly, need to form a militia. So, to make sure you are able to do that, your right, your personal right, to bear arms, not to have a gun or to hunt, to bear arms, will not be fucked with.

A well regulated militia being important, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Pretty simple. If not, it would read “the right of militias to bear arms,” or, “the right of the people, once constituted in militias, to bear arms.”

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The obvious implication of the amendment, in the way it was written, is that you obviously could not trust a government or any official body to decide what constitutes a well regulated militia, because that would go against the whole concept. Your right to bear arms are to protect your personal freedom, not the government. So, the militias are important, but no regulations thereof are mentioned because, that is the people’s problems. They are just reminding you, it is important. The implication is that the only way to make sure that people can form these militias, is for them to be well armed, every single paying one of them. They can’t force you to get armed, but the law is pretty clear that your right to do it will not be infringed.

So that the people can resist anything they feel needs resisting,

They will all of them not be restricted in their keeping and bearing of Arms.

Does anybody think that, mentioning well regulated militias, they meant hunting? Or a shotgun to fend off robbers? Arms, Militia, these words suggest war, suggest weapons, not hunting utensiles or home protection.

If government officials were honest, this should include things like bazookas, grenades, tanks if you can afford them.

But obviously also, it must be everybody, the people, who must be allowed to do this, nay, who will not be impeded in doing this. Because if some people are impeded, if you start choosing, than it is not the people, and it is not the people that will be armed, but some specific group of people.

Right, like there are not both liberal and conservative renditions of what it means for a militia or for gun owners in general to be “well regulated”.

After all, the amendment could have read “A militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

But, as usual, it’s the fierce extremists from both ends of the political spectrum who insist that only their own interpretation of it actually counts.

There is a saying among a certain branch of republicans:

“For my friends, everything. For my enemies: the law.”

With commies like iam (as proven via robolutionary) it becomes:

“For my friends, everything. For my enemies: who knows, Joe says A, Mary says B, but we say C, and we’re gonna enforce C.”

Well, good luck with that you dirty commie.

What’s that got to do with my points, Kid? :sunglasses:

Note to phoneutria:

Let him get you back. I really am curious as to what this retort has to do with my points above. Unless, of course, you can tell me.

:laughing:

so youre saying that only well organized militias can bear arms? or are you doing a liberal interpretation that goes beyond the plain language of the text?

I’m going with a literal interpretation.

Where does it say that only well organized militias can bear arms?

“…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

As opposed to:

“…the right of well armed militias to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Walk us through your reading?

Ok fine. I’ll change the goalpost. Should felons be allowed to have guns? Or people who are threatening to shoot up a school? Or a guy who just got out of prison for a mass shooting? Can we infringe on those people?

No, don’t.

Enlighten us with your reading, whereby the plain text says something different than what it says.

you dont think we should take guns away from people who shot up a school?

You first my nigga.

That was quite a claim you made.

i think that when it refers to the right of “the people” that it means the ones that are well organized in a militia like the proud boys

That’s what you call plain text? That when it says “the people” it doesn’t actually mean “the people”?

Anyway, if it means that, the link should be established in plain text. Show us where?

Something like “the people, being constituted in well regulated militias,”?

the militias are people like corporations

Pedro 1

Mr Snyde 0

fair

now what about those kids shooting up schools can we take their guns?