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



## Billy000 (Jun 26, 2022)

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?


----------



## lennypartiv (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


"Well regulated militia" was probably put in there accidently.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 26, 2022)

lennypartiv said:


> "Well regulated militia" was probably put in there accidently.


Lol is this a serious answer or are you telling a joke?


----------



## lennypartiv (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol is this a serious answer or are you telling a joke?


The phrase can be confusing, it really doesn't need to be there.


----------



## gipper (Jun 26, 2022)

You need to read and comprehend the entire wording of the 2A. Taking just one piece of it, is nonsensical and ignorant


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Jun 26, 2022)

Voting Democrat should be a Red Flag


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 26, 2022)

gipper said:


> You need to read and comprehend the entire wording of the 2A. Taking just one piece of it, is nonsensical and ignorant


Then you should be able to just answer the question right now.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


The militia was we the people, more commonly known as any able-bodied male.  That was the definition at the time of writing of the Constitution.    Able body is any male that can shoot and defend their nation.  5 year old's is a real stretch...


----------



## washamericom (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


Great idea thread !

I am okay with anything
As long as Greta Funberg doesn't get an AR-15


----------



## daveman (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy, you've lost this fight.  The right to own firearms -- for any reason, or no reason at all -- is an individual right.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2022)

lennypartiv said:


> The phrase can be confusing, it really doesn't need to be there.


Its only confusing to those who do not know the meaning of the language at the time of writing.


----------



## gipper (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Then you should be able to just answer the question right now.


*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.*


Answered.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> The militia was we the people, more commonly known as any able-bodied male.  That was the definition at the time of writing of the Constitution.    Able body is any male that can shoot and defend their nation.  5 year old's is a real stretch...


Where is the justification in the constitution that it refers ONLY to able bodied men? If that were true, should we be making it illegal for a woman to buy a gun?


----------



## washamericom (Jun 26, 2022)

This is a great example of why we have an independent Supreme Court unelected because the elections can be stolen...

 Congress & the White House
 should be able
to intimidate the Supreme Court ?

Or allow somebody else to do the dirty work (westboro baptist berniecrats)


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2022)

daveman said:


> Billy, you've lost this fight.  The right to own firearms -- for any reason, or no reason at all -- is an individual right.


The punctuation means things...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Where is the justification in the constitution that it refers ONLY to able bodied men? If that were true, should we be making it illegal for a woman to buy a gun?


Have you ever read the Federalist papers?  Studied them?  They are the debate of why we do the thing we do and what the terms meant at the time.   I suggest you do.  They will answer a whole lot of the questions you ask.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


a well regulated militia is a well armed and supported civilian military,,

so that means the people should have all the same arms as any force that they may encounter,,

kinda useless if the people were outgunned,,


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 26, 2022)

gipper said:


> *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.*
> 
> 
> Answered.


But why can we be sure the context of the right to bear arms applies to any context outside of a well regulated militia?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Where is the justification in the constitution that it refers ONLY to able bodied men? If that were true, should we be making it illegal for a woman to buy a gun?


Moron...  "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"  Note the words..  THE PEOEPLE.  gender was not assigned.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> But why can we be sure the context of the right to bear arms applies to any context outside of a well regulated militia?


because it says so right there in the 2nd A


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> well regulated


"Well Regulated" refers to being armed and trained, not being regulated in what they can own or use.

"The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the* property of something being in proper working order*. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected."


----------



## miketx (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


Come get us doosh. Lol don't you all see all this scumbag is doing is just wasting people's time?


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> Moron...  "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"  Note the words..  THE PEOEPLE.  gender was not assigned.


Lol you’re right it doesn’t. That’s why it was pointless for you to define it as able bodied males


----------



## miketx (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol you’re right it doesn’t. That’s why it was pointless for you to define it as able bodied males


And now the much maligned talking in circles act. Same ole same ole.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


We don't have to sight precedent.....because you have to take the entire amendment into account.....not just parts of it that you think proves your case and exclude all others.
What part of the right "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?


----------



## Mac1958 (Jun 26, 2022)

lennypartiv said:


> "Well regulated militia" was probably put in there accidently.


holy crap

You can't make this up.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol you’re right it doesn’t. That’s why it was pointless for you to define it as able bodied males


Moron..  we were talking about the term MILITA...   

Second Militia Act of 1792[edit]​


Front page of a newspaper announcing the second Militia Act of 1792.
The second Militia Act of 1792 was passed on May 8, 1792, and provided for the organization of state militias and the conscription of every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45:



> ... each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside ...


Militia members were required to equip themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a box able to contain not less than 24 suitable cartridges, and a knapsack. Alternatively, everyone enrolled was to provide himself with a rifle, a powder horn, ¼ pound of gunpowder, 20 rifle balls, a shot-pouch, and a knapsack.[10] Exemptions applied to some occupations, including congressmen, stagecoach drivers and ferryboatmen.

The militias were divided into "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct.[11] The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the president in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second act.[12] Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.[13]

Source
............................................
Prior to the militia acts it was "every free and able-bodied man"


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 26, 2022)

mudwhistle said:


> We don't have to sight precedent.....because you have to take the entire amendment into account.....not just parts of it that you think proves your case and exclude all others.
> What part of the right "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?


“Shall not be infringed” could still apply to any interpretation of a well regulated militia.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> Moron..  we were talking about the term MILITA...
> 
> Second Militia Act of 1792[edit]​
> 
> ...


If that is exactly what well regulated militia means, wouldn’t we be defining it as who has the right to own them?


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> “Shall not be infringed” could still apply to any interpretation of a well regulated militia.


no it couldnt,,


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> “Shall not be infringed” could still apply to any interpretation of a well regulated militia.


Your talking yourself in circles...   Understand the terms before you use them in a sentence.


----------



## progressive hunter (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> If that is exactly what well regulated militia means, wouldn’t we be defining it as who has the right to own them?


no,, its states who can keep and bear arms,,


----------



## struth (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


i have no idea what you are trying to ask


----------



## Whodatsaywhodat. (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


You fools should figure out what a woman is before you tackle this concept... you wouldn't understand anyway.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 26, 2022)

A Comma ,,,,


----------



## Orangecat (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> “Shall not be infringed” could still apply to any interpretation of a well regulated militia.


Okay, my interpretation is an individual citizen.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


Stop trying to reinvent the wheel. Founding documents and numerous communications between the founders told us who the militia is.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> “Shall not be infringed” could still apply to any interpretation of a well regulated militia.


FYI the government does not have a second amendment right.


----------



## Rogue AI (Jun 26, 2022)

So the whiny left is going to ignore Heller and pine about militias because they lost Roe?  Perhaps rural America should embrace the militia movement.  Oh how these urban centric liberal elites would howl then...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 26, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> So the whiny left is going to ignore Heller and pine about militias because they lost Roe?  Perhaps rural America should embrace the militia movement.  Oh how these urban centric liberal elites would howl then...


We do embrace the militia movement.


----------



## Resnic (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?



Your opening right-wing comment is used as a back hand insult as it's well known you hate conservatives just for existing and are constantly doing your best to talk down about them with never a constructive conversation.

And your obvious sarcastic second paragraph following it shows you're not even worth taking seriously.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 26, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> So the whiny left is going to ignore Heller and pine about militias because they lost Roe?  Perhaps rural America should embrace the militia movement.  Oh how these urban centric liberal elites would howl then...


I’m not ignoring Heller. I’m asking why the ruling was justified in the first place.


----------



## miketx (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> If that is exactly what well regulated militia means, wouldn’t we be defining it as who has the right to own them?


Easy, the people.


----------



## BluesLegend (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Should this apply to 5 year olds?


This is why the left never wins the debate, they throw out stupid retarded shit like this ^^^


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 26, 2022)

miketx said:


> Easy, the people.


But what makes anyone at all being part of a well regulated militia?


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 26, 2022)

BluesLegend said:


> This is why the left never wins the debate, they throw out stupid retarded shit like this ^^^


Should it apply to 5 year olds? If your answer is either yes or no, what wording of the amendment specifies this?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> If that is exactly what well regulated militia means, wouldn’t we be defining it as who has the right to own them?


NO...  Punctuation in the sentence breaks this from the right.

_The statement-reason for the right: _“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

_The right assigned:_  the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, 

_The actions allowed by the government:_ shall not be infringed.”

The sentence structure means things... it was crafted so there would be NO AMBIGUITY of what it meant.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> “Shall not be infringed” could still apply to any interpretation of a well regulated militia.


Well....since I can read and comprehend English....I know that's not all it applies to. 
The well regulated militia was an example provided for the 18th Century....but it doesn't give anyone the right to carve that out as the only example that is constitutional. That is why the right was spelled out with the phrase "Shall Not Be Infringed".


----------



## Rogue AI (Jun 26, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> We do embrace the militia movement.


The militia movement is a fraction of what it was a few decades ago.  I'm suggesting returning to a far more active movement.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Should it apply to 5 year olds? If your answer is either yes or no, what wording of the amendment specifies this?


"Shall Not Be Infringed".


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> NO...  Punctuation in the sentence breaks this from the right.
> 
> _The statement-reason for the right: _“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
> 
> ...


Lol it would be grammatically incorrect to change the punctuation.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 26, 2022)

mudwhistle said:


> "Shall Not Be Infringed".


For who? Why them?


----------



## gipper (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> But why can we be sure the context of the right to bear arms applies to any context outside of a well regulated militia?


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


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> The militia movement is a fraction of what it was a few decades ago.  I'm suggesting returning to a far more active movement.


We need to get this back up and running in every state.  Then people would learn about it and know their constitutional rights.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?







Law enforcement and security agencies, like the secret service, aren't military either and should be required to comply to the same restrictions as any civilian/private individual does.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol it would be grammatically incorrect to change the punctuation.


Yet you fail to understand it.... Odd.....


----------



## Rogue AI (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> I’m not ignoring Heller. I’m asking why the ruling was justified in the first place.


Because the individual right to keep and bear arms was never in question.  One need only look at how the Founders governed, and how that tradition was kept for almost 200 years before fascist progressives thought they could remove the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## daveman (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Where is the justification in the constitution that it refers ONLY to able bodied men? If that were true, should we be making it illegal for a woman to buy a gun?


"shit fam u rite imma give up all my guns now"

-- no one ever


----------



## BluesLegend (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> But what makes anyone at all being part of a well regulated militia?


The founders definition of the militia is every able bodied adult so everyone is part of the militia.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Where is the justification in the constitution that it refers ONLY to able bodied men? If that were true, should we be making it illegal for a woman to buy a gun?



MIlitias at the time consisted of males, ages 16-45.

women did not belong to 'well regulated' militias.

males under the age of 16 did not belong to 'well regulated' militias.

IN a *few* states males up to the age of 59 did belong to 'well regulated' militias.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> For who? Why them?


By the government. 
You do understand the purpose of the bill of rights, or don't you?

Parents can act as safeguards against children who might misuse guns.....but the government doesn't have this right. 
If you raise your kids properly....you shouldn't have to worry about them shooting up a school.


----------



## miketx (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> But what makes anyone at all being part of a well regulated militia?


Lol, the talking in circles act moves forward!


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 26, 2022)

gipper said:


> Because of…*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*



Their utter stupidity over this easy-to-understand statement is astonishing!


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> But what makes anyone at all being part of a well regulated militia?


Again if english were your first language you would know the sentence involved does not limit the right to belonging to a militia.


----------



## BluesLegend (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Should it apply to 5 year olds? If your answer is either yes or no, what wording of the amendment specifies this?


The founders already answered that question for you, stop trolling and educate yourself.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


A reasonable person would construe this to mean (a) adults and (b) the general population, armed to serve as a Militia of Last Resort for national defense.

Sensible gun-control (background checks, licensing, registration, training) are the means by which that militia is regulated- well - in this context.


----------



## miketx (Jun 26, 2022)

BluesLegend said:


> The founders definition of the militia is every able bodied adult so everyone is part of the militia.


The question is how many more times will the ghoul ask the same question.


----------



## gipper (Jun 26, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> Their utter stupidity over this easy-to-understand statement is astonishing!


They’re just playing games. They know.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 26, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> The militia movement is a fraction of what it was a few decades ago.  I'm suggesting returning to a far more active movement.


More people are in a militia than you realize


----------



## daveman (Jun 26, 2022)

mudwhistle said:


> We don't have to sight precedent.....because you have to take the entire amendment into account.....not just parts of it that you think proves your case and exclude all others.
> What part of the right "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?


The part that says he can't demand normal people be disarmed and unable to protect themselves from leftist tyranny.

I think he has wet dreams about putting people on cattle cars.


----------



## BluesLegend (Jun 26, 2022)

gipper said:


> Because of…*the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*


Has there ever been a more powerful limit on government? I don't think so.


----------



## Sunsettommy (Jun 26, 2022)

gipper said:


> They’re just playing games. They know.



Are you sure since I see too many examples of leftist stupidity on basic information in various topics to believe it?


----------



## daveman (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> “Shall not be infringed” could still apply to any interpretation of a well regulated militia.


"The sun comes up in the east" could mean "the sun comes up in the west".


----------



## BluesLegend (Jun 26, 2022)

miketx said:


> The question is how many more times will the ghoul ask the same question.


Dem trolls gonna troll.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2022)

What Billy and the democrats fail to understand is the term "well-regulated" means the people have the training, the ammunitions, and spare parts for a properly functioning weapon.  That the government has no legal authority to limit that by taxation or regulation. SHALL NOT BE INFIRNGED means the government can take no action to disarm the people or make it difficult for them to protect themselves.

Ammunition regulations, magazine regulations, none of that should be impacted by governmental regulations.


----------



## Nostra (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


COMMA ,,,,,,,,,AND THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 26, 2022)

lennypartiv said:


> The phrase can be confusing, it really doesn't need to be there.


It’s only confusing when reading it through the context of your understanding of it.


----------



## Meister (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> For who? Why them?


The FF's didn't trust 'government'.  
That's why "We The People" have the Second Amendment.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 26, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> So the whiny left is going to ignore Heller and pine about militias because they lost Roe?  Perhaps rural America should embrace the militia movement.  Oh how these urban centric liberal elites would howl then...


We did embrace them ( Forming the Northern California State Militia In 2010 in Cottonwood Ca. ) and later with 1500 members and another 500+ Family members and associates as the California State Militia


----------



## gipper (Jun 26, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> Are you sure since I see too many examples of leftist stupidity on basic information in various topics to believe it?


Well okay. Some are dupes and don’t know better. So, they’re easily propagandized.


----------



## daveman (Jun 26, 2022)

Kondor3 said:


> A reasonable person would construe this to mean (a) adults and (b) the general population, armed to serve as a Militia of Last Resort for national defense.
> 
> Sensible gun-control (background checks, licensing, registration, training) are the means by which that militia is regulated- well - in this context.


Nope.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> The militia was we the people, more commonly known as any able-bodied male.  That was the definition at the time of writing of the Constitution.    Able body is any male that can shoot and defend their nation.  5 year old's is a real stretch...


What is “the militia” today then?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> What is a “well-regulated militia”


An anachronism.

It’s not armed private citizens – armed private citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ absent authorization from a state government or the Federal government.

And armed private citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ and claim that they are ‘exempt’ from state or Federal firearm regulatory measures.

Conservatives will also use the militia myth as ‘justification’ for insurrectionist dogma – the ridiculous, wrongheaded notion that private citizens have right to be armed to defend against ‘government tyranny’ or foreign invasion.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2022)

Hutch Starskey said:


> What is “the militia” today then?


As women are now allowed to be in combat, it means any able-bodied person.


----------



## miketx (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> What Billy and the democrats fail to understand is the term "well-regulated" means the people have the training, the ammunitions, and spare parts for a properly functioning weapon.  That the government has no legal authority to limit that by taxation or regulation. SHALL NOT BE INFIRNGED means the government can take no action to disarm the people or make it difficult for them to protect themselves.
> 
> Ammunition regulations, magazine regulations, none of that should be impacted by governmental regulations.


Thanks, but that scum understands.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 26, 2022)

Hutch Starskey said:


> What is “the militia” today then?


In California ( Per State Constitution ) it’s EVERY adult Male age 18 -54 that is not ( Current Duty Law Enforcement Or Military , Member Of the State Legislature )


----------



## miketx (Jun 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> An anachronism.
> 
> It’s not armed private citizens – armed private citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ absent authorization from a state government or the Federal government.
> 
> ...


Come get us commie.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> An anachronism.
> 
> It’s not armed private citizens – armed private citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ absent authorization from a state government or the Federal government.
> 
> ...


FYI the government does not have a second amendment right.


----------



## daveman (Jun 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> An anachronism.
> 
> It’s not armed private citizens – armed private citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ absent authorization from a state government or the Federal government.
> 
> ...


Stamp your feet and pout some more, boy.  You're not disarming Americans.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> An anachronism.
> 
> It’s not armed private citizens – armed private citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ absent authorization from a state government or the Federal government.
> 
> ...


Until the militia acts were codified, yes, they could.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 26, 2022)

Failzero said:


> In California ( Per State Constitution ) it’s EVERY adult Male age 18 -54 that is not ( Current Duty Law Enforcement Or Military , Member Of the State Legislature )


Bump for effect


----------



## mudwhistle (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> As women are now allowed to be in combat, it means any able-bodied person.


Women don't have to go into combat...or even worry about being deployed if they let someone knock them up.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


Clayton,

THIS horse shit is why we don't believe you and MUST PUNISH you by repealing EVERYTHING.

YOU WANT TO BAN AND CONFISCATE. 

You deserve ZERO gun laws.


----------



## Nostra (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> NO...  Punctuation in the sentence breaks this from the right.
> 
> _The statement-reason for the right: _“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
> 
> ...


Billy failed commas in school.


----------



## daveman (Jun 26, 2022)

Nostra said:


> Billy failed commas in school.


COMMAS ARE RACIST


----------



## Nostra (Jun 26, 2022)

Kondor3 said:


> A reasonable person would construe this to mean (a) adults and (b) the general population, armed to serve as a Militia of Last Resort for national defense.
> 
> Sensible gun-control (background checks, licensing, registration, training) are the means by which that militia is regulated- well - in this context.


Looks like Kondor failed commas in school too.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 26, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> FYI the government does not have a second amendment right.


This ignorance makes no sense.


----------



## BluesLegend (Jun 26, 2022)

It's clear that without the 2nd amendment these scumbags would have disarmed us all. Which is exactly why the founders gave us the 2nd amendment. Kings and dictators around the world at the time did exactly that. The people were not allowed to possess arms, which made it easy for these rulers to oppress the people. The founders got it right from the get go.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 26, 2022)

miketx said:


> Come get us commie.


“The Court expressly rejected Presser’s contention that there was a right to assemble, drill, or march in a militia absent authorization by state or federal law.”

_Presser v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2022)

Nostra said:


> Looks like Kondor failed commas in school too.


HE also failed simple English.  He is having a problem with the definition of words...


----------



## miketx (Jun 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “The Court expressly rejected Presser’s contention that there was a right to assemble, drill, or march in a militia absent authorization by state or federal law.”
> 
> _Presser v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)


When ya comin commie?


----------



## Failzero (Jun 26, 2022)

Nostra said:


> Billy failed commas in school.


This FTMFW


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 26, 2022)

_I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.
--George Mason, Founder_

Case closed.  The OP is a fucking moron.


----------



## Nostra (Jun 26, 2022)

Hutch Starskey said:


> What is “the militia” today then?


Doesn’t matter.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 26, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> _I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.
> --George Mason, Founder_
> 
> Case closed.  The OP is a fucking moron.


As a Militia Sergeant ( California State Militia ) I concur


----------



## mudwhistle (Jun 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> “The Court expressly rejected Presser’s contention that there was a right to assemble, drill, or march in a militia absent authorization by state or federal law.”
> 
> _Presser v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)


This case appears to be a law that forced men of a particular age group to join militias....and prohibited all other organized militias.


----------



## Leweman (Jun 26, 2022)

It refers to those not under control of the government as those in the government may, and have, act against the security of a free state.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 26, 2022)

So many people on all sides seem to be oblivious to the fact that the Revolutionary War was fought just 10-15 years before the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written.

During the Revolutionary War, "the people" armed themselves with anything they could to defeat the King and his cronies.  Guns, cannons, and artillery included. 

Clearly the right to keep and bear arms existed even before the 2nd Amendment was written. It's a historical fact.


----------



## daveman (Jun 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This ignorance makes no sense.


It makes perfect sense -- to anyone who doesn't worship government as god.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 26, 2022)

daveman said:


> Billy, you've lost this fight.  The right to own firearms -- for any reason, or no reason at all -- is an individual right.


I’m not against the public owning guns. I’m simply pointing out how vague the amendment is and how it can be interpreted.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> An anachronism.
> 
> It’s not armed private citizens – armed private citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ absent authorization from a state government or the Federal government.
> 
> ...


Claypool, do you need someone to read the Declaration of Independence to you?


----------



## daveman (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> I’m not against the public owning guns. I’m simply pointing out how vague the amendment is and how it can be interpreted.


Yes, it can certainly be interpreted wrongly.

Did you expect anyone to read your post and give up their guns?


----------



## daveman (Jun 26, 2022)

Chuz Life said:


> Claypool, do you need someone to read the Declaration of Independence to you?


He's angry about that, too.  America was perfectly fine and happy under the Crown.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 26, 2022)

Chuz Life said:


> Claypool, do you need someone to read the Declaration of Independence to you?



Someone should, then quiz him on it


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> I’m not against the public owning guns. I’m simply pointing out how vague the amendment is and how it can be interpreted.


It is NOT vague.  It is precise and succinct.  The government has no authority to regulate what We the People have as weapons.  And that is what burns you up.   You want wiggle room and there is none.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 26, 2022)

mudwhistle said:


> This case appears to be a law that forced men of a particular age group to join militias....and prohibited all other organized militias.


Clayton thinks he's a constitutional law professor.

But he is really a gun grabber.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 26, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Clayton thinks he's a constitutional law professor.
> 
> But he is really a gun grabber.



I'd like to see that fool debate a constitutional lawyer


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> I’m not against the public owning guns. I’m simply pointing out how vague the amendment is and how it can be interpreted.







Law enforcement and security agencies aren't military either therefore I should be able to purchase for my own private use anything that they are allowed.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 26, 2022)

daveman said:


> Yes, it can certainly be interpreted wrongly.
> 
> Did you expect anyone to read your post and give up their guns?


Uh no i don’t. You gun nuts come up with such silly stuff. You’ll say anything to justify the fantasy you have about suits showing up at your door and saying “give me your guns! I’m here to collect!” You would respond with “come take it mother fucker!” 

Something like that will NEVER happen so long as the current government exists. It’s just a fantasy you entertain because it makes you feel like a badass.

Why would I be expecting that? I even made it clear I am not opposed to gun ownership.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 26, 2022)

Chuz Life said:


> Claypool, do you need someone to read the Declaration of Independence to you?


Don't insult the _Primus_ front man.  Clayton is nowhere near as cool as Les Claypool.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Uh no i don’t. You gun nuts come up with such silly stuff. You’ll say anything to justify the fantasy you have about suits showing up at your door and saying “give me your guns! I’m here to collect!” You would respond with “come take it mother fucker!”
> 
> Something like that will NEVER happen so long as the current government exists. It’s just a fantasy you entertain because it makes you feel like a badass.
> 
> Why would I be expecting that? I even made it clear I am not opposed to gun ownership.



Under red flag laws they can do exactly that


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> I’m not against the public owning guns. I’m simply pointing out how vague the amendment is and how it can be interpreted.


Plain language is vague?

Because a militia is necessary, no federal authority.  It's that easy.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> You gun nuts come up with such silly stuff. Y


Say the idiot who can't understand simple definitions.  

You folks like to make broad generalizations and without a facts...   You ignore laws because you think they mean nothing...   When the vigilantism starts, there will be nowhere to hide.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


The Constitution for the State of Indiana (Article 12 Section 1) sheds some light on the historical setting for how a militia is defined before it ever became so politically polarized.


Article 12. - Militia.​    Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.
_(History: As Amended November 3, 1936; November 5, 1974)._

    Section 2. The Governor is Commander-in-Chief of the militia and other military forces of this state.
_(History: As Amended November 5, 1974)._

    Section 3. There shall be an Adjutant General, who shall be appointed by the Governor.
_(History: As Amended November 5, 1974)._

    Section 4. No person, conscientiously opposed to bearing arms, shall be compelled to do so in the militia.

All that being said, as I pointed out before, the right to keep and bear arms is not limited to an individual's participation and place within a militia. The right to keep and bear arms predates the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment by decades if not by hundreds of years.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This ignorance makes no sense.


Dumbass the constitution doesn't give the government rights it places restrictions. Remember when Obama was crying about the constitution giving the government negative rights? You truly are a moron.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 26, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Don't insult the _Primus_ front man.  Clayton is nowhere near as cool as Les Claypool.


True enough.

Clayton wouldn't rate being equated to more than a pimple on "Winona's Big Brown Beaver." But Les was not the Claypool, I was thinking of.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 26, 2022)

lennypartiv said:


> "Well regulated militia" was probably put in there accidently.


What would make you say that?


----------



## Nostra (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> I’m not against the public owning guns. I’m simply pointing out how vague the amendment is and how it can be interpreted.


Not vague at all.  It is quite clear.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 26, 2022)

bodecea said:


> What would make you say that?


Obama in his interview disparages the Constitution as merely "a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf." He believes—and he's right—that changing this is the way to bring about "redistributive change


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 26, 2022)

miketx said:


> When ya comin commie?


Insurrectionist dogma is completely devoid of Constitutional merit.

There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes private citizens to 'take up arms’ against a lawfully, constitutionally elected government incorrectly and subjectively perceived by an armed minority to have ‘become tyrannical.’

There is no ‘right’ of private citizens to have the same arms as the military.

There is no ‘right’ of private citizens to be ‘exempt’ from state and Federal firearm regulatory measures because they falsely claim to be in a ‘militia.’

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with the militia.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 26, 2022)

Chuz Life said:


> The Constitution for the State of Indiana (Article 12 Section 1) sheds some light on the historical setting for how a militia is defined before it ever became so politically polarized.
> 
> 
> Article 12. - Militia.​    Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.
> ...


Why are you citing definitions made after the constitution?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Insurrectionist dogma is completely devoid of Constitutional merit.
> 
> There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes private citizens to 'take up arms’ against a lawfully, constitutionally elected government incorrectly and subjectively perceived by an armed minority to have ‘become tyrannical.’
> 
> ...


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Insurrectionist dogma is completely devoid of Constitutional merit.
> 
> There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes private citizens to 'take up arms’ against a lawfully, constitutionally elected government incorrectly and subjectively perceived by an armed minority to have ‘become tyrannical.’
> 
> ...



Gee, Einstein don't you think if it that was true SCOTUS wouldn't keep slapping gun grabbers down?

You really are stupid


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Uh no i don’t. You gun nuts come up with such silly stuff. You’ll say anything to justify the fantasy you have about suits showing up at your door and saying “give me your guns! I’m here to collect!” You would respond with “come take it mother fucker!”
> 
> Something like that will NEVER happen so long as the current government exists. It’s just a fantasy you entertain because it makes you feel like a badass.
> 
> Why would I be expecting that? I even made it clear I am not opposed to gun ownership.


Correct.

Guns are not going to be ‘banned’; guns are not going to be ‘confiscated.’

Such ridiculous rhetoric is nothing but fearmongering and lies contrived by the dishonest right.


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Why are you citing definitions made after the constitution?


In your op, you asked for "interpretations." That section from Indiana's Constitution was provided towards that end. 

Derp much?


----------



## buckeye45_73 (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


It means trained and equiped......the word regulation has several meanings just like arms does.......


----------



## night_son (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?



The full text of the Second Amendment applies to every single last American, period. Further, due to the very recent pro-Second Amendment ruling, the Supreme Court has rendered ALL current and future gun laws unconstitutional, period. If a law or rule or legal process did not exist at the time the Second Amendment was written then it cannot be applied to modern day control gun restrictions, infringements or laws. For instance, in 1791 no laws existed which restricted or prohibited a convicted felon from owning a firearm, restricted 18-21 year old Americans from owning firearms; no red flag laws existed, no magazine or barrel length or suppressor restrictions existed, no age requirements at all, no laws for possessing, transporting or storing firearms and on and on. Pretty soon, due to the recent SC ruling, NO GUN LAWS will remain in the United States. Hope you have a great day, dude . . . chewing on all that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jun 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> Guns are not going to be ‘banned’; guns are not going to be ‘confiscated.’
> 
> Such ridiculous rhetoric is nothing but fearmongering and lies contrived by the dishonest right.


Ok you want to explain that and your last position? If we didn't have a right to firearms as private citizens why haven't the government started CONFISCATION yet?


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Insurrectionist dogma is completely devoid of Constitutional merit.
> 
> There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes private citizens to 'take up arms’ against a lawfully, constitutionally elected government incorrectly and subjectively perceived by an armed minority to have ‘become tyrannical.’
> 
> ...


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Jun 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> Guns are not going to be ‘banned’; guns are not going to be ‘confiscated.’
> 
> Such ridiculous rhetoric is nothing but fearmongering and lies contrived by the dishonest right.







Then there's no reason for our legislators to work on legislation for it..... NEXT!!!

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> Guns are not going to be ‘banned’; guns are not going to be ‘confiscated.’
> 
> Such ridiculous rhetoric is nothing but fearmongering and lies contrived by the dishonest right.


----------



## 22lcidw (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol you’re right it doesn’t. That’s why it was pointless for you to define it as able bodied males


The ghettos have men and women. Who controls the ghettos? It is closer to primal there.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2022)

night_son said:


> The full text of the Second Amendment applies to every single last American, period. Further, due to the very recent pro-Second Amendment ruling, the Supreme Court has rendered ALL current and future gun laws unconstitutional, period. If a law or rule or legal process did not exist at the time the Second Amendment was written then it cannot be applied to modern day control gun restrictions, infringements or laws. For instance, in 1791 no laws existed which restricted or prohibited a convicted felon from owning a firearm, restricted 18-21 year old Americans from owning firearms; no red flag laws existed, no magazine or barrel length or suppressor restrictions existed, no age requirements at all, no laws for possessing, transporting or storing firearms and on and on. Pretty soon, due to the recent SC ruling, NO GUN LAWS will remain in the United States. Hope you have a great day, dude . . . chewing on all that.


With one caveat....  The due process clause allows rights to be removed after adjudication for crimes. ie: depravation of rights.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jun 26, 2022)

bodecea said:


> What would make you say that?


Because before _Heller_, the Second Amendment was understood to be a collective, not individual, right.

Under the collective right theory, private ownership of guns was justified only as a means to maintain a militia.

With the Militia Act of 1908 along with other measures, the ‘justification’ for private citizens to possess firearms was eliminated, as there were no longer ‘militia’ for private armed citizens to participate in.

That’s why Scalia contrived the individual right unconnected to militia service.


----------



## daveman (Jun 26, 2022)

SassyIrishLass said:


> I'd like to see that fool debate a constitutional lawyer


Now, now.  Jonesy is smarter than any constitutional lawyer -- because he says so.


----------



## daveman (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Uh no i don’t. You gun nuts come up with such silly stuff. You’ll say anything to justify the fantasy you have about suits showing up at your door and saying “give me your guns! I’m here to collect!” You would respond with “come take it mother fucker!”
> 
> Something like that will NEVER happen so long as the current government exists. It’s just a fantasy you entertain because it makes you feel like a badass.
> 
> Why would I be expecting that? I even made it clear I am not opposed to gun ownership.


Uh huh.  You'll support gun confiscation without question or hesitation when you're told to.


----------



## SassyIrishLass (Jun 26, 2022)

daveman said:


> Now, now.  Jonesy is smarter than any constitutional lawyer -- because he says so.



Well no, I've let my attorney husband read some of Jones' material. Lots of eye rolls


----------



## daveman (Jun 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Insurrectionist dogma is completely devoid of Constitutional merit.
> 
> There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes private citizens to 'take up arms’ against a lawfully, constitutionally elected government incorrectly and subjectively perceived by an armed minority to have ‘become tyrannical.’
> 
> ...


Spoken like a true government bootlicker.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> Guns are not going to be ‘banned’; guns are not going to be ‘confiscated.’
> 
> Such ridiculous rhetoric is nothing but fearmongering and lies contrived by the dishonest right.


So you must not have desired to Purchase a Pistol that is not on the Roster in California lately


----------



## daveman (Jun 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That’s why Scalia contrived the individual right unconnected to militia service.


"Scalia".  You misspelled "the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution".  Scalia invented nothing.  He told you leftists that your whack-job interpretation is full of crap.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 26, 2022)

Nostra said:


> Looks like Kondor failed commas in school too.


Doesn't matter in the slightest... but I realize that's as close as you come to intelligent feedback on the remark...


----------



## TemplarKormac (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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.



Because for there to be a militia at all, the people who wish to be a part of it must have the right to bear arms. Or else volunteers of a militia are just a bunch of guys with fists and feet.

And if you read the opinion, you'll see how thoroughly the SCOTUS justices eviscerate that shoddy argument of yours.


----------



## Missourian (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000

What you are missing is the philosophy behind the concept of the Bill of Rights.

Mostly what the Bill of Rights tells the Federal Government is what it can't do.

The government can't make laws establishing religion.

It can't restrict speech, assembly, the press, citizens peaceful protests or religious freedom.

It can't force homeowners to house soldiers.

It can't search or seize personal property without a warrant based on probable cause.

You see a pattern here.

It's a document of "can'ts" ... what the government does not have the power to do.


The Bill of Rights doesn't give power to the government...nor does it grant rights ... it explains the natural rights of the people and it states that the government is forever barred from attempting to infringe on those natural rights.

The militia clause is irrelevant except as a way to convey that the arms were for a defensive use.


If the Constitution said "A free and robust circulation of newspapers,  being essential to the well being of a free state,  the right of the people to establish a free and unfettered press shall not be infringed."

Is the newspaper clause important?  Or is the PEOPLE'S RIGHT to establish a free and unfettered press the actionable and defining sentiment?



If newspapers were no longer printed and all news was digital...could the government then infringe on the PEOPLES right to a free and unfettered press?

If course not.  That would be idiotic.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct.
> 
> Guns are not going to be ‘banned’; guns are not going to be ‘confiscated.’
> 
> Such ridiculous rhetoric is nothing but fearmongering and lies contrived by the dishonest right.


*FUCKING LIAR!!!!*


----------



## Chuz Life (Jun 26, 2022)

Missourian said:


> Billy000
> 
> What you are missing is the philosophy behind the concept if the Bill of Rights.
> 
> ...


To simplify that for him any further, you might have to switch to 'connect the dots' and crayons.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 26, 2022)

daveman said:


> Uh huh.  You'll support gun confiscation without question or hesitation when you're told to.


Lol this is so stupid.


----------



## Nostra (Jun 26, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Because before _Heller_, the Second Amendment was understood to be a collective, not individual, right.
> 
> Under the collective right theory, private ownership of guns was justified only as a means to maintain a militia.
> 
> ...


You are a moron.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> As women are now allowed to be in combat, it means any able-bodied person.


So literally everyone then?


----------



## Nostra (Jun 26, 2022)

Kondor3 said:


> Doesn't matter in the slightest... but I realize that's as close as you come to intelligent feedback on the remark...


Not sure your massive dipshittery deserves intelligent feedback as it would be wasted on you.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 26, 2022)

Failzero said:


> In California ( Per State Constitution ) it’s EVERY adult Male age 18 -54 that is not ( Current Duty Law Enforcement Or Military , Member Of the State Legislature )


So only people aged 18-54 are eligible to keep and bear arms then?


----------



## Rogue AI (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> I’m not against the public owning guns. I’m simply pointing out how vague the amendment is and how it can be interpreted.


Shall not be infringed is simple enough. You can stop your worrying now.


----------



## Nostra (Jun 26, 2022)

Hutch Starskey said:


> So only people aged 18-54 are eligible to keep and bear arms then?


Is that in the Second Amendment?

Link.


----------



## Hutch Starskey (Jun 26, 2022)

Nostra said:


> Doesn’t matter.


It does. The time necessitated a militia. Today it doesn’t.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2022)

Hutch Starskey said:


> So literally everyone then?


At this point in time, yes... Anyone that fits the militia act by age.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 26, 2022)

Hutch Starskey said:


> It does. The time necessitated a militia. Today it doesn’t.


Wrong...   One of the reasons Japan never attacked the US was the fact they feared a rifle behind every blade of grass.  IT continues to this day..  The need of the people to be armed is also to keep our own government from becoming tyrannical. The DOI explains this very clearly.

"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that* all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, *--*That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient* causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. *But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.*--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."


  The democrats are trying very hard to destroy the US as founded.  We have the right and duty to stop them.


----------



## Missourian (Jun 26, 2022)

Hutch Starskey said:


> So only people aged 18-54 are eligible to keep and bear arms then?


Does the Second Amendment say "the right of militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

No?

Then no.


----------



## Nostra (Jun 26, 2022)

Hutch Starskey said:


> It does. The time necessitated a militia. Today it doesn’t.


No, it didn’t.  Why do you morons only want to read the first sentence of the Amendment?

Too many words for your pea brain?


----------



## daveman (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol this is so stupid.


If you don't like being called a mindless drone, stop being a mindless drone.  Your call.


----------



## Rogue AI (Jun 26, 2022)

daveman said:


> "shit fam u rite imma give up all my guns now"
> 
> -- no one ever


Except Australians, Kiwis, Britons, and Canadians.


----------



## Kondor3 (Jun 26, 2022)

Nostra said:


> Not sure your massive dipshittery deserves intelligent feedback as it would be wasted on you.


_Dat's my boy Cool Hand Nostra... keeps comin' back with a handfulla nuthin_'...


----------



## Nostra (Jun 26, 2022)

Kondor3 said:


> _Dat's my boy Cool Hand Nostra... keeps comin' back with a handfulla nuthin_'...


see.


----------



## TemplarKormac (Jun 26, 2022)

Kondor3 said:


> A reasonable person would construe this to mean (a) adults and (b) the general population, armed to serve as a Militia of Last Resort for national defense.


A reasonable person can see that the adult members of any last resort militia need to already be armed for the militia _to be_ a militia. In other words, the adults need to be armed before forming the militia, thus "the right to bear arms." There can be no militia if the people forming it don't already have the right to bear arms to begin with.


----------



## AMart (Jun 26, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


Up to the parents. I could shoot at 7 years old. I can tell you that well regulated does not mean government approved commie boy.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

AMart said:


> Up to the parents. I could shoot at 7 years old. I can tell you that well regulated does not mean government approved commie boy.


Where in the amendment does it specify anything about parents? Parents don’t need to give kids permission to have freedom of speech. Also, we need to address how stupid of an idea this is anyway. Up to the parents? What if they are incompetent or don’t give a fuck about their safety?


----------



## daveman (Jun 27, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> Except Australians, Kiwis, Britons, and Canadians.


Uh huh.  They gave up their guns with the threat of government violence, not because some internet dumbass can't read.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol this is so stupid.


You are a liar.

If you didn't want ban and confiscation you and your communist ilk would not have pushed the Heller matter seeking to declare the right collective only (a logical impossibility).

Because you are such a rotten liar, you and your goose-stepping Marxist ilk (who also lie about everything in their agenda) get NOTHING.

We will have this new stupid law declared unconstitutional and likely will get the entire Fed gun infringement scheme shot down with it. 

Now, go fuck your commie self.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> You are a liar.
> 
> If you didn't want ban and confiscation you and your communist ilk would not have pushed the Heller matter seeking to declare the right collective only (a logical impossibility).
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## Rogue AI (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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.


So clearly and concisely list all aspects of 'sensible' gun control so everyone is clear as to where you stand.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 27, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> So clearly and concisely list all aspects of 'sensible' gun control so everyone is clear as to where you stand.


This idiot thinks none for you...  This is how the rabid left wants you to feel good about giving up your rights. The term "sensible" is very ambiguous and can mean anything they want.  IT sounds good but it is a ruse.


----------



## whitehall (Jun 27, 2022)

Only the radical left seems to loose sleep over the wording in the 2nd Amendment. The issue has been settled in a dozen decisions. Go back to sleep.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> So clearly and concisely list all aspects of 'sensible' gun control so everyone is clear as to where you stand.


My take on gun control would be highly restrictive but would still definitely fall short of confiscation of current ownership or banning all of them altogether. Of course, if another leftie simply suggested something like limiting capacity OR strict enforcement of national or state background checks is still automatically equated to the mentality of confiscation or banning of all firearms. I mean this shouldn’t be hard to figure out. You all can’t approach the subject with any rationality.


----------



## Who_Me? (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> But why can we be sure the context of the right to bear arms applies to any context outside of a well regulated militia?


Said another way, if you're not part of a "well regulated militia" can you own arms?

If so, why didn't they just say that it is the right of all people to own and bear arms?


----------



## Rogue AI (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> My take on gun control would be highly restrictive but would still definitely fall short of confiscation of current ownership or banning all of them altogether. Of course, if another leftie simply suggested something like limiting capacity OR strict enforcement of national or state background checks is still automatically equated to the mentality of confiscation or banning of all firearms. I mean this shouldn’t be hard to figure out. You all can’t approach the subject with any rationality.


Your vagaries do not spell out your position. If you are not a gun grabber it should not be difficult to express in detail what is 'sensible '.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> Your vagaries do not spell out your position. If you are not a gun grabber it should not be difficult to express in detail what is 'sensible '.


Again my position doesn’t need to be relevant to the point. Any gun control ideas, regardless of how basic and simple they are, are still met with immediate knee jerk condemnation about the 2nd amendment being overturned.

I personally would like to ban future sales of semi-automatic weapons. Strict background checking. Anyone buying a gun must take lessons that prove his or her competency of using it. Psychological evaluation from a psychiatrist. Veterans may bypass the competency evaluation, however. They would still be subject to the rest.

Now I know your response to this will be to go ape shit and completely ignore the point I made in my first paragraph so it’s pointless having the conversation to begin with.


----------



## scruffy (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol you righttards really struggle with basic nuance huh?



There is no nuance.

It is my inviolable natural right to protect myself, my family, and my property.

By any means necessary.




Billy000 said:


> 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.


There is no room for debate here.

Thou shalt not infringe.


----------



## Rogue AI (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Again my position doesn’t need to be relevant to the point. Any gun control ideas, regardless of how basic and simple they are, are still met with immediate knee jerk condemnation about the 2nd amendment being overturned.
> 
> I personally would like to ban future sales of semi-automatic weapons. Strict background checking. Anyone buying a gun must take lessons that prove his or her competency of using it. Psychological evaluation from a psychiatrist. Veterans may bypass the competency evaluation, however. They would still be subject to the rest.
> 
> Now I know your response to this will be to go ape shit and completely ignore the point I made in my first paragraph so it’s pointless having the conversation to begin with.


Future conversation is indeed pointless. You have no comprehension of what constitutes a right and would gladly relegate rights into paltry privileges. Folks like you only solidify the demand for an amendment as there is no compromise possible.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 27, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> Future conversation is indeed pointless. You have no comprehension of what constitutes a right and would gladly relegate rights into paltry privileges. Folks like you only solidify the demand for an amendment as there is no compromise possible.


It’s like compromising on Pedo / NAMBLA criminality .


----------



## daveman (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> My take on gun control would be highly restrictive but would still definitely fall short of confiscation of current ownership or banning all of them altogether. Of course, if another leftie simply suggested something like limiting capacity OR strict enforcement of national or state background checks is still automatically equated to the mentality of confiscation or banning of all firearms. I mean this shouldn’t be hard to figure out. You all can’t approach the subject with any rationality.


How 'bout, instead of enacting new laws, we fully enforce the ones already on the books?


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> Future conversation is indeed pointless. You have no comprehension of what constitutes a right and would gladly relegate rights into paltry privileges. Folks like you only solidify the demand for an amendment as there is no compromise possible.


Israel has all of these laws but includes the age minimum of 27. It’s still a politically stable first world country that offers sufficient personal freedoms in general like we do. Hell their citizens are happier on average.


----------



## Rogue AI (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Israel has all of these laws but includes the age minimum of 27. It’s still a politically stable first world country that offers sufficient personal freedoms in general like we do. Hell their citizens are happier on average.


Which has nothing to do with the US Constitution.  Get an amendment.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> Which has nothing to do with the US Constitution.  Get an amendment.


Lol it doesn’t have to. The point is, there aren’t detrimental effects to democracy, personal happiness and personal freedom in general. Israel does just fine with such laws.


----------



## Peace (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


So I believe you should own a firearm?

No, but the Constitution grants you that right even though I feel you would do more to yourself than the person you are aiming at…

As for kids owning a firearm that is the parent choice and if the State allows it…


----------



## Failzero (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol it doesn’t have to. The point is, there aren’t detrimental effects to democracy, personal happiness and personal freedom in general. Israel does just fine with such laws.


I would be living there already for years if their firearms laws were not more Draconian than New York & California combined


----------



## Rogue AI (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol it doesn’t have to. The point is, there aren’t detrimental effects to democracy, personal happiness and personal freedom in general. Israel does just fine with such laws.


Feel free to move there. You need an amendment here.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 27, 2022)

Rogue AI said:


> Feel free to move there. You need an amendment here.


In a Just World I would be operating an Arms bazar like the one in “ Blackhawk Down “


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

Peace said:


> So I believe you should own a firearm?
> 
> No, but the Constitution grants you that right even though I feel you would do more to yourself than the person you are aiming at…
> 
> As for kids owning a firearm that is the parent choice and if the State allows it…


Okay but if any additional gun control is unconstitutional, should we not just let kids own firearms for the sake of how the constitution works? Kids don’t need permission to have free speech. They have that regardless of what their parents think.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

Failzero said:


> I would be living there already for years if their firearms laws were not more Draconian than New York & California combined


NY and Cali have laws of an age minimum of 27? How about a psychiatrist eval requirement? Competency requirement that involves taking classes? Israel has all of that.


----------



## daveman (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol it doesn’t have to. The point is, there aren’t detrimental effects to democracy, personal happiness and personal freedom in general. Israel does just fine with such laws.


Israel doesn't have a Constitution that guarantees the right to own firearms.  

We do.  

Change it according to the rules, or shaddap.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

daveman said:


> Israel doesn't have a Constitution that guarantees the right to own firearms.
> 
> We do.
> 
> Change it according to the rules, or shaddap.


How do you people miss the point so easily? Lol


----------



## Failzero (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> NY and Cali have laws of an age minimum of 27? How about a psychiatrist eval requirement? Competency requirement that involves taking classes? Israel has all of that.


Immigrant can’t own a firearm ( 22 Rifle ) for 4 years , after that time frame you get an interview and if you speak Hebrew better than your interviewer then you may be able to get a 22 LR Rifle ( not Centerfire caliber ) and don’t even think of a Handgun as that is out of the question .


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

Failzero said:


> Immigrant can’t own a firearm ( 22 Rifle ) for 4 years , after that time frame you get an interview and if you speak Hebrew better than your interviewer then you may be able to get a 22 LR Rifle ( not Centerfire caliber ) and don’t even think of a Handgun as that is out of the question .


So what is your point exactly?


----------



## Peace (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Okay but if any additional gun control is unconstitutional, should we not just let kids own firearms for the sake of how the constitution works? Kids don’t need permission to have free speech. They have that regardless of what their parents think.


The Parent is responsible for the child until a certain age, so you should first study the age a child advances into adulthood.

Now let me be clear type my name in and the number 25 and discover I believe no one should be considered an adult until they can run for Congress which would mean no one would own a gun until the age of 25 or have their parent permission while the parent is responsible for that person actions…


----------



## daveman (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> How do you people miss the point so easily? Lol


We get your point.  It's not that deep.  

We're telling you there is only one way to get the change you want.  Change the Constitution.  Don't just ignore it.  

Why do you intentionally miss this point?


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

daveman said:


> We get your point.  It's not that deep.
> 
> We're telling you there is only one way to get the change you want.  Change the Constitution.  Don't just ignore it.
> 
> Why do you intentionally miss this point?


I want to bring up the children point again. Should we make it legal for kids to own and buy firearms regardless of the circumstance? Shouldn’t we for the sake of the constitution and how it is written?! Consequences be damned right? I mean kids already have freedom of speech no matter what.


----------



## daveman (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> I want to bring up the children point again. Should we make it legal for kids to own and buy firearms regardless of the circumstance? Shouldn’t we for the sake of the constitution and how it is written?! Consequences be damned right? I mean kids already have freedom of speech no matter what.


What was the minimum age for a militia member during the Revolution?  I'm okay with that.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

daveman said:


> What was the minimum age for a militia member during the Revolution?  I'm okay with that.


But if it was higher than age 3, it would still be unconstitutional for kids 3 and up to get guns right now right?

Yes, I noticed you dodged my point.


----------



## daveman (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> But if it was higher than age 3, it would still be unconstitutional for kids 3 and up to get guns right now right?
> 
> Yes, I noticed you dodged my point.


Your point is nothing more than a gotcha attempt so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.

I have no obligation to give you the answer you want.  You're going to have to learn to deal with it.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

daveman said:


> Your point is nothing more than a gotcha attempt so lame, we need to call in a veterinarian and have it put down.
> 
> I have no obligation to give you the answer you want.  You're going to have to learn to deal with it.


Perhaps you should just admit you can’t argue the point.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

Peace said:


> The Parent is responsible for the child until a certain age, so you should first study the age a child advances into adulthood.
> 
> Now let me be clear type my name in and the number 25 and discover I believe no one should be considered an adult until they can run for Congress which would mean no one would own a gun until the age of 25 or have their parent permission while the parent is responsible for that person actions…


But see, you’re still making up your own rules as far as the logic of the point goes on what the 2nd amendment guarantees to citizens. Using the same logic, I would tell you this parent rule doesn’t exist in the constitution.


----------



## daveman (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Perhaps you should just admit you can’t argue the point.


Perhaps you should just admit your point is stupid.


----------



## Peace (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> But see, you’re still making up your own rules as far as the logic of the point goes on what the 2nd amendment guarantees to citizens. Using the same logic, I would tell you this parent rule doesn’t exist in the constitution.


Look at the Federal and State laws about when a child become of age…


----------



## Nostra (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> My take on gun control would be highly restrictive but would still definitely fall short of confiscation of current ownership or banning all of them altogether. Of course, if another leftie simply suggested something like limiting capacity OR strict enforcement of national or state background checks is still automatically equated to the mentality of confiscation or banning of all firearms. I mean this shouldn’t be hard to figure out. You all can’t approach the subject with any rationality.


You were neither clear, nor concise.

You offered nothing more than the usual Dimwinger 2A hating claptrap.


----------



## scruffy (Jun 27, 2022)

Failzero said:


> Immigrant can’t own a firearm ( 22 Rifle ) for 4 years , after that time frame you get an interview and if you speak Hebrew better than your interviewer then you may be able to get a 22 LR Rifle ( not Centerfire caliber ) and don’t even think of a Handgun as that is out of the question .


But that's a different planet. There's so many IDF and ex-IDF running around that there's no lack of security and protection.

Here, the dumbass fucktard cops put you in handcuffs if you try to help someone, and then they go off and kneel with the communists


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

Nostra said:


> You were neither clear, nor concise.
> 
> You offered nothing more than the usual Dimwinger 2A hating claptrap.


Let me know when your reading comprehension skills improve and we’ll revisit the topic.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

Peace said:


> Look at the Federal and State laws about when a child become of age…


Kids have freedom of speech no matter what.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

daveman said:


> Billy, you've lost this fight.  The right to own firearms -- for any reason, or no reason at all -- is an individual right.


That applies to kids 1 and up?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> That applies to kids 1 and up?


You are a retard and a troll. Bug off.


----------



## Nostra (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Let me know when your reading comprehension skills improve and we’ll revisit the topic.


Says the moron who can’t grasp “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” and thinks it means  anyone wanting a gun has to join a militia.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

Nostra said:


> Says the moron who can’t grasp “THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” and thinks it means  anyone wanting a gun has to join a militia.


I actually don’t know if it means that or not. I think it is vague and ambiguous. It’s you who is convinced of what it means.


----------



## Nostra (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> I actually don’t know if it means that or not. I think it is vague and ambiguous. It’s you who is convinced of what it means.


Which is why you have been getting pummeled for this entire thread.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

Nostra said:


> Which is why you have been getting pummeled for this entire thread.


Hell I’ve made it clear many times that i don’t oppose gun ownership. Just telling you like it is on what the amendment says. COULD your interpretation be correct? That’s definitely possible. It’s also possible the people having access to guns only applies to “a well regulated militia.” So far everyone in this thread has failed to explain why the phrase is there or what it means.


----------



## daveman (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> That applies to kids 1 and up?


Great strategy, Bill.


----------



## daveman (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Hell I’ve made it clear many times that i don’t oppose gun ownership. Just telling you like it is on what the amendment says. COULD your interpretation be correct? That’s definitely possible. It’s also possible the people having access to guns only applies to “a well regulated militia.” So far everyone in this thread has failed to explain why the phrase is there or what it means.


I establish myself as a militia of one.  I ensure I obey all laws and regulations.

Problem solved.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

daveman said:


> Great strategy, Bill.
> 
> View attachment 663110


Hmm so how does the narrative of this joke fit with what I am saying?


----------



## Failzero (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> So what is your point exactly?


Their gun  laws suck a bag of dicks


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

daveman said:


> I establish myself as a militia of one.  I ensure I obey all laws and regulations.
> 
> Problem solved.


But the constitution still has definitions in theory. But I guess we basically agree this amendment is very vague lol


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

Failzero said:


> Their gun  laws suck a bag of dicks


Okay that is your opinion. Their country still thrives either way.


----------



## Nostra (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Hell I’ve made it clear many times that i don’t oppose gun ownership. Just telling you like it is on what the amendment says. COULD your interpretation be correct? That’s definitely possible. It’s also possible the people having access to guns only applies to “a well regulated militia.” So far everyone in this thread has failed to explain why the phrase is there or what it means.


Once again you demonstrate you are too stupid to get past the first sentence of the 2A.

The rest of it is crystal clear to anyone with at least a double digit IQ, which is why you are so confused, Simp.


----------



## daveman (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Hmm so how does the narrative of this joke fit with what I am saying?


You come across as a retard, even if you're only pretending.


----------



## daveman (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> But the constitution still has definitions in theory. But I guess we basically agree this amendment is very vague lol


No, we don't.  I was humoring you.  Nobody needs to belong to a militia to own firearms.  That point has been settled for a long time.  If you've paid attention, you'd know that.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 27, 2022)

scruffy said:


> But that's a different planet. There's so many IDF and ex-IDF running around that there's no lack of security and protection.
> 
> Here, the dumbass fucktard cops put you in handcuffs if you try to help someone, and then they go off and kneel with the communists


Ex IDF can’t have a HG and there is no open carry for retired Military of long Guns . There are almost 250 Million Islamists within a three day truck trip of Israel . I’m only thinking Retired High ranking Police Officers And IDF retirees say above rank of Captain who might have ability to carry a HG


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

Nostra said:


> Once again you demonstrate you are too stupid to get past the first sentence of the 2A.
> 
> The rest of it is crystal clear to anyone with at least a double digit IQ, which is why you are so confused, Simp.


Lol yes a single sentence is very clear you’re right. How silly of me. We don’t need context. We have an entire sentence! Thank god it wasn’t a phrase! We would be uncertain!


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 27, 2022)

daveman said:


> No, we don't.  I was humoring you.  Nobody needs to belong to a militia to own firearms.  That point has been settled for a long time.  If you've paid attention, you'd know that.


What does the militia phrase refer to? Why is it in there?


----------



## Failzero (Jun 27, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Okay that is your opinion. Their country still thrives either way.


I’m glad your pro Israel
( and not an Arab / Palestinian bootlicker)
But I’m sure you NEVER considered moving there and looked into it
Like I have .


----------



## Failzero (Jun 27, 2022)

daveman said:


> No, we don't.  I was humoring you.  Nobody needs to belong to a militia to own firearms.  That point has been settled for a long time.  If you've paid attention, you'd know that.


I owned Firearms prior to Being a Malitiaman
And had them as a Militiaman and have them as an Inactive Militiaman


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> What does the militia phrase refer to? Why is it in there?


You dont know english? The militia part is simply a reference to one of the possible reasons one would need firearms..


----------



## Nostra (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol yes a single sentence is very clear you’re right. How silly of me. We don’t need context. We have an entire sentence! Thank god it wasn’t a phrase! We would be uncertain!


It’s quite astounding how easily your pea brain is confused.


----------



## Flash (Jun 28, 2022)




----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Flash said:


> View attachment 663309


Once again you’re just entertaining a fantasy. No one is coming for the guns you own and they NEVER will. You like the idea of the threat though. It makes you feel manly and tough picturing this happening and how you’d respond. That’s why you entertain the notion.


----------



## Failzero (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Once again you’re just entertaining a fantasy. No one is coming for the guns you own and they NEVER will. You like the idea of the threat though. It makes you feel manly and tough picturing this happening and how you’d respond. That’s why you entertain the notion.


So Red Flag Laws have no teeth and outright bans ( California style) don’t exist ?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Once again you’re just entertaining a fantasy. No one is coming for the guns you own and they NEVER will. You like the idea of the threat though. It makes you feel manly and tough picturing this happening and how you’d respond. That’s why you entertain the notion.





			Repeal the Second Amendment: ‘No one has the absolute right to own any weapon they want’
		

sure thing retard


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> But why can we be sure the context of the right to bear arms applies to any context outside of a well regulated militia?


Yes. We're sure.  The reason we're sure is because we are educated and understand punctuation.  The Constitution is for educated people, not Marxist pawns.


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 28, 2022)

the term   "well regulated militia"  is an oxymoron


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Yes. We're sure.  The reason we're sure is because we are educated and understand punctuation.  The Constitution is for educated people, not Marxist pawns.


What is the amendment saying when it comes to the well regulated militia? What does it mean and why is it in there?


----------



## Flash (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Once again you’re just entertaining a fantasy. No one is coming for the guns you own and they NEVER will. You like the idea of the threat though. It makes you feel manly and tough picturing this happening and how you’d respond. That’s why you entertain the notion.


Gun control from the Liberals is never about public safety because most of the gun crime in this country is in Liberal controlled big cities where nobody really gives a fuck.

It is about taking guns away from White Conservative males so that can't oppose the Liberal agenda to turn this country into a Socialist shithole.

That meme is very relevant.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Flash said:


> Gun control from the Liberals is never about public safety because most of the gun crime in this country is in Liberal controlled big cities where nobody really gives a fuck.
> 
> It is about taking guns away from White Conservative males so that can't oppose the Liberal agenda to turn this country into a Socialist shithole.
> 
> That meme is very relevant.


Lol no you’re literally just making shit up. Democrats NEVER talk about confiscating guns already owned. Even if they did, it would still NEVER happen. It’s such a stupid notion to consider.


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> What is the amendment saying when it comes to the well regulated militia? What does it mean and why is it in there?


Haven't you ever researched it?


----------



## Flash (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol no you’re literally just making shit up. Democrats NEVER talk about confiscating guns already owned. Even if they did, it would still NEVER happen. It’s such a stupid notion to consider.


Bullshit!

Several Democrat leaders were calling for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment.

If not repeal then onerous gun restrictions.

Don't try to deny that the Democrats would do away with the right to keep and bear arms if they could get away with it.  It just makes you lose even more credibility when you post that lying shit on here.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> The rightwing will cite court precedent for this issue,


What issue?  Well regulated meant to know the chain of command and the basic of military drills.  Like marching, picket lines, combat formations, firing lines.....ect.


----------



## Lesh (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


After the Roe ruling you can forget about precedent meaning anything


----------



## Lesh (Jun 28, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> What issue?  Well regulated meant to know the chain of command and the basic of military drills.  Like marching, picket lines, combat formations, firing lines.....ect.


I’m fact Article 1 Section 8 spells out what a well regulated militia is. And it ain’t a bunch of slops with assault rifles sittin in front of the barbershop bitching


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 28, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> What issue?  Well regulated meant to know the chain of command and the basic of military drills.  Like marching, picket lines, combat formations, firing lines.....ect.


   yeah--- I did military-----them boys AIN'T well regulated


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> I’m fact Article 1 Section 8 spells out what a well regulated militia is. And it ain’t a bunch of slops with assault rifles sittin in front of the barbershop bitching


   AMERICA  is a hunting society.    Davy Crockett  kilt him a barr when 
    he was only three.    There were people in the state of my childhood 
    who LIVED for deer and bear hunting season


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> What is the amendment saying when it comes to the well regulated militia? What does it mean and why is it in there?


already answered you did not like the answer so ignored it.


----------



## Lesh (Jun 28, 2022)

irosie91 said:


> AMERICA  is a hunting society.    Davy Crockett  kilt him a barr when
> he was only three.    There were people in the state of my childhood
> who LIVED for deer and bear hunting season


That's nice. I have hunted most of my life.

Has nothing to do with a militia


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> After the Roe ruling you can forget about precedent meaning anything


Ya like after plessy? or Board of education?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> That's nice. I have hunted most of my life.
> 
> Has nothing to do with a militia


And the second does not depend on a militia to give everyone the right


----------



## irosie91 (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> That's nice. I have hunted most of my life.
> 
> Has nothing to do with a militia


   in my childhood town----people who HUNTED had rifles.   In my adult 
   town------even if I claimed a need to HUNT DEER---I would have to have 
   a license to get a rifle


----------



## Lesh (Jun 28, 2022)

irosie91 said:


> in my childhood town----people who HUNTED had rifles.   In my adult
> town------even if I claimed a need to HUNT DEER---I would have to have
> a license to get a rifle


And?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> And?


Buzz off again there is no requirement for a militia to own a firearm and now the onerous process of getting one in certain locations has been struck down as well.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Haven't you ever researched it?


Can’t you just answer the question?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Can’t you just answer the question?


already answered. dumb ass


----------



## Batcat (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


Does anyone here know how to do a web search for info?

It took me less than 30 seconds to find …

_








						10 U.S. Code § 246 -  Militia: composition and classes
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				




10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes​(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b)The classes of the militia are—

(1)  the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> I’m fact Article 1 Section 8 spells out what a well regulated militia is. And it ain’t a bunch of slops with assault rifles sittin in front of the barbershop bitching


NO...  The milita was the people.   
The Second amendment was written so that no one could misinterpret it.  "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."   It is a right of the people, not of the militia.  The people are the militia.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 28, 2022)

Batcat said:


> Does anyone here know how to do a web search for info?
> 
> It took me less than 30 seconds to find …
> 
> ...


Prior to 1792 they did not exist and were not codified by the law.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Can’t you just answer the question?


You are running in circles billyzero...  I showed you the reason and the definitions at the time of writing.  You're being a n obtuse POS.


----------



## kaz (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?



No, they're children, not full citizens.   They can't drive, buy alcohol, go into the military or a whole bunch of other things they will be able to do when .... wait for it .... they are ADULTS.    What is wrong with you?   Seriously, what?


----------



## kaz (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> But why can we be sure the context of the right to bear arms applies to any context outside of a well regulated militia?



If you could read, you would have noticed when you read the second amendment that the section on "well regulated militia" is offered as an explanation of the right, not a limit on it.    But, again you'd have to be able to read to have notice that


----------



## Batcat (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> Prior to 1792 they did not exist and were not codified by the law.


True. Read the following link.





__





						The Militia Act of 1792
					





					constitution.org
				




Militia Act of 1792,
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792,
providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia

***snip***

_*I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America*, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes._


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> already answered. dumb ass


Nope it really wasn’t lol. You all just assert it the amendment applies to everyone. You don’t actually explain the phrase or why it is in there.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 28, 2022)

kaz said:


> If you could read, you would have noticed when you read the second amendment that the section on "well regulated militia" is offered as an explanation of the right, not a limit on it.    But, again you'd have to be able to read to have notice that


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


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

kaz said:


> No, they're children, not full citizens.   They can't drive, buy alcohol, go into the military or a whole bunch of other things they will be able to do when .... wait for it .... they are ADULTS.    What is wrong with you?   Seriously, what?


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.


----------



## Nostra (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> What is the amendment saying when it comes to the well regulated militia? What does it mean and why is it in there?


Doesn’t matter.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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.


You're spinning around in circles...  Not one of those items makes any difference.  The words "shall not be infringed" mean you cannot regulate it...


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 28, 2022)

Batcat said:


> True. Read the following link.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I already posted this in page 2 of the replys..  I am well aware of it.


----------



## kaz (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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.



That's not " the same logic."  That is you  playing word parsing games.

Children are not adults and do not have full adult rights.   Pointing out we give them some rights (were appropriate) doesn't contradict shit.    Your post is a pile of bull


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> NO...  The milita was the people.
> The Second amendment was written so that no one could misinterpret it.  "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."   It is a right of the people, not of the militia.  The people are the militia.



Women were not part of the militia's nor were they required to join the local militias like the white male were.  You know the people who could vote.


----------



## Batcat (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> I already posted this in page 2 of the replys..  I am well aware of it.


Therefore it seems you know how to do a web search while many other posters don’t or are too lazy to do so.


----------



## kaz (Jun 28, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> Women were not part of the militia's nor were they required to join the local militias like the white male were.  You know the people who could vote.



Most women in the world then didn't vote, jackass.    Come into the last century, racist


----------



## Lesh (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> NO...  The milita was the people.
> The Second amendment was written so that no one could misinterpret it.  "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."   It is a right of the people, not of the militia.  The people are the militia.


“A well regulated militia being necessary…”


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 28, 2022)

BlindBoo said:


> Women were not part of the militia's nor were they required to join the local militias like the white male were.  You know the people who could vote.


The founders knew that all the people should have the right.  They saw where this would go. I will give them far more credit for their vision than many others will.


----------



## Lesh (Jun 28, 2022)

kaz said:


> Most women in the world then didn't vote, jackass.    Come into the last century, racist


They were not allowed to


----------



## Lesh (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> The founders knew that all the people should have the right.  They saw where this would go. I will give them far more credit for their vision than many others will.


They knew that?

How do you know?


----------



## kaz (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> “A well regulated militia being necessary…”



If you could read, you'd notice that is an explanation of the right now a limit on the right.    But that skill has been long term missing from your repertoire


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Nostra said:


> Doesn’t matter.


How something in the constitution is written doesn’t matter?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> “A well regulated militia being necessary…”


Put the statements in context.  

_The statement-reason for the right: _“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

_The right assigned:_ the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

_The actions allowed by the government:_ shall not be infringed.”

The sentence structure means things... it was crafted so there would be NO AMBIGUITY of what it meant.


----------



## Lesh (Jun 28, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Buzz off again there is no requirement for a militia to own a firearm and now the onerous process of getting one in certain locations has been struck down as well.


Getting one… for militia usage?

What militia?


----------



## Lesh (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> Put the statements in context.
> 
> _The statement-reason for the right: _“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
> 
> ...


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


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> They knew that?
> 
> How do you know?


You have never studied the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, have you.  That is how we know this.


----------



## Billy_Bob (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


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


You're misreading the statement.  the militia is necessary for a free state is separated from the right to keep and bear arms.  This allows us to understand that the people were the militia and that the peoples right cannot be infringed upon...


----------



## Batcat (Jun 28, 2022)

Nostra said:


> Doesn’t matter.


Perhaps we should go back to having a militia composed of all citizens from 18 to 45 who would be required to own an AR-15 or a real assault weapon and a significant amount of ammo as well as clothing and military equipment necessary to deploy for combat. They might drill on a monthly basis or hold shooting contests and a variety of physical completions. 

That might help keep the Chinese from ever invading and also keep our government from becoming a Marxist socialist worker’s paradise like the Democrats are pushing for.

It might not be all that popular in the Blue states but might go over big time in the Red states. Each state could decide if it wanted to create a citizens militia to argument the National Guard.

At 76 I would be well above the age limits but then I already have served my nation as a member of the Air Force in the Vietnam Era.


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Can’t you just answer the question?


Definition of militia

 1a : *a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency* The militia was called to quell the riot. b : a body of citizens organized for military service. 2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

kaz said:


> That's not " the same logic."  That is you  playing word parsing games.
> 
> Children are not adults and do not have full adult rights.   Pointing out we give them some rights (were appropriate) doesn't contradict shit.    Your post is a pile of bull


Uhh no. Kids have freedom of speech right away. Other laws have specific age requirements. Those aren’t the same thing. The first amendment can easily be compared to the 2nd.


----------



## BlindBoo (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> The founders knew that all the people should have the right.  They saw where this would go. I will give them far more credit for their vision than many others will.


They were naturally racists, misogynists, superstitious and brimming with toxic masculinity, bless their hearts.  They wanted to have the arms for themselves to protect their property, not to arm the women, not to arm the slaves, ever.

Hahahahaha.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Definition of militia
> 
> 1a : *a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency* The militia was called to quell the riot. b : a body of citizens organized for military service. 2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service.


Well that basically indicates it’s not a right to all citizens lol


----------



## Lesh (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> You're misreading the statement.  the militia is necessary for a free state is separated from the right to keep and bear arms.  This allows us to understand that the people were the militia and that the peoples right cannot be infringed upon...





Billy_Bob said:


> You have never studied the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers, have you.  That is how we know this.



We can go back and forth forever and neither will budge.

The point is, a different Court may well rule that gun rights are NOT conferred beyond usage in a well regulated militia and you’d have to suck it up and live with it


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Well that basically indicates it’s not a right to all citizens lol


Well, that would be true only if you didn't read the part that follows the word "militia".  Are you really that fucking stupid?


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Well, that would be true only if you didn't read the part that follows the word "militia".  Are you really that fucking stupid?


Yeah dude the word militia is a militia. It involves an armed organized group. That doesn’t apply to anyone.


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Yeah dude the word militia is a militia. It involves an armed organized group. That doesn’t apply to anyone.


Ok, dude.  Then what does it say right after the comma after the word "militia"?


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Ok, dude.  Then what does it say right after the comma after the word "militia"?


You can interpret that part to mean that it only applies to any citizen joining a militia. You still haven’t explained why the militia phrase is even in there.


----------



## Lesh (Jun 28, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Well, that would be true only if you didn't read the part that follows the word "militia".  Are you really that fucking stupid?


That might be true if the Militia clause weren't there...but it is


----------



## Lesh (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> We can go back and forth forever and neither will budge.
> 
> The point is, a different Court may well rule that gun rights are NOT conferred beyond usage in a well regulated militia and you’d have to suck it up and live with it


I repeat


----------



## Nostra (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> How something in the constitution is written doesn’t matter?


It doesn't matter because you are trying to use it to claim there is no right of the people to keep and bear arms.  That's why you edit that part of the 2A out every time  you reference it.


----------



## Nostra (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


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


Another Dimwinger moron who failed commas in school.


----------



## Lesh (Jun 28, 2022)

Nostra said:


> It doesn't matter because you are trying to use it to claim there is no right of the people to keep and bear arms.  *That's why you edit that part of the 2A out every time  you reference it.*


As do you


----------



## Nostra (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Well that basically indicates it’s not a right to all citizens lol


"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Clearly indicates the people have the right to arms.  No requirement of them being in some "militia".


----------



## Nostra (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> As do you


Because there isn't anyone questioning the well regulated militia, Simp.

You morons are questioning "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".


----------



## Lesh (Jun 28, 2022)

Nostra said:


> Another Dimwinger moron who failed commas in school.


Since you are an asshole*,* your posts are pointless

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


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> You can interpret that part to mean that it only applies to any citizen joining a militia. You still haven’t explained why the militia phrase is even in there.


Yes, you can interpret it that way.  You can also interpret it to mean exactly what it says...."the people", as in "We, the people".


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> That might be true if the Militia clause weren't there...but it is


So what does "the people" mean?


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> Since you are an asshole*,* your posts are pointless
> 
> Clearly the first phrase (followed by the comma) describes why the second phrase is there


Who says?


----------



## kaz (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> They were not allowed to



Where are you going with that, captain Obvious?


----------



## Nostra (Jun 28, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> So what does "the people" mean?


Dims don't know what a "woman" is, so don't confuse his tiny brain.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Nostra said:


> It doesn't matter because you are trying to use it to claim there is no right of the people to keep and bear arms.  That's why you edit that part of the 2A out every time  you reference it.


Unless that right only applies to all citizens in the context of a militia. I’m not ignoring it lol. I’m clearly referencing it.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Yes, you can interpret it that way.  You can also interpret it to mean exactly what it says...."the people", as in "We, the people".


I actually agree with you. The amendment is very unclear is my whole point lol.


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Unless that right only applies to all citizens in the context of a militia. I’m not ignoring it lol. I’m clearly referencing it.


Who says?


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> I actually agree with you. The amendment is very unclear is my whole point lol.


No it isn't.  It's very clear if you understand punctuation.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Who says?


No one says. No one clarifies the opposite either. It’s a sentence easily open to interpretation.


----------



## Nostra (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Unless that right only applies to all citizens in the context of a militia. I’m not ignoring it lol. I’m clearly referencing it.


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


----------



## Lesh (Jun 28, 2022)

Again.
What I think and what you think matters not at all

Were the make up of the Court to change, in a way you don’t favor, there is nothing you could do.

States and localities would be (again) free to impose whatever gun regs they see fit


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> No one says. No one clarifies the opposite either. It’s a sentence easily open to interpretation.


Supreme Court Justices have said "the people" means what it says.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Nostra said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Uhh no. Kids have freedom of speech right away.



This doesn't contradict what I said, moron



Billy000 said:


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



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


Billy000 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Who says?


Mrs. Grammar says


----------



## kaz (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> Mrs. Grammar says


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


----------



## Nostra (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> “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 (Jun 28, 2022)

kaz said:


> This doesn't contradict what I said, moron
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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 (Jun 28, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> Mrs. Grammar says


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


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

kaz said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> 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?


I’m sorry if you’re too fucking stupid to realize that neither the first amendment or second makes any mention about excluding children.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 28, 2022)

English/Grammar lesson:


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


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


Lol you’re so fucking dumb. The amendment makes no mention this militia is separate from the government. Not at all. You’re CHOOSING to interpret it that way.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> I’m sorry if you’re too fucking stupid to realize that neither the first amendment or second makes any mention about excluding children.


I'm sorry that you are too stupid to demonstrate why we should give a single rat fuck about your ramblings.

It's a ban on federal authority....PERIOD....

If states want to put restrictions on CHILDREN, that WAS (before the 14th Amendment) a State issue.

Don't get mad at me because you don't understand the nuance.  It's a matter of State vs. Federal Authority.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol you’re so fucking dumb. The amendment makes no mention this militia is separate from the government. Not at all. You’re CHOOSING to interpret it that way.


"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

You lose.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jun 28, 2022)

The amendments apparently mean whatever the S.C. says until it says something else.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> I'm sorry that you are too stupid to demonstrate why we should give a single rat fuck about your ramblings.
> 
> It's a ban on federal authority....PERIOD....
> 
> ...


Lol oh so now you support states making gun control laws then? Can states limit free speech as well?

Of course either way, the amendments make no mention of federal or state so your point is dumb as fuck.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 28, 2022)

The Avalon Project : Federalist No 29
		


The militia shall be separate from government.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol oh so now you support states making gun control laws then? Can states limit free speech as well?


No, because the clumsy 14th Amendment takes that power away from states too, but that's a different issue.

The Fed Gov has NO AUTHORITY to regulate arms, PERIOD

END OF DISCUSSION!!!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Of course either way, the amendments make no mention of federal or state so your point is dumb as fuck.


So, you're agreeing that neither the States NOR the FedGov have authority to regulate firearms.

Very well.  I agree.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jun 28, 2022)

What is obvious in an era may not be in another.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> You lose.


Lol that was in a debate dummy. It doesn’t mean it was made to be included in law. Also, Why wasn’t there an answer to the question provided? That would need to be made clear. Lastly what public officials? See this is all very vague and you haven’t shown that all this was made into the ratification.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, you're agreeing that neither the States NOR the FedGov have authority to regulate firearms.
> 
> Very well.  I agree.


Um no I’m saying there is no specification to begin with. It’s you that is deciding it.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> No, because the clumsy 14th Amendment takes that power away from states too, but that's a different issue.
> 
> The Fed Gov has NO AUTHORITY to regulate arms, PERIOD
> 
> END OF DISCUSSION!!!


Lol see you’re just talking in circles making a fool of yourself. Mom says it’s time to get off the computer now, pumpkin.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol see you’re just talking in circles making a fool of yourself. Mom says it’s time to get off the computer now, pumpkin.


Wow, you are every bit the intellectual you pretend to be.

 

Let me break it down for you again slowly.

The bill of rights was originally included with the constitution WHY?  Because the people were afraid of centralizing power and they wanted to limit the power of the FedGov.

Right?

Let's start with that basic, kindergarten concept, shall we?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Um no I’m saying there is no specification to begin with. It’s you that is deciding it.


Again, the original purpose of including the bill of rights is what????

Baby steps.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Wow, you are every bit the intellectual you pretend to be.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Lol so why is it then that the first amendment is interpreted to be a guaranteed right for anyone regardless of state? How do states come in to play in the first place? Why would it be illegal for gun control to be in a state by state basis based on your logic? You keep talking in circles. It doesn’t make any sense.


----------



## schmidlap (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


The only acknowledgement of the_ "well-regulated"_ specification of the Founding Fathers seems to be a high-fibre diet, and that could lead to involuntary discharge.



​


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 28, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> English/Grammar lesson:


I see our lefty stoogies are ignoring this english lesson


----------



## Nostra (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol you’re so fucking dumb. The amendment makes no mention this militia is separate from the government. Not at all. You’re CHOOSING to interpret it that way.


Um, the 2A was put in place to allow the people to be armed in case the need ever arose to replace a tyrannical  Govt.  And you think they intended the govt to have control over that?

You are a loon.


----------



## Nostra (Jun 28, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> You lose.


How would one of those who came up with the 2A know more about it than BillyIQ000?


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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.


I got my shotgun at age 12.  There used to be no age minimum to use a gun. That was up to the parents.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Nostra said:


> Um, the 2A was put in place to allow the people to be armed in case the need ever arose to replace a tyrannical  Govt.  And you think they intended the govt to have control over that?
> 
> You are a loon.


You’re just making assumptions that sound correct but aren’t actually specified. It’s why I could say the right can be interpreted to only apply to all citizens in the situation of them forming a militia.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> I got my shotgun at age 12.  There used to be no age minimum to use a gun. That was up to the parents.


This would be an example of gun control. That’s why it is reasonable to come up with more gun control laws if there is already a precedent.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Um no I’m saying there is no specification to begin with. It’s you that is deciding it.


Have there been any signs of "well regulated" militia recently?


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> This would be an example of gun control. That’s why it is reasonable to come up with more gun control laws if there is already a precedent.


Gun control laws aren't working.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Gun control laws aren't working.


Not true. They worked in California before there was a nationwide spike of violence during the pandemic years. Prior to that nationwide spike, gun deaths in California were below the national average and way below Texas’s average. Those statistics began to happen after the gun control laws were put in place.


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Not true. They worked in California before there was a nationwide spike of violence during the pandemic years. Prior to that nationwide spike, gun deaths in California were below the national average and way below Texas’s average. Those statistics began to happen after the gun control laws were put in place.


Are they working in Chicago?


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> Are they working in Chicago?


I don’t know. Either way we know gun control works. It just has to be strict enough.


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> I don’t know. Either way we know gun control works. It just has to be strict enough.


You said it worked in California until the pandemic.  That means it ain't working.  I know what works all the time.  Ever see "Death Wish"?


----------



## Nostra (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> You’re just making assumptions that sound correct but aren’t actually specified. It’s why I could say the right can be interpreted to only apply to all citizens in the situation of them forming a militia.


You can say anything you want, Simp.

You are 100% wrong, but you can say it.  In fact, that is exactly what we expect from you.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> This would be an example of gun control. That’s why it is reasonable to come up with more gun control laws if there is already a precedent.


Nice appeal to tradition of violating our constitution.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> I don’t know. Either way we know gun control works. It just has to be strict enough.


Exhibit A

The defense rests


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

BS Filter said:


> You said it worked in California until the pandemic.  That means it ain't working.  I know what works all the time.  Ever see "Death Wish"?


Lol this is obviously a stupid point to make if California is part of a nationwide spike.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol this is obviously a stupid point to make if California is part of a nationwide spike.


Why not just amend the constitution instead of all this infringement you propose and all this tortured interpretation?


----------



## BS Filter (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol this is obviously a stupid point to make if California is part of a nationwide spike.


Wouldn't be a spike if more people were armed.  People walk into stores in California and take whatever they want.  Shoot a couple and see what happens.


----------



## scruffy (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Once again you’re just entertaining a fantasy. No one is coming for the guns you own and they NEVER will.



That is correct 

Because they know they'll eat lead if they do




Billy000 said:


> You like the idea of the threat though. It makes you feel manly and tough picturing this happening and how you’d respond. That’s why you entertain the notion.



No, we entertain the notion because there are leftist fucktards out there, who don't like our Constitution and think it says something different from what it says


----------



## daveman (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> What does the militia phrase refer to? Why is it in there?


This has been repeatedly explained to you.  Now you're just trolling.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Um no I’m saying there is no specification to begin with. It’s you that is deciding it.


What more do you want it to say in addition to "shall not be infringed"?


----------



## Nostra (Jun 28, 2022)

daveman said:


> This has been repeatedly explained to you.  Now you're just trolling.


The Troll has been Trolling since his Troll OP.


----------



## daveman (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> This would be an example of gun control. That’s why it is reasonable to come up with more gun control laws if there is already a precedent.


And there it is, what you're so desperately trying to justify.

No, you idiot Democratic Socialist, you can't use the Second Amendment to justify gun control.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol so why is it then that the first amendment is interpreted to be a guaranteed right for anyone regardless of state? How do states come in to play in the first place? Why would it be illegal for gun control to be in a state by state basis based on your logic? You keep talking in circles. It doesn’t make any sense.


Let me introduce you to the 14th Amendment


----------



## daveman (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> I don’t know. Either way we know gun control works. It just has to be strict enough.


We know you want people disarmed so they can't resist the leftist tyranny you desire.  

No.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.
George Mason


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 28, 2022)

A militia is a fighting organization of non-professional soldiers.    A militia has to be armed and that is the reason for the 2nd.   Well regulated means that those non-professionals are led by those who can regulate that fighting group.  Only a citizenry with the right to bear arms can form a militia.  Remember, the Revolutionary War was fought by a citizenry militia armed with their own weapons in the beginning.


----------



## BrokeLoser (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


Our great founders were referring to We The Armed People as that well regulated militia that scares you. 
This is evidenced by the third and fourth phrase.
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

daveman said:


> This has been repeatedly explained to you.  Now you're just trolling.


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.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> A militia is a fighting organization of non-professional soldiers.    A militia has to be armed and that is the reason for the 2nd.   Well regulated means that those non-professionals are led by those who can regulate that fighting group.  Only a citizenry with the right to bear arms can form a militia.  Remember, the Revolutionary War was fought by a citizenry militia armed with their own weapons in the beginning.


That’s why could interpret it to only be in relation to a militia.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 28, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> A militia is a fighting organization of non-professional soldiers.    A militia has to be armed and that is the reason for the 2nd.   Well regulated means that those non-professionals are led by those who can regulate that fighting group.  Only a citizenry with the right to bear arms can form a militia.  Remember, the Revolutionary War was fought by a citizenry militia armed with their own weapons in the beginning.


Get out of here with this reasonable explanation.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> That’s why could interpret it to only be in relation to a militia.


So, who has the right?  The people or the militia?


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So, who has the right?  The people or the militia?


The people in the context of a militia. Duh.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.
> George Mason


This isn’t in the constitution.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Let me introduce you to the 14th Amendment


Go ahead and elaborate on your meaningless point.


----------



## Lesh (Jun 28, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


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


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


----------



## Nostra (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> The people in the context of a militia. Duh.


Go get an education, Moron.



			https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf#:~:text=THE%20MEANING%28S%29%20OF%20%E2%80%9CTHE%20PEOPLE%E2%80%9D%20IN%20THE%20CONSTITUTION,right%20of%20the%20people%E2%80%9D%20to%20petition%20the%20gov-


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Nostra said:


> Go get an education, Moron.
> 
> 
> 
> https://harvardlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/vol126_the_people_in_the_constitution.pdf#:~:text=THE%20MEANING%28S%29%20OF%20%E2%80%9CTHE%20PEOPLE%E2%80%9D%20IN%20THE%20CONSTITUTION,right%20of%20the%20people%E2%80%9D%20to%20petition%20the%20gov-


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


----------



## Lesh (Jun 28, 2022)

daveman said:


> We know you want people disarmed so they can't resist the leftist tyranny you desire.
> 
> No.


Hey dumass… the militia has as one of its duties… to put DOWN insurrection.

THAT is in the Constitution


----------



## Lesh (Jun 28, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> 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.


It is the ONLY reason listed in the Constitution


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> That’s why could interpret it to only be in relation to a militia.


No, a militia cannot exist in an unarmed populace.  You have it exactly backwards.  When the British were invading, regular citizens picked up their guns to defend their land.   Later on, they became a regulated fighting group and eventually the Continental Army.   Without the right to bear arms, the British would have rolled over the colonies.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> The people in the context of a militia. Duh.


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


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> It is the ONLY reason listed in the Constitution


So?

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


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 28, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> This isn’t in the constitution.


But it is a quote from a founding Father.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

RetiredGySgt said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> 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.


A militia to do what?


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 28, 2022)

daveman said:


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


I find it interesting that 'Billy' rejects accepted definitions of words in the American language in order to make a point.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 is silly, because the Founders and all state constitution constantly tell us that the militia is all able bodied, male, adults.

And if you preface the restriction on the feds from having any firearm jurisdiction, with 1 particular reason, that does NOT at all imply that is the ONLY one.
You only have to give one reason for something to be true, for it to then be true.
But there could still be dozens of other reasons as well.
Nor does it at all matter.
The 2nd amendment clearly denied any jurisdiction over firearms, to the federal government.
So it does not really matter at all why.
And that should be obvious.
The Founders wanted a minimal federal government, after dealing with the abuses of the British federal government.
No one should have wanted to allow that disaster to happen again, and yet that is what happened.
The federal government is illegally legislating things like firearms, drugs, medicine, etc., which it has ZERO jurisdiction over.
Considering other criminal acts, like Congress lying over Iraqi WMD, we likely need another armed rebellion?


----------



## daveman (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> Hey dumass… the militia has as one of its duties… to put DOWN insurrection.
> 
> THAT is in the Constitution


That's in the Constitution?  Where?  Not the 2nd Amendment.

The framers intended the militia to both defend the nation against outside aggressors and to destroy a tyrannical government.  They did both against England.  The Crown decided the colonists should give up their guns.

So we shot them.


----------



## scruffy (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> A militia to do what?


^^^



(rolls eyes)


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> A militia to do what?


Not the point.   There is no militia requirement to own and bear arms in the U.S.  There is a requirement for the right to own and bear arms in order to form a militia.  I have already explained this to you multiple times now but, you still don't seem to get it.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Where is the justification in the constitution that it refers ONLY to able bodied men? If that were true, should we be making it illegal for a woman to buy a gun?



You have it backwards.
The Founders wanted to REQUIRE that all able bodied males be mandated to be armed.
That does not mean women could not also be armed, and many women did fight in the American revolution.
The 2nd amendment is clearly putting firearms outside the jurisdiction of the federal government.
So that means the federal government can't pen any firearm law at all, including for women, children, natives, felons, drug users, etc.
Any legal firearm laws have to be done by the state or municipality.
And the 14th amendment restricts what even states or municipalities can legislate.


----------



## daveman (Jun 28, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> 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.


----------



## daveman (Jun 28, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> I find it interesting that 'Billy' rejects accepted definitions of words in the American language in order to make a point.


It should tell leftists something that they can't make arguments without re-defining words.

It should -- but they're not that bright.


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> But why can we be sure the context of the right to bear arms applies to any context outside of a well regulated militia?



As already explained, the militia essentially is everyone who wants to be part of a militia.
Remember there were essentially no police back then.
No phones or cars either.
So everyone had to defend their own home, city, state, and country.


----------



## daveman (Jun 28, 2022)




----------



## Leo123 (Jun 28, 2022)

daveman said:


>


That's fuckin' great!!


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Not the point.   There is no militia requirement to own and bear arms in the U.S.  There is a requirement for the right to own and bear arms in order to form a militia.  I have already explained this to you multiple times now but, you still don't seem to get it.


Lol not the point? The founders wanted to guarantee a militia and they didn’t have a reason why?


----------



## Nostra (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol not the point? The founders wanted to guarantee a militia and they didn’t have a reason why?


See post 431.

Since a link with words was too much for your pea brain, maybe a video will be more your speed, Simp.


----------



## Lesh (Jun 28, 2022)

Again...no minds will be changed here.

But if the COURT changes...these are the arguments you could well here.

Get used to it


----------



## Rigby5 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol not the point? The founders wanted to guarantee a militia and they didn’t have a reason why?



No one can be sure ahead of time why an armed militia might be necessary.
If a gang robs the bank, then you need a militia in the form of a posse.
If the government goes tyrannical, be it municipal, state, or federal, you many need a much larger militia.
If the country is invaded, you likely need the largest militia possible.
It does not matter what actually happens in the future.
The point is the only way to be ready for everything, is for as many people to be armed and trained as possible.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol not the point? The founders wanted to guarantee a militia and they didn’t have a reason why?


NO!!!  The Founders wanted to guarantee the right to own and bear arms in order to be able to form a militias!!!   The reason is obvious, they fought the Revolutionary War with militias.  You are really confused.  Have you studied American history?


----------



## scruffy (Jun 28, 2022)

Lesh said:


> Again...no minds will be changed here.
> 
> But if the COURT changes...these are the arguments you could well here.
> 
> Get used to it



No court is going to disarm me, you dumb leftie.

Get used to it


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> No one can be sure ahead of time why an armed militia might be necessary.
> If a gang robs the bank, then you need a militia in the form of a posse.
> If the government goes tyrannical, be it municipal, state, or federal, you many need a much larger militia.
> If the country is invaded, you likely need the largest militia possible.
> ...


Well this is a terrible plan because if anyone can form the militia, the very wrong people could. People with nefarious intentions.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Well this is a terrible plan because if anyone can form the militia, the very wrong people could. People with nefarious intentions.


The 'very wrong people' could take over the government as well, namely those who would seek to disarm US.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> NO!!!  The Founders wanted to guarantee the right to own and bear arms in order to be able to form a militias!!!   The reason is obvious, they fought the Revolutionary War with militias.  You are really confused.  Have you studied American history?


Lol none of this explains why they wanted militias to form. Why would them being around militias justify more AFTER the government was formed?


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> If 'people' have 'nefarious intentions' we will be armed to thwart them.  Define 'wrong people'......Do you mean people that would defend freedom?


Oh so the founders were trying to make sure a civil war would need to happen under the right circumstance. Who would win? The wrong people could. Doesn’t matter I guess lol


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Well this is a terrible plan because if anyone can form the militia, the very wrong people could. People with nefarious intentions.


THey  already do.  They're called street gangs.

Your ilk lets them get away with murder.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Oh so the founders were trying to make sure a civil war would need to happen under the right circumstance. Who would win? The wrong people could. Doesn’t matter I guess lol


We already had a Civil War.   What's your point?


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol none of this explains why they wanted militias to form. Why would them being around militias justify more AFTER the government was formed?


Because the Founders realized that ANY government can become tyrannical.  Even theirs.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> We already had a Civil War.   What's your point?


Why would us having a civil war matter?


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Because the Founders realized that ANY government can become tyrannical.  Even theirs.


Well again it’s a stupid plan. Imagine how you would feel if communists took over the government. From their perspective they might find capitalism tyrannical. It’s all pretty subjective.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Well again it’s a stupid plan. Imagine how you would feel if communists took over the government. From their perspective they might find capitalism tyrannical. It’s all pretty subjective.


Communists would plan to disarm the public first by claiming the 2nd amendment is no longer needed or should be defined a different way.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Why would us having a civil war matter?


I was wondering why you even brought it up in the first place.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol none of this explains why they wanted militias to form. Why would them being around militias justify more AFTER the government was formed?


Why don't you tell us what you think the is the reason th efounders wanted militias to form?


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Communists would plan to disarm the public first by claiming the 2nd amendment is no longer needed or should be defined a different way.


It doesn’t matter what they would do with the 2 amendment in this hypothetical. They still took over.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Why don't you tell us why you think the founders wanted militias to form?


I don’t know it’s a mystery. It’s a very vague amendment as I have said from the beginning.

You’re welcome.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Why would us having a civil war matter?


Can you explain why a civil war has to do with this topic?


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 28, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Why don't you tell us what you think the is the reason th efounders wanted militias to form?


 Can't wait to see what rock Billy tries to hide behind on this one!!


----------



## Toddsterpatriot (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> But why can we be sure the context of the right to bear arms applies to any context outside of a well regulated militia?



Because it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".
It doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms".


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> I don’t know it’s a mystery. It’s a very vague amendment as I have said from the beginning.
> 
> You’re welcome.


Oh I see....Now that you've been thwarted at every turn, suddenly the document is to blame!!!


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> It doesn’t matter what they would do with the 2 amendment in this hypothetical. They still took over.


Then they would have already disarmed the public.   There are groups trying to do that right now.   There are groups that are trying to tell US that the 2nd doesn't mean we have the right to own and bear arms.   Communists would certainly endeavor to do that.  I they had already taken over then we did not defend our Republic.   It would mean we just lay down and roll over to gun control.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Can you explain why a civil war has to do with this topic?


He talked about opposing militias so naturally I brought up civil war. Who the fuck even cares? Lol you idiots run with anything you can get huh?


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Then they would have already disarmed the public.   There are groups trying to do that right now.   There are groups that are trying to tell US that the 2nd doesn't mean we have the right to own and bear arms.   Communists would certainly endeavor to do that.  I they had already taken over then we did not defend our Republic.   It would mean we just lay down and roll over to gun control.


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.


----------



## Leo123 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> He talked about opposing militias so naturally I brought up civil war. Who the fuck even cares? Lol you idiots run with anything you can get huh?


The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with militias other than the right to own and bear arms is required in order to form a militia.   You're still thinking backwards.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> Oh I see....Now that you've been thwarted at every turn, suddenly the document is to blame!!!


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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> 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.......


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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. 

Depends what "is" is, right?

lol


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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?


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> 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 (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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.


----------



## BrokeLoser (Jun 28, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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.”


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 28, 2022)

Leo123 said:


> 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 (Jun 29, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 29, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Jun 29, 2022)




----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 29, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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


----------



## there4eyeM (Jun 29, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 29, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 29, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> 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
> ...


That last phrase...  SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED has their panties in a wad... no wiggle room to regulate it.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jun 29, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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.





Billy000 said:


> 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.


----------



## Billy000 (Jun 29, 2022)

Hugo Furst said:


> 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


----------



## Hugo Furst (Jun 29, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Well if you think a single sentence adequately explains a Bill of Right then you’re an idiot lol



if you don't, you're an even bigger idiot.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jun 29, 2022)

"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.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 29, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> "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.


----------



## there4eyeM (Jun 29, 2022)

Seeing what the S.C. has done in the past, it is difficult to see how one can be so certain.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 29, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> "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!!!*


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jun 29, 2022)

there4eyeM said:


> 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 (Jun 29, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> 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 (Jun 29, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> 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


----------

