Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
so what. Well regulated militia must muster to Become, well regulated.what facts am I making up, right winger? i am on the left.Yes, it is. The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.NOT what the 2nd says, is it?
the more you 'debate', the more facts you have to make up to support your position.
The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.
Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.
Nonsense. The idea of an organized militia was only for when it was needed. Until then, citizens were encouraged to keep and bear arms, so when the militia was needed they could stand.
The People are the militia; you are either well regulated or you are unorganized. That is the context.the legislative intent and purpose is in the first clause of our second amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.you should reread it...
"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."
The People are the Militia, in that context.
Remember when you said we have to look at the con
text and the legislative intent?I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.you should reread it...
"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."
The People are the Militia, in that context.
The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) were written specifically to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the state.
Also, while the 2nd amendment states that a militia is necessary, it does not state that the right to keep and bear arms is only granted to the militia.There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.
the is no appeal to your ignorance of the rest of the Amendment.
The PEOPLE have the Right, not the militia
this thread is mostly right wing fantasy, not valid argumentation.Only in right wing fantasy.Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, every time this question comes up.Listen up you left wing idiots. The 2nd Amendment does not grant us the right to bear arms. We were born with that right. The 2nd Amendment prevents the government from infringing on it.
Period.
And you get shot down every time.
No, in actual reality, like right here in this thread.
Militia service is an obligation of all citizens.The People are the militia; you are either well regulated or you are unorganized. That is the context.the legislative intent and purpose is in the first clause of our second amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.
The People are the Militia, in that context.
Remember when you said we have to look at the con
text and the legislative intent?I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.
The People are the Militia, in that context.
The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) were written specifically to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the state.
Also, while the 2nd amendment states that a militia is necessary, it does not state that the right to keep and bear arms is only granted to the militia.There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.
the is no appeal to your ignorance of the rest of the Amendment.
The PEOPLE have the Right, not the militia
"unorganized militia"
is that a cute way of saying the People?
the 'People' that were specifically given the Right to keep and bear arms?
The 'People' that include males under 16, over 45, women, and the infirm?
the right wing can claim anything; until they have to come up with valid arguments. then, they have nothing but repeal.this thread is mostly right wing fantasy, not valid argumentation.Only in right wing fantasy.Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, every time this question comes up.
And you get shot down every time.
No, in actual reality, like right here in this thread.
most of the 'fantasy' here is yours
it is why, I am the one who resorts to the fewest fallacies; whenever this issue comes up.this thread is mostly right wing fantasy, not valid argumentation.Only in right wing fantasy.Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, every time this question comes up.
And you get shot down every time.
No, in actual reality, like right here in this thread.
Lies don’t become truth simply because you keep saying them.
It says, well regulated militia may not be Infringed; it does not specifically state the unorganized militia is Necessary, in any way whatsoever.the legislative intent and purpose is in the first clause of our second amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.you should reread it...Our Second Amendment does not claim the unorganized militia necessary, in any way.
"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."
The People are the Militia, in that context.
Remember when you said we have to look at the con
text and the legislative intent?I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.you should reread it...Our Second Amendment does not claim the unorganized militia necessary, in any way.
"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."
The People are the Militia, in that context.
The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) were written specifically to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the state.
Also, while the 2nd amendment states that a militia is necessary, it does not state that the right to keep and bear arms is only granted to the militia.
The intent is there, but it's in the second half of the sentence. The way you're trying to characterize it is simply poor reading comprehension, any way you cut it.
The first half of the sentence is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. . . " That bit doesn't bear any intent. It simply states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The following bit bears plenty of intent. ". . .the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note that it doesn't specify that the right of the militia shall not be infringed. Only the right of the -people-.
Luckily for us, the SCOTUS also finds your opinion on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to be inaccurate.
Militia service is an obligation of all citizens.The People are the militia; you are either well regulated or you are unorganized. That is the context.the legislative intent and purpose is in the first clause of our second amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.Remember when you said we have to look at the con
text and the legislative intent?
The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) were written specifically to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the state.
Also, while the 2nd amendment states that a militia is necessary, it does not state that the right to keep and bear arms is only granted to the militia.There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.
the is no appeal to your ignorance of the rest of the Amendment.
The PEOPLE have the Right, not the militia
"unorganized militia"
is that a cute way of saying the People?
the 'People' that were specifically given the Right to keep and bear arms?
The 'People' that include males under 16, over 45, women, and the infirm?
No, it isn't.the legislative intent and purpose is in the first clause of our second amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.you should reread it...Our Second Amendment does not claim the unorganized militia necessary, in any way.
"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."
The People are the Militia, in that context.
Remember when you said we have to look at the con
text and the legislative intent?I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.you should reread it...Our Second Amendment does not claim the unorganized militia necessary, in any way.
"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."
The People are the Militia, in that context.
The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) were written specifically to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the state.
Also, while the 2nd amendment states that a militia is necessary, it does not state that the right to keep and bear arms is only granted to the militia.
No. The legislative intent and purpose is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The inclusion of the word militia is simply part of the reason.
Well regulated militia is declared Necessary, not gun lovers of the unorganized militia.so what. Well regulated militia must muster to Become, well regulated.what facts am I making up, right winger? i am on the left.Yes, it is. The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.
the more you 'debate', the more facts you have to make up to support your position.
The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.
Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.
Nonsense. The idea of an organized militia was only for when it was needed. Until then, citizens were encouraged to keep and bear arms, so when the militia was needed they could stand.
And should there be a need for a regulated militia, the people will be mustered and regulated. Until then, the founding fathers wanted the population armed. Having mostly come from the UK, they knew the danger of a disarmed population. They knew that without the ability to offer armed resistance, a tyrant could take over all to easily.
it is why, I am the one who resorts to the fewest fallacy; whenever this issue comes up.this thread is mostly right wing fantasy, not valid argumentation.Only in right wing fantasy.And you get shot down every time.
No, in actual reality, like right here in this thread.
Lies don’t become truth simply because you keep saying them.
No, dear; the people are the militia. You are either well regulated or you are considered unorganized. there are no other categories.The People are the militia; you are either well regulated or you are unorganized. That is the context.the legislative intent and purpose is in the first clause of our second amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.
The People are the Militia, in that context.
Remember when you said we have to look at the con
text and the legislative intent?I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.
The People are the Militia, in that context.
The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) were written specifically to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the state.
Also, while the 2nd amendment states that a militia is necessary, it does not state that the right to keep and bear arms is only granted to the militia.There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.
the is no appeal to your ignorance of the rest of the Amendment.
The PEOPLE have the Right, not the militia
Not until they are needed. That is how this country was founded. With citizen soldiers who formed militias when called.
It says, well regulated militia may not be Infringed; it does not specifically state the unorganized militia is Necessary, in any way whatsoever.the legislative intent and purpose is in the first clause of our second amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.you should reread it...
"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."
The People are the Militia, in that context.
Remember when you said we have to look at the con
text and the legislative intent?I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.you should reread it...
"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."
The People are the Militia, in that context.
The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) were written specifically to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the state.
Also, while the 2nd amendment states that a militia is necessary, it does not state that the right to keep and bear arms is only granted to the militia.
The intent is there, but it's in the second half of the sentence. The way you're trying to characterize it is simply poor reading comprehension, any way you cut it.
The first half of the sentence is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. . . " That bit doesn't bear any intent. It simply states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The following bit bears plenty of intent. ". . .the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note that it doesn't specify that the right of the militia shall not be infringed. Only the right of the -people-.
Luckily for us, the SCOTUS also finds your opinion on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to be inaccurate.
i am part of the unorganized militia.Militia service is an obligation of all citizens.The People are the militia; you are either well regulated or you are unorganized. That is the context.the legislative intent and purpose is in the first clause of our second amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.
the is no appeal to your ignorance of the rest of the Amendment.
The PEOPLE have the Right, not the militia
"unorganized militia"
is that a cute way of saying the People?
the 'People' that were specifically given the Right to keep and bear arms?
The 'People' that include males under 16, over 45, women, and the infirm?
Have you served?
only in right wing fantasy.It says, well regulated militia may not be Infringed; it does not specifically state the unorganized militia is Necessary, in any way whatsoever.the legislative intent and purpose is in the first clause of our second amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.
The People are the Militia, in that context.
Remember when you said we have to look at the con
text and the legislative intent?I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.
The People are the Militia, in that context.
The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) were written specifically to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the state.
Also, while the 2nd amendment states that a militia is necessary, it does not state that the right to keep and bear arms is only granted to the militia.
The intent is there, but it's in the second half of the sentence. The way you're trying to characterize it is simply poor reading comprehension, any way you cut it.
The first half of the sentence is, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. . . " That bit doesn't bear any intent. It simply states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The following bit bears plenty of intent. ". . .the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Note that it doesn't specify that the right of the militia shall not be infringed. Only the right of the -people-.
Luckily for us, the SCOTUS also finds your opinion on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment to be inaccurate.
A militia (especially in the times the amendment was written) does not provide weapons for its members. They provide them. And the writings of the founding fathers show they favored the "Citizen Soldier". Which is someone with arms, who answers the call when they nation is threatened.
Well regulated militia is declared Necessary, not gun lovers of the unorganized militia.so what. Well regulated militia must muster to Become, well regulated.what facts am I making up, right winger? i am on the left.the more you 'debate', the more facts you have to make up to support your position.
The proof is, only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.
Well regulated militia actually have, literal recourse to our Second Amendment when called for the purpose indicated.
Nonsense. The idea of an organized militia was only for when it was needed. Until then, citizens were encouraged to keep and bear arms, so when the militia was needed they could stand.
And should there be a need for a regulated militia, the people will be mustered and regulated. Until then, the founding fathers wanted the population armed. Having mostly come from the UK, they knew the danger of a disarmed population. They knew that without the ability to offer armed resistance, a tyrant could take over all to easily.
No, dear; the people are the militia. You are either well regulated or you are considered unorganized. there are no other categories.The People are the militia; you are either well regulated or you are unorganized. That is the context.the legislative intent and purpose is in the first clause of our second amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.Remember when you said we have to look at the con
text and the legislative intent?
The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) were written specifically to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the state.
Also, while the 2nd amendment states that a militia is necessary, it does not state that the right to keep and bear arms is only granted to the militia.There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.
the is no appeal to your ignorance of the rest of the Amendment.
The PEOPLE have the Right, not the militia
Not until they are needed. That is how this country was founded. With citizen soldiers who formed militias when called.
No, it isn't.the legislative intent and purpose is in the first clause of our second amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.you should reread it...
"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."
The People are the Militia, in that context.
Remember when you said we have to look at the con
text and the legislative intent?I have read it. Simply invoking the term Militia means it is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.you should reread it...
"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."
The People are the Militia, in that context.
The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) were written specifically to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the state.
Also, while the 2nd amendment states that a militia is necessary, it does not state that the right to keep and bear arms is only granted to the militia.
No. The legislative intent and purpose is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The inclusion of the word militia is simply part of the reason.
i am part of the unorganized militia.Militia service is an obligation of all citizens.The People are the militia; you are either well regulated or you are unorganized. That is the context.the is no appeal to your ignorance of the rest of the Amendment.
The PEOPLE have the Right, not the militia
"unorganized militia"
is that a cute way of saying the People?
the 'People' that were specifically given the Right to keep and bear arms?
The 'People' that include males under 16, over 45, women, and the infirm?
Have you served?
No, dear; the people are the militia. You are either well regulated or you are considered unorganized. there are no other categories.The People are the militia; you are either well regulated or you are unorganized. That is the context.the legislative intent and purpose is in the first clause of our second amendment. There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.Remember when you said we have to look at the con
text and the legislative intent?
The first 10 amendments (Bill of Rights) were written specifically to preserve the rights of the individuals, not the state.
Also, while the 2nd amendment states that a militia is necessary, it does not state that the right to keep and bear arms is only granted to the militia.There is no appeal to ignorance of that context.
the is no appeal to your ignorance of the rest of the Amendment.
The PEOPLE have the Right, not the militia
Not until they are needed. That is how this country was founded. With citizen soldiers who formed militias when called.
