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.
A "well regulated" militia means thoroughly practiced and well functioning, similar to the meaning in a "well regulated" clock or "well regulated" bowels.
And it does not say the 2nd Amendment was for a free country, but a "free state" needing a well regulated militia. And most states defines in their constitution, that the militia consists of all able bodied adult males.
If any of these stupid confused Moon Bats have trouble comprehending what "a well regulated militia" means all they have to do is look at the Heller case
A "well regulated" militia means thoroughly practiced and well functioning, similar to the meaning in a "well regulated" clock or "well regulated" bowels.
And it does not say the 2nd Amendment was for a free country, but a "free state" needing a well regulated militia. And most states defines in their constitution, that the militia consists of all able bodied adult males.
So you admit that the 2A was about the MILITIA
That's a start.
Now all you have to do is look at the Constitution to see what that militia looks like and what its duties are.
You can find that in Article 1 Section 8
And THEN look at the Dick Act which effectively abolished the organized the militia described in the Constitution
Oh...
...and yet the right of the people STILL shall not be infringed.A "well regulated" militia means thoroughly practiced and well functioning, similar to the meaning in a "well regulated" clock or "well regulated" bowels.
And it does not say the 2nd Amendment was for a free country, but a "free state" needing a well regulated militia. And most states defines in their constitution, that the militia consists of all able bodied adult males.
So you admit that the 2A was about the MILITIA
That's a start.
Now all you have to do is look at the Constitution to see what that militia looks like and what its duties are.
You can find that in Article 1 Section 8
And THEN look at the Dick Act which effectively abolished the organized the militia described in the Constitution
Oh...
.and yet the right of the people STILL shall not be infringed.
The only militia that exists is an UNORGANIZED one (far different from that which is described in the Constitution) and ONLY in regards to MALES...between the ages of 17 and 45.A "well regulated" militia means thoroughly practiced and well functioning, similar to the meaning in a "well regulated" clock or "well regulated" bowels.
And it does not say the 2nd Amendment was for a free country, but a "free state" needing a well regulated militia. And most states defines in their constitution, that the militia consists of all able bodied adult males.
So you admit that the 2A was about the MILITIA
That's a start.
Now all you have to do is look at the Constitution to see what that militia looks like and what its duties are.
You can find that in Article 1 Section 8
And THEN look at the Dick Act which effectively abolished the organized the militia described in the Constitution
Oh...
We, the people, are the militia....not the military that works at the behest of this corporate entity called "da gubermint" that works at the behest of it. You little commie fucks can't fulfill your dream of a commie utopia with an armed populace.
Molon Labe, bitch.......
The only militia that exists is an UNORGANIZED one (far different from that which is described in the Constitution) and ONLY in regards to MALES...between the ages of 17 and 45.A "well regulated" militia means thoroughly practiced and well functioning, similar to the meaning in a "well regulated" clock or "well regulated" bowels.
And it does not say the 2nd Amendment was for a free country, but a "free state" needing a well regulated militia. And most states defines in their constitution, that the militia consists of all able bodied adult males.
So you admit that the 2A was about the MILITIA
That's a start.
Now all you have to do is look at the Constitution to see what that militia looks like and what its duties are.
You can find that in Article 1 Section 8
And THEN look at the Dick Act which effectively abolished the organized the militia described in the Constitution
Oh...
We, the people, are the militia....not the military that works at the behest of this corporate entity called "da gubermint" that works at the behest of it. You little commie fucks can't fulfill your dream of a commie utopia with an armed populace.
Molon Labe, bitch.......
You wanna go with that?
LMAO!!!! I see no age restriction, dumb ass......
LMAO!!!! I see no age restriction, dumb ass......
Then read the Dick Act stupid
And again...here is what the Constitution says a "Well Regulated Militia" looks like and is used for
Article 1 Section 8
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
A. It's main goal was suppressing the kinds of insurrections the gun huggers claim it was put in place to engage in. In fact that was HOW it was used in putting down both Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion
B.The Dick Act removed ALL of the organization,arming,discipline, officers, and training that make UP a "Well Regulated Militia"
Because corporations cannot pass laws under the UCC,
Because corporations cannot pass laws under the UCC,
WTF are you talking about?
You're Russian...aren't you...
Defense is defense it matters not where it occurs
There has been NO evidence that you are more or less safer armed. That's another Kleck/Lott BS finding using really fuzzy math that has been debunked. But I do agree what not knowing if a home is armed or not does make a difference. I like the sign, "Screw the Dog, beware of the owner" and "This Property controlled by Smith and Wesson". Either one will get a chuckle out of the bad guy and he will probably move on to the next home.
I never said I was safer because I carry. I also never said I was less safe for carrying.
Safety is an illusion as all life is risk. Some people choose to ignore all risk and place their safety in the hands of others I choose not to place my safety in the hands of others because other people most likely won't be around if I am ever in danger.
If a gun neither makes me more safe or less safe then why do you have a problem with anyone who is legally eligible owning and carrying?
Of course carrying a gun makes you safer.
It gives you more control and options.
If carrying a gun did not make you safer, then police would not be carrying them.
I've been carrying for decades now and I have yet to have need of my firearm so I can say I am neither more not less safe
And Control is an illusion just like safety
Hard to believe you NEVER has even a single need, but still, carrying changes what you do, and the attitude you project.
By making you more confident, that likely scared off potential trouble, without even having to actually put your hand on it.
Control and safety are NOT illusions, or else there would not be so many women raped.
Clearly if these women had been armed and trained, there would have been fewer successful rapes.
It is not an illusion.
A "well regulated" militia means thoroughly practiced and well functioning, similar to the meaning in a "well regulated" clock or "well regulated" bowels.
And it does not say the 2nd Amendment was for a free country, but a "free state" needing a well regulated militia. And most states defines in their constitution, that the militia consists of all able bodied adult males.
So you admit that the 2A was about the MILITIA
That's a start.
Now all you have to do is look at the Constitution to see what that militia looks like and what its duties are.
You can find that in Article 1 Section 8
And THEN look at the Dick Act which effectively abolished the organized the militia described in the Constitution
Oh...
He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.
That doesn't change the fact that it is "introducing" that reason for the main clause. They are still tied together
The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.
It mentions no OTHER reason though does it...apparently that reason was important enough to get mention in that very simple statement. No others were as important to that Amendment
The first clause cannot be meaningless and the second clause must follow wherever it goes.That was a pretty stupid post. Care to explain what you think it meant?
None of the educated folks will be the least bit surprised that you have no clue about the rules of the use of a comma. That helps explain a LOT about your lack of understanding of our founding documents.
Perhaps you could find a remedial course in the English language at a local community college or high school.
Judicial activism. The People are the Militia. Well regulated Militia of the whole and entire People are declared Necessary.That was a pretty stupid post. Care to explain what you think it meant?
None of the educated folks will be the least bit surprised that you have no clue about the rules of the use of a comma. That helps explain a LOT about your lack of understanding of our founding documents.
Perhaps you could find a remedial course in the English language at a local community college or high school.
If any of these stupid confused Moon Bats have trouble comprehending what "a well regulated militia" means all they have to do is look at the Heller case. Justice Scalia pretty well put that silliness to rest when he said it was an individual right.
Of course these stupid Moon Bats only believe what they want to believe. They are dumb like that.
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.
That doesn't change the fact that it is "introducing" that reason for the main clause. They are still tied together
The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.
It mentions no OTHER reason though does it...apparently that reason was important enough to get mention in that very simple statement. No others were as important to that Amendment
Lets assume you are right that there was only and only one reason why the federal government was barred from any weapons jurisdiction.
Look again at exactly what that reason is, and who it is defending?
{...
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.
...}
First of all, the word militia is not capitalized, so it is not the official state Militia. It is the people in general, the adult males of sound mind and body. And their goal is not just to defend country, but state, municipality, home, etc.
And it is not the National Guard or the Militia the President can call up, because it is referring to the needs of a "free state", not a free country. Then finally, look who it says has the inherent RIGHT to keep and bear arms? It is not the federal, state, or municipal government, but "the people". The people is MORE than just a government run defense organization.
And you don't even need a 2nd Amendment to know that. The 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments already should be sufficient to guarantee that all individuals must have a right to bear arms, or else how could anyone defend life, liberty, or property?
And by the way, the words "well regulated militia" does not refer to one that is heavily government restricted or controlled. The meaning of the word then and now, means smoothly functioning on a timely basis. When a person refers to their digestion being "regular", they don't mean restricted, but the opposite, meaning it is functioning in a timely manner, without any restrictions or constipation. We refer to "regulator clocks" because they are timely and reliable. What the founders meant is that if the general population were ever disarmed, then you would not have a population familiar and practiced with firearms to quickly draw from.
And that is still true. Countries with a population familiar with firearms always does better than one that does not.
And again, this can not refer to the needs of just a federal Militia, because why would anyone need to add an amendment as a restriction against the federal government, about not disarming the federal government's own Militia? That would make no sense. Not only is there never any chance the federal government would disarm its own Militia, but none of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights were for people who wanted a stronger federal power. The whole point of the Bill of Rights was to guarantee restrictions on the federal government, so that states would be willing to sign on to the new federation, after these assurances of restrictions.
Punctuation is critical to understand the Second Amendment, well, actually, ALL of our founding documents.
We should ignore right wingers who allege hard work is important but refuse to muster to become well regulated and Necessary.Again...He was saying that rule #3 says that you use a comma to separate an introductory phrase that has been moved in front of the main clause.
That doesn't change the fact that it is "introducing" that reason for the main clause. They are still tied together
The fact the 2nd amendment mentions the advantage of having a militia that is well practiced with firearms, in no way implies that is the ONLY reason why the federal government is prohibited from any firearm jurisdiction by the constitution.
It mentions no OTHER reason though does it...apparently that reason was important enough to get mention in that very simple statement. No others were as important to that Amendment
How did the founders preserve the ability to have a well-regulated militia?
Prohibited the infringment of the right of the people.
You want to ignore the very plain and direct meaning of the operative because you want to take away guns.
We should ignore your bullshit.
Why do you say that?A "well regulated" militia means thoroughly practiced and well functioning, similar to the meaning in a "well regulated" clock or "well regulated" bowels.
And it does not say the 2nd Amendment was for a free country, but a "free state" needing a well regulated militia. And most states defines in their constitution, that the militia consists of all able bodied adult males.
So you admit that the 2A was about the MILITIA
That's a start.
Now all you have to do is look at the Constitution to see what that militia looks like and what its duties are.
You can find that in Article 1 Section 8
And THEN look at the Dick Act which effectively abolished the organized the militia described in the Constitution
Oh...
