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.
The Second Amendment says that the right to keep and bear arms is held by the people, not limited to members of an organized militia.I've posted before that the 2nd Amendment says 'a well regulated militia'.
A real virtue signaler wouldn't just spout empty words like "enough is enough". They'd burn their own home just to make a statement showing the world how much they CARE.How many more Uvalde school children type massacres will happen before we say enough is enough?
Commies don'tWe DON’T
They already had their own militias.
Article. I.
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To . . . .
. . . . 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;
They disbanded the Continental Army in 1783.
The US Army was not much of a force at the start, as the Founding Fathers did not want to have a standing army, which they thought would lead to tyranny.The Continental Army was replaced by the U.S. Army.
It was and is a standing army.The US Army was not much of a force at the start, as the Founding Fathers did not want to have a standing army, which they thought would lead to tyranny.
Does the 2nd Amendment make some feel potent, capable, and purposeful.
It makes me feel safe from the government. If they come for me and I've done nothing wrong, they're going to learn why the 2d Amendment was put in place.Does the 2nd Amendment make some feel potent, capable, and purposeful.
I prefer the original text:
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.
This Amendment was a specific prohibition against the newly created federal government infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. I don't see how any Lefty can argue with this.
It makes me feel safe from the government. If they come for me and I've done nothing wrong, they're going to learn why the 2d Amendment was put in place.
If the second amendment was written in reverse with the keep and bear doctrine contingent upon the militia doctrine I could understand the wussy crying of Lefty. But it's not written that way.
Because a well regulated militia is a necessary item for a free people to remain free they ..( the people).. are allowed to keep and bear arms. That in no way implies that the arms are limited to militia use.
Remember that a square is a rhombus but a rhombus is not a square.
Jo
WhateverBeing armed -is- a political statement.
Why are you so SCARED?Commies don't
Why are you such a liar?Why are you so SCARED?
If THEY come for you?It makes me feel safe from the government. If they come for me and I've done nothing wrong, they're going to learn why the 2d Amendment was put in place.
LOLOLOLOL
Get on a team, be point.If THEY come for you?
PRLol, you lie out your ass! I don't have to answer your retard questions traitor.
Unorganized militiaFor consideration ...
What does the Second Amendment guarantee?
EXCERPTS:
...
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads: “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.”
There are two significant competing interpretations of the Second Amendment. The first is that it provides a collective right to states, not individuals, to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. In the 18th century, at the time of ratification, American states did not have standing armies, so when a military force was needed the state would call up the militia, which would be able-bodied local men bringing their weapons to an assembly point. Without individual ownership of a firearm, there could be no militia.
...
The alternative viewpoint is that the Second Amendment provides an individual right that is not limited by the requirement there be a well regulated militia. This view became the contemporary understanding of the Second Amendment after the Supreme Court reconsidered the issue in D.C. v. Heller (2008). In Heller, the Court held a handgun ban in Washington, D.C. unconstitutional and declared for the first time that the “Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms.” Interestingly, the Court in Heller did not reverse Miller, they simply distinguished it by noting that it was permissible to ban firearms that did not have a lawful purpose.
As the Bill of Rights limits the powers of the Federal Government, there was some question about whether the Second Amendment limited the ability of states to regulate firearms. In McDonald v. City of Chicago, the Court decided that in the affirmative, with Justice Samuel Alito asserting that the fundamental right to keep and bear arms is incorporated against states as an element of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
However, the Court has recognized that this is not an unlimited right. In Heller, Justice Antonin Scalia writes that, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.” Justice Scalia also wrote in support of the ability of the government to prohibit “dangerous or unusual weapons.”
...
MSN
www.msn.com
Not really. After they disbanded the Continental Army, what remained was a mere skeleton of a fighting force.It was and is a standing army.
That sounds like the basis for an interesting discussion.Thing is, I'm a left winger and I know that the right to keep and bear arms isn't dependent upon the militia.
Mostly because I understand the reasons for the RKBA.
Problem is, if I told you what the right to bear arms meant, you'd disagree with me. Not because you have knowledge that it's different, but because you want it to be different to what I'd say it is.
