Founding Fathers

Let me help you with that!

If you knew your history you would know much of the Bill of Rights were written in Explanatory Essay form in that the first sentence explains why something is a right and the rest of the amendment explains what the right is.

In this case, the first sentence explains why every citizen needs to be armed, to be able to form an army of the people "a Militia" and protect the States from the Federal Government.

The second sentence says that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and to bear arms "Shall not be infringed". The term "THE PEOPLE" means everybody, not just soldiers or police. The word SHALL is also important. Unlike the term, MAY NOT which means in some circumstances, SHALL NOT means, under no circumstance can any law be made that infringes on this right.

This is why most people who believe in the constitution feel all gun laws are unconstitutional. Some think it is also the reason that SCOTUS avoids hearing gun law cases. Most would have to be overturned.

I think we can do without the condescension of your first five words, there.

You're dismissing the intense arguments around the second amendment that led Madison to keep rewriting it to be increasingly vague. There was a lot going on here that the essay you're quoting leaves out, from the people who remember the Redcoats confiscating anything they considered to be weapons caches, to slave states wanting to patrol for runaway slaves without being mistaken for an army trying to overthrow the government. The Federalist Papers alone outline a BUNCH of talking points that Adams, Monroe et al were juggling to keep the union together while also giving the constitution a provision for allowing for weapons ownership.

The fact is that the final wording is so vague that ANY interpretation that claims to define exactly what it means is subject to wishful thinking and confirmation bias. And it doesn't help that, as you say, the courts haven't had the backbone to step in and make clear how we're supposed to interpret the amendment. I think they consider that to be Congress' job, but lol Congress.

And then besides all THAT, we then have to debate the impact of changes to weapons technology since the 1790's!

In any case, the OP is intentionally misquoting the Second Amendment very deceptively.

You're right about there being no need to be condescending, and I am sorry. It was uncalled for. Please accept my apology.

However, I disagree with your premise that the amendment is vague. I think that "The right to keep and bear arms Shall not be infringed" is pretty clear. Especially if you read the writings of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams on the subject of the need for the people to always be armed.

As far as changes in technology, this is a red herring. Considering "The People" just defeated the best army in the world. The founding fathers wanted the people to be equal to any and all established military. This would mean that whatever arms the military had, the citizenry should be as well equipped. That is why there is no qualifier on the type of weapons, it just says arms.

I appreciate your apology and I accept it.

I really don't buy the idea that the first clause is meant to be independent of the second and serves only as justification rather than legal value: if the problem is that well-regulated militias are needed, the answer is to set up well-regulated militias, not to open it up to the unregulated public. I've read what Washington et al wrote at the time, but I think it should be clear that it's one legal clause not two.

I also disagree that the changes in technology is a red herring. There's really no reasonable way that in one poorly-written sentence, an 18th century musket and a 21st century weapon engineered to rip apart a concrete bunker in Fallujah can possibly be governed the same way. That's just insane.

"In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the right to arms preexisted the Constitution and in that case and in Presser v. Illinois (1886) recognized that the Second Amendment protected the right from being infringed by Congress. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court again recognized that the right to arms is individually held and, citing the Tennessee case of Aymette v State, indicated that it protected the right to keep and bear arms that are "part of the ordinary military equipment" or the use of which could "contribute to the common defense.""

Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), No. 07-290, that "[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

WOW! I've never seen someone provide a logical argument and support it with evidence on a meme board. I'm impressed

Good to see a civil disagreement on differing opinions. A lot of people on ImgFlip could learn from a bit from you.

Good to see a civil disagreement on differing opinions. A lot of people on ImgFlip could learn from a bit from you.

top 10 anime plot twists
#10: when a libtard uses a friggin r lee ermey image

there were primitive MG back then you know and assault rifles to but they were not put into military serves due to here unreliability

oh and go back to dictionary of the time and supreme cort rulings on the 2nd amendment and use an open mind

and the phrase ¨A well regulated militia¨ meant a well trained one not a regulated one

"capt6550

If you knew your history you would know much of the Bill of Rights were written in Explanatory Essay form in that the first sentence explains why something is a right and the rest of the amendment explains what the right is."

The Second Amendment:

"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

Why the right is:

"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE"

What that right is:

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

Therefore this:

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

Is for the purpose of this:

"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE"

"Capt6550

If you knew your history you would know much of the Bill of Rights were written in Explanatory Essay form in that the first sentence explains why something is a right and the rest of the amendment explains what the right is.

In this case, the first sentence explains why every citizen needs to be armed, to be able to form an army of the people "a Militia" and protect the States from the Federal Government."

END OF DISCUSSION

imgflip, where people argue against themselves for the sake of party hack bias.

"In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the right to arms preexisted the Constitution and in that case and in Presser v. Illinois (1886) recognized that the Second Amendment protected the right from being infringed by Congress. In United States v. Miller (1939), the Court again recognized that the right to arms is individually held and, citing the Tennessee case of Aymette v State, indicated that it protected the right to keep and bear arms that are "part of the ordinary military equipment" or the use of which could "contribute to the common defense." Likewise, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), No. 07-290, that "[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.""

Why are you lying again? Or do you understand the constitution better than supreme court justices going back more than a hundred years? You are such a fool, I really do feel sorry for you.

Excuse me while I don't read what took your idiotic self an entire day to find from a source which is not you because you are that utterly devoid of any knowledge of your own.

Got an issue with what the capt6550 said? Good, we're on the same page YET AGAIN.
Take it up with him.

Later, chump.

Excuse me while I am not surprised at all that you refuse to look at anything that refutes you and the things your rather limited intellect feel so strongly about. That you're still so idiotic after all these years and all the evidence piled up in front of you just shows how beneath me and the majority of the reasonable people in this nation you really are. Congrats at being worthless and blind. Maybe you oughta go waste more of your life on G-mod posing your dolls, you really aren't so capable at this whole trolling bit. Then again, not sure what exactly you ARE capable of.

You can't be this stupid.

Oh, wait, you are.

There's no teams here, sorry to break it to you. There's accuracy, and there's inaccuracy. The fact of the matter is that the Supreme Court of the United States(who, by the way, matter far more than you do) have ruled REPEATEDLY that the 2nd amendment in no way requires a citizen to be enrolled in a militia. That you're too stupid to accept reality is in no way my fault. Shoo now, your digi-dolls are waiting for you.

Then let the one I addressed argue against his own hypocrisy and stop licking his ass. Brown nosing is so cringe.

Supreme Court? Cool, save that spiel for the thread where you're arguing against Roe v Wade then?

And if you want to join a militia over there in the UK, you have my permission.

We good, or you still going to copypaste crap you don't bother reading yourself, you massive hypocritical moron?

The second amendment was created for the citizens of the United States to be able to fight back against their government should they go "rogue."

The government already took away our rights to maintain militias, they almost got our guns. I hope Trump says something about militias one of these days.

Check your state out. There are still Home Guards, state militias.

Ever heard of them actually doing something? What do you think would happen if they did?

Protect our borders when the military failed to.

No they aren't. They're doing the best they can but their best is still a shitty job. Fortunately a wall will make their efforts hundreds of times more efficient.

It's not the military's job to protect our border from hostile invasions? News to me.

Militias are still a thing

Oh really? They ever done anything except pop off some rounds in someone's backyard?

When was the last time we were invaded? They haven't had any need to do anything other than train. Many of those involved in the Cliven Bundy standoff were militiamen, and despite how many laws they broke during the situation as well as the fact that it very nearly turned into a proper skirmish, they mostly received probation as punishment, many were acquitted entirely, and only four people actually served serious jail sentences. It's simply FACT that militias are still around, still armed, and the federal government(while seriously uncomfortable with them) has NOT taken steps to disband or outlaw them.

Yeah, well, funny how that works given that we don't need armed slave patrols anymore, which is what that argument was about to begin with.

I would love to have a national discussion on what regulated militias mean now and going into the future, especially if it begins with Trump quoting some hairbrained comment he read on the Internet. In the meantime, let's not pretend that the Second Amendment, by far the worst worded legislation in history, is as clearcut on the debate as the OP is making it seem.

If Trump is a fascist , why would you want to give up your guns. Jews gave up theirs and were forces onto trains.

ffs - https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/26/ben-carson/fact-checking-ben-carson-nazi-guns/

The 2nd was written to secure the 1st.

I don't think there's much evidence for that at all.

It's a good thing the supreme court disagrees with you and has ruled on it MULTIPLE times. You've got no ground to stand on, we do. The wording of the 2nd amendment, historical precedent predating the constitution, AND multiple court rulings from the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality in our country ALL have backed the argument that the 2nd amendment means that everyday citizens are allowed to bear weaponry, even military grade, regardless of whether or not they are associated with a militia.

And people wonder how an imbecile like Trump got elected.

That's silly.

so called presidents denouncing the media every day is the biggest threat to the first to come along since ... well, ever.

The media continually attacks , belittles and degrades the ideas that got Trump elected. So , yes, they are an enemy of the people. They do not neutrallly arbitrate news. They routinely attack us when they attack our nationalist view point.

“The press is to serve the governed, not the governors.”

—U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)

Yes, and they attack the governed who voted for people they disagree with on a REGULAR basis.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/feb/24/mueller-report-revealed-through-court-records/

PS... Nazis are not 'the people'. Take your tiki torch rallies and shove em where the sun dont shine.

The media attacks the bases that elected Trump. So the media is at war with the populous.

no the media attacks his lies, as should you. also 3,000,000 . thats the number of MORE people that voted for hilliary... so you are not the populace, give it a rest sweet cheeks

Note.*right of THE PEOPLE