But /k/, doesn't it say you can only bear arms if you're

File: Bait_fde29c_5515578.jpg (18KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

18KB, 600x600px

>>30753785

>>30753785
>The right of the well regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Yup. That is word for word what it says. Totally. Mhmm.

Because a militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

>>30753785
No says the rights of the people

>inb4 op attempts to prolong his pathetic bait attempt

>A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a productive day, the right of the people to keep and eat bacon shall not be infringed

Who has the right to keep bacon?
A) A well balanced breakfast
B) The people

>>30753785
It says because commie faggots (foreign or domestic), people will need to be able to form militias. And In order for a militia to be in proper working order, the people need arms.

But that alone is just a train of thought, so they thought ahead and stopped commie faggots from being able to stop the people from stopping commie faggots.

>>30753785

What is a militia? By its very nature it is not a standing army. Rather all fighting age people can be rallied to form a temporary standing army to resist foreign invasion or to put down domestic tyranny.

The people have a right to arms, because otherwise our ability to form a militia is incredibly hampered or nullified entirely.

The National Guard is the "legal" militia of the nation, but I disagree. A state can have its government seized by tyranny the same as the federal government. The people, each and every one, needs to be able to form into a militia.

"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"

A militia can hardly be "well regulated" if it is without arms.

>>30753828
lol

Never heard it put that way. Nice.

>>30753785
Define "Militia."

There's nothing in the description about size. This makes a single-person militia as legitimate as a 500 member volunteer force.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZQdaEFa_60

>>30753785
No but we have a democrat delegate caught on camera saying that unofficially they want to ban all guns.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nlhQafsx3o

Let the rage flow through you.

>>30753917
This

The National guard is attached to the military therefore it cant be the "real" militia.

File: image.jpg (115KB, 599x573px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 599x573px

>>30753785
This thread every fucking day

>>30753917
Read the first few lines of the national guard acts. They state that the national guard does not replace the militia.

File: justJohhnyDeppThings.png (964KB, 900x649px) Image search: [Google]

964KB, 900x649px

>>30753991
Literally every definition lists it as referring to a group or unit.

>>30754076
I agree. I despise the fact that we really have to argue this fact, but we have this argument every day. There are people out there who wholeheartedly believe banning guns is what's best for you. Since we were complicit in 1994 we got the FAWB, now we are forced to fight for our position.

It sucks and as long as this board doesn't get shit up with 20 threads at once about gun control, I don't mind seeing it. It will help our newfriends gain a bigger understanding of the gun control issue.

Or we can be like Calguns and have threads about how we're selling our AR-15s because somebody did a mass shooting with one.

if you are an American male between 17-45 you are already part of the militia

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

> (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.

>>30754043
Actually, the national guard more or less exists to allow governors to resist a military/federal coup.

The federalist papers basically said:
- "We don't need a national guard because we have the people"
- "Forcing all men to occasionally train/practice would really fuck up our gdp"
- "Having the national guard be the only counter to the government is really stupid because they are the government"
- "Governors have an obligation to use the national guard to defend against tyranny, other governors abusing the national guard, and/or a military coup"
- " 'What if we considered the people to be the militia?' 'Thats stupid, we already have laws establishing/acknowledging that, and that fact is blatantly obvious because of the shortcomings of government controlled militia' "
- "Why not both?"

>>30753828
super kek. I'll remember that one.

It doesn't matter what it says Illinois still infringes on our rights because they will not allow you to make a militia

>>30753785
take out the two dependent clauses in the middle, that's how it should look like on the grand scale.

>>30754095
uni- means one in latin
also from wiki:
>A typical unit is a homogeneous military organization (either combat, combat-support or non-combat in capability) that includes service personnel predominantly from a single arm of service, or a branch of service, and its administrative and command functions are self-contained.
a unit of one person is fine too.

>>30754203
I don't quite understand. Explain please.

You're all idiots. Here's what the 2nd amendment truly says in today's words. "' we don't really want a standing army because we just got done fighting our own army but we recognize that a well armed army is necessary to remain a free country and defend ourselves from other armies, we'll keep a standing Army, as long as the people have the right and means to also keep arms incase we need to fight our own army again."

>>30754306
Justification for a law doesn't impact the law.
Second amendment legally says: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms(,) shall not be infringed."

The justification is only included to try to dissuade attempts at applying the SA in retarded ways.
It basically exists to prevent the courts from fucking things up.

>>30753828
>Cold milk, being necessary to the start of a productive day with a bowl of cereal, the right of the people to keep and own refrigerators shall not be infringed.

Who has the right to refrigerators; the milk or the people?

>>30754095
You've never heard of a one-man unit? It's called a lone wolf, a rogue agent, a John fucking Rambo, a Christopher dropped-by-a-drone-that-we-don't-condone Dorner.

Single-element units exist all the time, just ask the Steiner's Scouting Divisions.

>>30753785
I remember when my brother and his fellow history teachers got their hands on an alpha version of the common core booklet that had the amendments listed.

The 2nd one sound basically like
>Ayy lmao no guns unless in militia

>>30754468
I'm glad I got out of school before common core. It looks stupid as fuck.

File: image.png (143KB, 672x434px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 672x434px

>>30753785
Well I'm in a one man militia so suck on that

>>30754580
I'm in a two-man militia, soon to be three. Every day we grow stronger.

>tfw don't have that image macro or a lens-flare tool in your MS paint

>>30754140
>if you are an American [...] you are already part of the militia

That whole equal protection under the law Amendment made every American a member of the unorganized militia.

>>30754550
it is stupid as fuck. It's organized insanity.

public school = day prison indoctrination centers.

>>30754164
>"Forcing all men to occasionally train/practice would really fuck up our gdp"
Eh, they said that having frequent training days would kill productivity.
No. 29 basically lays out a system amazingly similar to what Switzerland does today-- have a small active-duty core in case of invasion or other quick need, but have the bulk of your military be a trained populace large enough that it could both help out the active-duty force soon enough, while still being able to fight them effectively should they ever turn on the people at large.

>>30753809
>bear arms,
Doesn't that mean that you have right to have two (as in, plural) upper extremities? Being one armed is against US Constitution?

>>30753917
>What is a militia?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

10 U.S. Code § 311 - 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.

And you are ageist if you say that means those over 45 can no longer own guns, and sexist if you say it means women can't.