SHALL

>>32390270
NOT

File: 1481821273893.png (900KB, 690x968px) Image search: [Google]

900KB, 690x968px

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the Jews are somehow at fault for this.

>>32390277
BE

>>32390293
INFINGED

>>32390305
IF YOU ARE A PART OF A "STATE MILITIA"

>>32390313
... AND THE STATE MILITIA IS EVERYBODY WILLING TO DEFEND HIS FREEDOMS

File: you.jpg (1MB, 3840x2160px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3840x2160px

>>32390270
>Biased textbooks are biased.
Google second ammendment, it is very clear what it means. Also:
>(((you)))

>>32390350
No shit, dude. It's

>the state militia is made up of gun owners

not

>the gun owners are made up of the state militia

>>32390346
That wasn't in the provided review material. Enjoy your 1 on the AP.

File: thumbs up.jpg (3KB, 225x225px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 225x225px

>>32390385
>mfw fail course but still American Patriot™

File: meh.jpg (16KB, 365x354px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 365x354px

>>32390313
AND AS PER US CODE § 311 DEFINES IT ALL CITIZEN MEN AGES 18-45 OR WOMEN WHO ARE OR WHO HAVE DECLARED INTENT TO BECOME A PART OF THE NATIONAL GUARD

>mfw according to current US law women aren't protected under the constitution to own firearms.

>>32390406
14th amendment extends all rights to all Americans™.

>>32390406
They're not a part of the National Guard, they're part of the unorganized militia, which is the sister organization to the NG's organized militia. All members of the National Guard are part of the militia, not all members of the militia are part of the National Guard.

File: JFouN.jpg (106KB, 424x623px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 424x623px

>>32390404
excellent work

File: img-second-amendment-optimized.jpg (26KB, 448x298px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 448x298px

>>32390385
I had a better textbook than the instructor.

>>32390270
Where is this trash? How is this allowed?

>>32390465
>Where is this trash

In an American™ textbook, destroying the minds of otherwise freedom loving Americans™.

>How is this allowed?

Non-Americans™ have worked their way into our courthouses and publishing companies, lad.

>>32390406
Also the unincorporated militia of the states is there too in the US code, all able bodies 17-45 (and supporters as provided for by the founders) not in the national guard or defense force.

>>32390596
Able bodied men, I originally said my post as b8 and don't actually believe it as >>32390423 is a thing, but the code says "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 for women "and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.", Meaning that unless you're a part of the national guard, you're not part of the militia as per is defined by (a), however by (b) you can see the definition of it is expanded to include what is called the unorganized militia, which isn't defined by US codes as far as I'm aware excluding the parts defined by (a)

File: 1427163273986.jpg (76KB, 970x604px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 970x604px

>>32390455

why is there contention about the meaning of this? maybe I have some superhuman parsing ability but it clearly means an effective militia is important so don't disarm the population because it would hamper the formation of militias

it is just common sense. What happens when muh state militia gets raped on the field of battle like when the washington militia tried to stop a Royal Marine detachment from burning DC but got BTFO? with everyone packing muskets further militias can form and take up the flag of liberty

not even american(but I do wish I could live in america)

>>32390385
>>32390406
>>32390441
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.

>(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.

File: saf7.jpg (8KB, 266x200px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 266x200px

>>32390725
>the unorganized militia consists of members of the militia who aren't in the organized militia

seems legit

>>32390713
Its not about what it really means, its about twisting it in such a way that fascists can take our guns.

>>32390270
Why is it called the "second amendment", but on the document it's the "Fourth Article"?

>>32390713
Because they can pretend to not know what a preamble is and think that the punctuation separating "the right of the people" isn't really there.

>>32390754
Not all the Amendments in the Bill of Rights were ratified.

>>32390771
That still doesn't make sense. If it's on the final copy, then they're there.

>>32390777
Read it yourself, god-man.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Bill_of_Rights_Pg1of1_AC.jpg

>>32390725
Yes that's the exact source I'm using when I said >>32390406, the problem was that I didn't take the 14th amendment into account when saying that as >>32390423 pointed out.

From the definition of militia layed out by (b), we can say that the militia is defined by those two and only defined by those two, meaning that anything that is outside of those definitions is not part of the militia, as (b)1 (or whatever the proper notation is) does no include what (a) defines, we can conclude that (a) at least partially defines (b)2 except in cases where a woman is part of the national guard which part of (b)1.

What all this neglects to mention or define is what standing women who're outside of the national guard, meaning that unless there are additional codes that I am unaware of, women are not part of the unorganized militia, and thus if we were to make a judgement based of USC § 311 and assuming the 2nd amendment does not refer to the people and instead is limited to only the militia which is wrong, then you could conclude that by US law women are not allowed to own firearms.

>>32390815
I have. I have a copy of it. I don't know what you're trying to get at with this post.

>>32390442
I would get that tattoo

>>32390840
>then you could conclude that by US law women are not allowed to own firearms.
Nor are anyone over 45, and anyone who is in any way disabled or out of shape.
But any 17 year old Mexican man who can walk 2 miles consecutively is allowed to own firearms as long as he says "I declare intent to become a US citizen" at some point.

>>32390891
Essentially, yes. Good thing the 2nd amendment doesn't mean that and the first section of the 14th amendment exists.

Does anyone else, I'm sure there is, have something also in their States Constitution?

Ours:

Section 19. Right to Keep and Bear Arms
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 individual right
to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political
subdivision of the State.

>>32390918
Mine's even better.

Section 22. Right to bear arms. -- The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

>>32390270
Op. You're black..

Carry on.

>>32390918
Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

>>32390855
When then stop being confused, nigger

>>32390455
WRONG
THE RATIFIED 2ND AMENDMENT DOES NOT HAVE THE THIRD COMMA

>>32390770

even without punctuation it is pretty clearly two seperate statements the first qualifying the second plus there is no possible way to infer that the people means the militia

of course in 1791 they probably took for granted that anyone lettered enough to fully read the bill of rights understood basic english and probably also latin grammar

>>32390754
Bill of rights was ratified 1791
Constitution was ratified 1788

>>32390442

Tis' Beautiful.

>>32390313

Then why don't guardsmen take there weapons home? It does say to 'bear arms'.

Does that mean the US Army owes me a M4A1 with M208? I am grenadier after all...

>>32390290
No need to talk about it like "the jews". It's certain Jews and nonjews who are doing this. Israel, zionists maybe, but not Jews as a whole people. First settlers in Israel were indentured servants ruled by the Rothschilds.

>on work visa
>declare intent to become a citizen
>member of the militia but not allowed to buy guns

>>32391833
jew detected

Both state and private education is literally indoctrination. Only personal and individual/individually selected education is worth anything at all.

>>32391650
>Does that mean the US Army owes me a M4A1 with M208? I am grenadier after all...

The right to bear arms means you're allowed to do it unmolested.

It doesn't mean you're entitled to arms that don't belong to you.

also

>FUCKING DUH

>>32390270
Hello underageb&. APUSH is dumb, I actually liked history class in college.

>>32390406
>>32390441
>>32390313

>the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

Who are the PEOPLE?

Get rekt fascists.

>>32390406
>>32390423
>>32390441
>>32390596
>>32390665
>>32390713
>>32390725
Holy fuck why are we still arguing about what milita means when the Supreme Court says it doesn't matter. See Heller v. D.C.; see also MacDonald v. Chicago.

>>32390770
The preamble of the constitution has no legal value. That was decided in 1905.

>>32390270
Is anyone on /k/ part of a militia?

>>32390290
The author of the book was one John M Schmalbach

>>32395123

I shoot in the woods and drink beer with some buddies once a month

>>32395123
Most of us are, according to the definition of the word under the Militia Act of 1903

File: Bada Bing Bada Boom.jpg (23KB, 418x405px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 418x405px

>>32395460
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903
We're part of the Dick Act, we made it boys.

>>32395460
Am I included?

File: 1366049824468.gif (44KB, 827x628px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 827x628px

Saved this a long time ago. Relevant?

>>32395939
Supreme Court declared that the preamble has no legal standing in 1905

File: thumbs up.gif (269KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

269KB, 300x225px

>>32390270
>John J. Newman, the book's co-author, told FoxNews.com that the text of the book was written before the 2008 Supreme Court ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, which protects individuals' rights to possess firearms. He said the book's only intent was to summarize the Second Amendment and admitted that the current definition is incorrect. But he said a revised and corrected edition is set to be sold in May 2014.

Everything went better than expected

>>32395995
But I already have my torch and pitchfork!

>>32395995
>cuck writes some cuck shit in a cuckbook
>gets called out for cucking up, immediately cucks out and begs for forgiveness from the bulls

>>32395995
Good. Still sad that bad shit got published, but I'm always willing to praise someone who admits they're wrong. Much harder than simply being right in the first place.

>>32395986

I was kind of focusing more on the breakdown of the language rather than the footnote.