muh 2nd Amendment

SHALL

Does it say the right of the militia to keep and bear arms? No, the people have that right

File: 1488089702875.jpg (245KB, 469x600px) Image search: [Google]

245KB, 469x600px

sage goes into all fields

>>134425361
NOT

>>134425178

OP is a faggot, being necessary to shitpost, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

>>134425178
Define it.

What part of a comma do illiterate faggots not understand?

>>134425178
A well balanced breakfast being a necessary start to a good day, the right of the people to eat burgers shall not be infringed.
Who has the right to eat burgers? A well balanced breakfast? Or the people?

File: op.jpg (42KB, 384x384px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 384x384px

>>134425408
Came here to post this.

The militia was understood at the time, and eventually codified under federal law to mean, all males of a certain age. It specifically does not include the military, national guard, or any government force. Modern anti-discrimination laws and the 14th constitutional amendment would render that proscription to only males of a certain age null however. So even if you want to treat the prefatory clause as controlling, it doesn't change anything - are you breathing? Congrats, you're part of the militia. Of course, the prefatory clause is merely explanatory, not controlling, as anyone with a 4th grade reading level can see. No language in the amendment states that the right to keep and bear arms may only be exercised in connection with militia service/membership.

>>134425178
it's simple, OP. The Amendments are in numerical order. When the 2nd Amendment was passed, only white men owned guns.

Later, the 13th and 14th Amendments came along and gave slaves and ex-slaves the same rights. It is not the fault of the Founding Fathers that this happened.

America has never had a gun problem. Until 1865.

Educate yourself.

Held:

1. The 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. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

>>134426064
>America has never had a gun problem. Until 1865.
>implying its not niggers nogging

File: kevinowenswon.jpg (21KB, 642x361px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 642x361px

>>134426064
>America has never had a gun problem. Until 1865.

File: aa1.png (15KB, 363x563px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 363x563px

>>134425178

File: 1500262883132.jpg (89KB, 720x781px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 720x781px

>>134425714
DAAMN that is a fucking good one thanks dude. Except I'm not a ancap

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

44KB, 827x628px

>>134425178

>guys, i can into grammer.

File: 0NInFb0.jpg (241KB, 1200x1188px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1200x1188px

>>134425178

Listen, friend, I understand the outrage over mass shootings and inner city gang violence, but this is not the way. The second amendment is the law of the land; its meaning has been tested time and again. To sum it up, what you call for is a constitutional amendment to supersede the second and allow gun bans.

This is, to put it mildly, a flight of fancy. There's not nearly the support for that. So you can keep bringing guns up to energize the urban base, and completely lose the middle. Democrats have done this play for decades now and it hasn't worked. Even mag cap laws are getting rolled back. So it's something that won't happen and just loses elections.

The wise thing to do is drop it. It's a dead issue and nothing will change. I'm liberal as they come, but I'm small town liberal. Gun violence doesn't happen here and there are far more important problems (like heroin killing more people than car accidents). I can tell you one thing though:

KEEP YOUR FILTHY FUCKING HANDS OFF MY GUNS

>>134425178
To follow your logic we should gather into militias, but then you'll move the goalposts and say we don't need militias cuz muh army.

File: Rtc.gif (94KB, 676x509px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 676x509px

>>134426473
>This is, to put it mildly, a flight of fancy
Especially since the States are becoming more gun friendly every year.

>>134425850
Why bother explaining this? This whole argument can be boiled down to precedent.

I bought a gun, am I in a militia? No, I have private ownership like all Americans have had since before the founding of our nation. The semantics weren't regarded 200, 100, 50, or 10 years ago. All law abiding Americans can own guns, simple.

>>134425178
Militia is all of the people
Well regulated means we'll and standardly equipped - see term British Regular or NVA Regular, etc refers to standard military unit I.e. infantry meaning people should be as equally equiped as standard infantry.

>>134425178
>''well regulated militias''
>Implying there exists a threat of an armed rebellion by morbidly obese burgers against the government.
Militias pose no threat to the government's Armed Forces.

>>134425178
Militias are unofficial organizations of regular people

>>134428438
This. In a hypothetical scenario where Militias engage with the government's armed forces Militias wouldn't stand a chance. Gun control shills can't even bait well.

The ONLY thing that was unanimous in Heller was that the 2nd amendment, as originally written, concerned the INDIVIDUALS right to bear arms. Keep spouting your ignorant crap - you're out of date.

>>134425459
INFRINGE

So gun owners need to join militias?

>>134430000
Digits confirm that's close enough.

CREATE A MILITIA

>>134428931
>>134429663
CHP holders outnumber the entire US Armed Forces (Many of whom are not infantry) 4 to 1, and that doesn't include gun owners who don't need permits. Add the fact that many private gun owners are former military or police, and that a significant number of active military and police would defect, and it doesn't look well for tyranny.

It's a matter of numbers.