US 2nd Amendment - what does it say?

“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.”

I hear a lot of Americans talk about their right to buy and wear and use guns. So, I looked up the text of the amendment. And lo! And behold!

The way I read it, you see, is that it says that the people, in a well regulated militia with the purpose of state security, have the right to keep and bear arms.

It doesn’t state a well regulated militia with the purpose of state security AND the people…

Since it’s one sentence, it follows that without an added “and” that the people being referred to are in said militia.

Ergo, you can’t just buy and own guns and claim it’s your constitutional right.
You could otherwise, just as well, claim that the arms being referred to are your actual arms. Not weapons at all. You have a right to not have your arms chopped off.

And not being a US constituinalist lawyer… doesn’t the constitution say anything about a federal government? And if so, how do you guarantee federal security and freedom if states can have well armed militias?

Me reckons the gun lobby has scope creeped the hell out of that amendment and you’ve all been suckered.

@shavixmir

To provide some Constitutional textual context for what the Framers apparently thought constituted a Militia—

Article I, Section 8: Powers of Congress

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
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;

~ ~ ~

Article II, Section 2

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

~ ~ ~

Also the Fifth Amendment: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”

@shavixmir

mi·li·tia

/məˈliSHə/

noun

a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.


Kinda hard to raise a civilian militia if all of the civilians are unarmed and untrained like you Shav 🙄
The revolutionary War was relatively slow compared to modern warfare and any current militias would not have time to train anyone.
Therefore the civilians should be allowed to prepare and train before any militias are needed.

If the civilians in the Ukraine thought like this then Russia wouldn't be kicking their asses.
Also, native Americans, Jews, etc etc.

Unarmed civilians get taken over by dictators and history has proven this all over the world.

The USA was created by Civilians who knew how to handle a rifle.
That is why the USA would be the worst country to invade. Everyone has a gun 😉

@capacrapa said
@shavixmir

mi·li·tia

/məˈliSHə/

noun

a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.


Kinda hard to raise a civilian militia if all of the civilians are unarmed and untrained like you Shav 🙄

@shavixmir

All you ever do is talk about dick and ass 🙄

Queer.

@shavixmir said
You have absolutely no idea if I’m unarmed and untrained.

But on the point at hand: the article does not state that everyone should be armed. You’re adding that context to suit your small dick and your wanting of compensation.

@capacrapa said
Unarmed civilians get taken over by dictators and history has proven this all over the world.

@capacrapa said
@shavixmir

All you ever do is talk about dick and ass 🙄

Queer.

@shavixmir said
You have absolutely no idea if I’m unarmed and untrained.

But on the point at hand: the article does not state that everyone should be armed. You’re adding that context to suit your small dick and your wanting of compensation.

@metal-brain said
You have absolutely no idea if I’m not in a well regulated militia. Does the constitution say anything about registering such well regulated militias with the government?

You are better off making the argument that the 2nd amendment is outdated. Guns alone cannot win wars anymore.

@Metal-Brain

I don't know what you mean by "registering." But it does not seem far from what the Framers thought of as a well-regulated Militia (certainly identifiable) that could be called up to serve (re my post above, quoting the Constitution). They obviously did not think of a Militia as anyone with a gun.

_____________________________

EDIT: Would the Framers -- still remembering the Revolution -- have thought of armed British loyalists (surely, there were still some around?) as part of an acceptable Militia?

@shavixmir said
You add to the 2nd amendment.
You have no constitutional right to own a gun.

You people make up crap and swallow your NRA / FOX BS as if you enjoy rimming trump after a dump.

Damned, fukking, morons.

@vistesd2 said
@Metal-Brain

I don't know what you mean by "registering." But it does not seem far from what the Framers thought of as a well-regulated Militia (certainly identifiable) that could be called up to serve (re my post above, quoting the Constitution). They obviously did not think of a Militia as anyone with a gun.

_____________________________

EDIT: Would the Framers -- ...[text shortened]... of armed British loyalists (surely, there were still some around?) as part of an acceptable Militia?

@shavixmir said
Hey, numb nuts… it’s your constitution and I’m just explaining what it says and doesn’t.
It is indeed outdated.

However… please… explain… how can a well regulated anything not be registered with the government.

What exactly do you think “regulated” means?