2nd Amendment validation

the founders used 'regulated' in the sense of 'good working condition'
You do not get to speak for the dead. Redefinition fallacy. 'well regulated' means well ordered, or organized. It has never meant anything else.
I am that.
In good working condition? I'll take your word for that! :D
I'm not speaking for the dead,
Yes you are.
they spoke for themselves with the dozens of historical writing concerning their beliefs on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
You do not get to speak for the dead. You can only speak for yourself.
The ONLY authoritative source on the Federalist papers is the Federalist papers themselves.
The ONLY authoritative source on the Constitution of the United States is the Constitution itself (that includes the Bill of Rights).

The meaning of 'regulated' is NOT changed by the Federalist papers nor the Constitution. This word comes the Latin word 'regula' and means ordered by rules, first appearing in English in the late middle ages...in other words, in this case, an organized militia under the authority of that agency organizing them. The Marines are well regulated. They are organized by a set of rules and under the authority of the U.S. government. YOU are not a set of rules. You are you. The Marines are well regulated. You are not.

You cannot redefine a word using the Federalist papers, the Constitution of the United States, nor by speaking for the dead.
 
Some people own lots of tanks...

Jaques Littlefield (deceased now) had the world's largest private collection of working tanks

jacques-littlefield-601ee162-9d6f-4598-9e61-6debca533e5-resize-750.jpeg


Or these tank owners out for a weekend at the range

tmg-article_default_mobile;jpeg_quality=20.jpg


bigsandy1-660x372.png


Or this guy firing his 122mm artillery piece:

big-sandy-2.png


Or, somebody enjoying the firing of a bazooka...

163458,xcitefun-sandy-shoot-6.jpg


I suspect our friends have a rather incomplete picture of what one can and cannot own.
 
You don't get to speak for the dead. You can only speak for you.
The 2nd amendment does not specify any weapon by type, application, brand name, or usage.
The 2nd amendment discusses two related rights:
1) the right of a free State to defend itself (it organizes militias).
2) the right of the people (individuals) to defend themselves. They do that by bearing arms (weapons). ANY kind of weapon.

in a well regulated militia. dumbfuck bitch. arms means arms of war, surely even a stupid fuck piece of shit like you has to believe private citizens cannot purchase or own every type of weapon we have in our arsenal, and can own and bear them. from tanks to attack helicopters to shoulder fired ground to air missile systems to rocket propelled grenade launchers and grenades. are you really this fucking stupid, boy?

the constitution does not specifically give citizens the right to own guns, but it does not deny that right. just like with dining room tables.
 
The meaning of 'regulated' is NOT changed by the Federalist papers nor the Constitution. This word comes the Latin word 'regula' and means ordered by rules, first appearing in English in the late middle ages...in other words, in this case, an organized militia under the authority of that agency organizing them. The Marines are well regulated. They are organized by a set of rules and under the authority of the U.S. government. YOU are not a set of rules. You are you. The Marines are well regulated. You are not.

You cannot redefine a word using the Federalist papers, the Constitution of the United States, nor by speaking for the dead.

there are several ways that a person, place, or thing can be regulated..........

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/regulate

verb (used with object), reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing.
1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.


so, as you can see, 'well regulated' does not have to mean 'well ruled'.......therefore, 'well regulated', as used by the founding fathers through their historical writings, having a set standard or being in good order......we the people are that well regulated militia. It is the absolute height of stupidity to believe that the framers would insert a government ruled entity in to the B of R as a necessity to a secure state when all of their writings expressed a huge distrust of standing armies
 
there are several ways that a person, place, or thing can be regulated..........

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/regulate

verb (used with object), reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing.
1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.


so, as you can see, 'well regulated' does not have to mean 'well ruled'.......therefore, 'well regulated', as used by the founding fathers through their historical writings, having a set standard or being in good order......we the people are that well regulated militia. It is the absolute height of stupidity to believe that the framers would insert a government ruled entity in to the B of R as a necessity to a secure state when all of their writings expressed a huge distrust of standing armies

that is stupid even for you. wow. how lame. everyone is part of a well regulated militia!! how stupid!!
 
in a well regulated militia. dumbfuck bitch. arms means arms of war, surely even a stupid fuck piece of shit like you has to believe private citizens cannot purchase or own every type of weapon we have in our arsenal, and can own and bear them. from tanks to attack helicopters to shoulder fired ground to air missile systems to rocket propelled grenade launchers and grenades. are you really this fucking stupid, boy?

the constitution does not specifically give citizens the right to own guns, but it does not deny that right. just like with dining room tables.

it is the height of absolute stupidity to believe that the founders would ratify a RIGHT to bear arms ONLY to a government run entity after they just won independence from a government that tried to take their arms. are you really this fucking stupid, infant?
 
the whole point is, when the constitution was written, a musket and cannon were as dangerous and lethal as weapons could get!! hell, a sword was more lethal in close combat than a fucking single shot musket!! the constitution also stated slaves were 3/5ths of a person!! and yet, you believe when they said own and bear arms, not just firearms, but arms of war, that means people today should be able to own any type of weapon in the US arsenal? are you nuts?
 
it is the height of absolute stupidity to believe that the founders would ratify a RIGHT to bear arms ONLY to a government run entity after they just won independence from a government that tried to take their arms. are you really this fucking stupid, infant?

that is not why they revolted, stupid fuck. the primary reason was money, as usual- NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION....the rich guys that ran the revolt against britain were tired of having to pay so much to the Crown when they got nothing back in return, and could not even vote or have a say in how much they had to pay.
 
the whole point is, when the constitution was written, a musket and cannon were as dangerous and lethal as weapons could get!! hell, a sword was more lethal in close combat than a fucking single shot musket!! the constitution also stated slaves were 3/5ths of a person!! and yet, you believe when they said own and bear arms, not just firearms, but arms of war, that means people today should be able to own any type of weapon in the US arsenal? are you nuts?

only a true slave to the state would consider freedom nutty....congrats, you nutty fucking slave.

yes, the founders experience told them that in order to maintain total power over a government, they must be equally as armed as that governments standing army, that bane to liberty. all of the founders writings spell out these fears, which is why SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED was ratified and accepted as the new federal government having ZERO authority over the arms of the people. ANYONE demanding or accepting the opposite, that the government CAN regulate the arms of the people, or their rights in general (no right is absolute) is a cowardly idiot who is afraid of the freedom of others.
 
that is not why they revolted, stupid fuck. the primary reason was money, as usual- NO TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION....the rich guys that ran the revolt against britain were tired of having to pay so much to the Crown when they got nothing back in return, and could not even vote or have a say in how much they had to pay.

out of context. yes, they revolted due to the taxation.....the war started because the british came for their weapons. do you school house rock, much?

 
out of context. yes, they revolted due to the taxation.....the war started because the british came for their weapons. do you school house rock, much?


you are using schoolhouse rock for your source? how old are you?

Lord Dunmore, also known as John Murray, was the last royal governor of Virginia. As tensions grew, Dunmore called for the removal of gunpowder stored in local magazines.

Dunmore was then pressured by the hundreds of countrymen that stormed Williamsburg to either return or pay for the lost gunpowder. Dunmore ended up having to pay 330 pounds (or about $56,000 in today’s dollars).

He became very unpopular and was chased out of his home. Dunmore and his family then had to stay on the British ship Fowley.

However, Dunmore is probably better known for his later 1775 proclamation. It announced that a revolution was underfoot and offered freedom to enslaved people if they fought for the British.

...And taxes?
WIth politics, money usually becomes an issue at one point. That goes for what leads up to the revolution, too.

Britain won the French and Indian War, but the fighting wasn’t cheap. The 1764 Currency Act said the colonies couldn’t print their own money, but what caused the biggest uproar was the Stamp Act of the next year. The tax was on all printed paper — including newspapers, legal documents and more.

That kicked off a building frustration for colonists over taxes without representation in the British Parliament. That’s not all, though — more acts were added that taxed more products. More soldiers occupied colonists’ homes.

And the British Parliament made clear it could make whatever laws it liked.

Things got worse when five colonists died in the Boston Massacre.

Soldiers were convicted of lesser crimes, but not murder. Samuel Adams created committees of correspondence to spread the news about the massacre in 1772.

The following year, some Sons of Liberty members snuck on a tea ship in Boston Harbor. They dumped the tea overboard to protest a monopoly given to the East India Tea Company. Britain retaliated. However, colonists encouraged boycotts, and New England began preparing for war.

In 1775, British soldiers attempted to take some ammunition but were turned away. Later, word got out to the British that the growing rebellion might be storing military supplies in Concord.

One day after the first battles, Lord Dunmore made an order to get rid of gunpowder.

The rest is (literally) history.

Our ruling
Burlison tweeted that "the American Revolution began when they came for the guns."

His tweet was a dramatic simplification of history There were many factors at play that sparked the American Revolution. It was caused by a lack of economic freedom and representation in the government and more.

That said, arms may have been one of many factors in the invasion of Lexington and Concord.

We rate this statement as Half True.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...son/guns-not-only-factor-american-revolution/
 
i can read better than most of them, understand more, have a higher IQ. it is right there in plain english, even you can read it, you just can't understand it worth a shit.

if you actually could read better, understand more, or even have an above average IQ, then you'd understand that it does not say ONLY a well regulated militia can have arms......it says the right of the people.........it also clearly states that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.........FREE STATE...........so maybe you should be less pretentious about what you THINK you know, and accept the reality that you don't know as much as you should, dumbass.
 
Back
Top