People always matter.
I wasn't addressing people. I was addressing countries.
People always matter.
I wasn't addressing people. I was addressing countries.
Countries are made up of people, Arbie.
No shit, cowardly dickface. Countries have names, don't they?
There is no such thing as an 'unenrolled militia'. A militia is an organized army. The 2nd amendment applies everywhere in the United States, and to every State and to every person.
Were they ever enacted anyway?
Hell, I walked down through town with a S&W .38 strapped on my side (open carry and unloaded) right past the cops down to the dump to shoot rats when I was 15 lots of times. No one ever said a word. But then, when we were kids, kids didn't shoot kids. We were taught not to.
Bottom line: laws were passed to keep full military armament from the general population, as such is regulated to military personnel. This does not leave the general population without fire arms....never did. Bitching about not having such access just because you want it is a childish, over-simplification of the issue ... especially when one dismisses the ramifications of such an attitude. That the majority weapon of choice for mass shootings in the last 25 years was formerly on a ban list speaks volumes.
The entire "militia" bullshit is just an example of how awful the founders were at writing official documents.
They needed fewer country gentleman squires and more decent lawyers.
The entire constitution is a clusterfuck, and the 2nd amendment is just another example.
The courts have since interpreted it to mean that firearms ownership is a guaranteed right that comes with American citizenship unless forfeited by criminal behavior.
First...I am a fan of firearms. And I do NOT want to ban any class of firearms.
Okay...
2'nd Amendment
'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.'
So...what exactly is 'A well regulated Militia'?
(i) The Militia Act of 1903
'The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and forty-five, and divides the militia into two classes — the organized militia or National Guard, and the unorganized or reserve militia.
The third section defines the " organized militia " as the regu- larly enlisted, organized, and uniformed militia which shall here- after participate in the annual militia appropriation (heretofore only one million a year). It gives the President authority to fix the minimum number of enlisted men in each company.'
https://archive.org/details/jstor-25119439/page/n1/mode/2up
The actual text of the Militia Act of 1903 - https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbc0001.2012yapam90993/?sp=1
(ii) '10 U.S. Code § 246 - 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.'
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
So...there are two kinds of militia - according to US law.
The organized and the unorganized.
And since the 2'nd Amendment refers SOLELY to 'a well regulated Militia'?
Than, the 2'nd Amendment cannot POSSIBLY include the 'unorganized militia'.
It is not possible for a 'well regulated Militia' to be 'unorganized'.
And since the ONLY organized militia refers ONLY to the military?
The 2'nd Amendment does NOT include ANYONE whom is not in the military.
By law.
And for those whom wish to argue that the 'Militia' is NOT the subject of the sentence?
2'nd Amendment
'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.'
First -
'The subject of a sentence will never be in a prepositional phrase.'
https://www.english-grammar-revolution.com/subject-of-a-sentence.html
'A propositional phrase will never contain the subject of a sentence'
https://www.chompchomp.com/terms/prepositionalphrase.htm
Second -
'A prepositional phrase is a group of words that lacks either a verb or a subject, and that functions as a unified part of speech. It normally consists of a preposition and a noun or a preposition and a pronoun.
Remember the following rules for prepositional phrases and you will find that using them becomes much easier.
Prepositional phrases always consist of two basic parts at minimum: the object and the preposition.'
https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/grammar-rules/preposition/prepositional-phrases/
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/grammar/prepositions
Third - 'of the people'
IS a prepositional phrase.
It starts with a preposition and ends with a noun.
It CANNOT be the subject of a sentence.
Or - 'to keep and bear Arms'
IS a prepositional phrase.
It starts with a preposition and ends with a noun.
It CANNOT be the subject of the sentence.
Fourth - 'A well regulated Militia'
is NOT a prepositional phrase.
'A' is an 'article' - NOT a 'preposition'..
'well' is NOT a 'preposition'.
'regulated' is NOT a 'preposition'.
Therefore:
The subject of the sentence IS 'a well regulated Militia'.
Finally?
I do not even begin to care how the SCOTUS or legal 'experts' or ANYONE else has 'interpreted' the 2'nd Amendment.
Or what ANYONE assumed the Founding Fathers meant by it.
Or what ANYONE's, unsupported opinions are on this.
If your reply does not include a link to a respected site to back up your point - I am not going to waste my time reading it.
I am NOT getting into the trillionth, nonsensical, hyperventilating discussion that people have about US gun rights.
All I care about here is how the Amendment is written and how it applies to US laws and the English Language.
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Bottom line: laws were passed to keep full military armament from the general population, as such is regulated to military personnel. This does not leave the general population without fire arms....never did. Bitching about not having such access just because you want it is a childish, over-simplification of the issue ... especially when one dismisses the ramifications of such an attitude. That the majority weapon of choice for mass shootings in the last 25 years was formerly on a ban list speaks volumes.
Wrong.
Handguns were used for the majority.
Not when the 2nd amendment was written. And it wasn't handguns used in the last 30 years of periodic mass shootings...although basic violent crimes were of handgun usage (gang shootings are a mixed bag). My previous assesment stands valid.
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Not when the 2nd amendment was written. And it wasn't handguns used in the last 30 years of periodic mass shootings...although basic violent crimes were of handgun usage (gang shootings are a mixed bag). My previous assesment stands valid.
That's a lie. Handguns have been used in many of the recent mass shootings; Ignorant fuckface.
Really? How many? As compared to semi-auto rifles? Can you back up what you say with stats, or are you just on a drunken rant and will pull generalities out of your flabby buttocks?
Boo! Hiss!
You better look up that Heller US Supreme Court decision, boy.
Not when the 2nd amendment was written. And it wasn't handguns used in the last 30 years of periodic mass shootings...although basic violent crimes were of handgun usage (gang shootings are a mixed bag). My previous assesment stands valid.
Well regulated meant well equipped at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights.
For example Minutemen were required to carry; a firelock, bayonet 30 rounds of powder and balls, a pouch and a knapsack.
In the winter they also needed snow shoes, a pair of moccasins and a hatchet.
It meant "In proper working order and ready to go" At that point in time. I need to do some maintenance on some guns.
That picture is from an early 1900s dictionary. Yeah, leftists like to redefine words every year and sow confusion amongst the people.
I have a few nice remedies for that: 18-1900s dictionaries and encyclopedias. Things that cannot be changed with the stroke of a keyboard.
Citation required.
[FONT="]"Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 148 different handguns being used in 100 incidents between 1982 and July 2022. These figures are calculated from a total of 133 reported cases over this period, meaning handguns are involved in about 75 percent of mass shootings."
[/FONT][/COLOR]https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/[/QUOTE]
He was talking to TaiChiButtface, but thx!
That helps my argument against TaiChiButtface's bullshit.
[QUOTE="Taichiliberal, post: 5316503, member: 530"]Really? How many? As compared to semi-auto rifles? Can you back up what you say with stats, or are you just on a drunken rant and will pull generalities out of your flabby buttocks?