The 2'nd Amendment ONLY applies to Americans in the military (full-time or reserves)

Taichiliberal said:
So you were in an open/carry state that let juveniles walk around strapped? What state and when was this? Because either you're lying, or you lived in such a small town that the local cops knew most of the kids and/or family personally and this was some type of unwritten understanding.
Click to expand...

Yep, no lie. Never had an issue, never had a complaint, never had a confrontation (much less stopped) by the cops. 1975 in PA.
 
Into the Night said:
There is no such thing as an 'assault rifle'.
Click to expand...

"The name “assault rifle” is believed to have been coined by Adolf Hitler. Toward the end of World War II, the story goes, Hitler hailed his army's new wonder weapon by insisting that it be called not by the technical name given it by its developers, the Machinenpistole (the German name for a submachine gun), but rather something that made for better propaganda copy"

https://www.rand.org/blog/2016/06/a-brief-history-of-the-assault-rifle.html
 
Into the Night said:
There is no such thing as an 'assault rifle'.
Click to expand...
^^^
Psycho proves he doesn't know the difference between an assault rifle and the Democratic Party conjured phrase "assault weapon".

https://www.britannica.com/technology/assault-rifle
assault rifle, military firearm that is chambered for ammunition of reduced size or propellant charge and that has the capacity to switch between semiautomatic and fully automatic fire. Because they are light and portable yet still able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at modern combat ranges of 1,000–1,600 feet (300–500 metres), assault rifles have replaced the high-powered bolt-action and semiautomatic rifles of the World War II era as the standard infantry weapon of modern armies.
Click to expand...
 
McRocket said:
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.
:rolleyes:

All I care about here is how the Amendment is written and how it applies to US laws and the English Language.
Click to expand...

The SC has been pretty consistent in this issue.
 
Rune said:
Poor Touchy Liberal.

First to cast aspersions, last to admit his own fault.
Click to expand...

Not sure of your point. My comment was in response to a post that claimed most mass murders used semi-automatic rifles. It is not being "touchy" to point out incorrect information.
 
Flash said:
Not sure of your point. My comment was in response to a post that claimed most mass murders used semi-automatic rifles. It is not being "touchy" to point out incorrect information.
Click to expand...

I was talking about Touchy Liberal, whom you quoted.
 
Rune said:
You seem unaware of the multitude of times the unenrolled aka the unorganized .militia are mentioned in US law.
On this, you are making the same ignorant mistake as Mcrocket.
Click to expand...

No such thing as an "unenrolled militia". No such thing as an "unorganized militia" anywhere in the Constitution (unless you want to consider some badly trained troops 'unorganized'!).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top