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

Taichiliberal said:
You don't have the intellectual honesty/courage to give specifics as to location and laws that allowed a teenage you to open carry a gun and go practice shoot outdoors. The State of PA is a big place, ya know.

You're full of it, RB. And since the chronology of our exchange exposes you for the MAGA troll that you are, you're all pissed .... so you trail me like a whiny little bitch even when I'm not addressing you.

I don't have much patience for idiocy like yours....so back on the ignore list for a month or so to cool off and grow up. Adios for now.
Click to expand...

You're an idiot. Find a law that states I, as a 15 yr. old, could not open carry an unloaded sidearm.

LOL! "Trail you"? You're the one who questioned me, you fucking lying libturd commie.

Oh, no patience for idiocy? Shit, you have no civility. You question, then run away like a crying child

tenor.gif
 
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...

You're an idiot.
 
Into the Night said:
Yes you did. You claimed that carrying a pistol at the age of 15 was illegal in that State at that time. You can't shift the burden away from you that way!
Click to expand...

No you fucking moron.
That is the opposite of what I claimed.

Reading Comprehension 101, fucking Moron.
 
Rune said:
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 assessment stands valid.
Click to expand...


Here you double down.
Click to expand...

Nope, just responding to what was put out. That you can't logically or factually refute it is what's bothering you.

Here's what you were responding to: 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.

You responded with: Wrong.
Handguns were used for the majority.

And the rest followed.
 
Last edited:
Rune said:
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
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?
Click to expand...


Here you try to force someone else to prove you wrong
Click to expand...

No, here I challenge YOU to provided fact based valid sources to support what you say. Clearly, you can't do that. But you like the intellectual courage and honesty to concede such.
 
Rune said:
Here is your proof, you have non and you are an insult laden arrogant shit stain.

That is the Chronology of posts.
Click to expand...

No stupid, I just didn't understand whether you wanted documentation or anecdotes.

Now, pay attention: I was wrong in my statement. Handguns used in mass shootings outnumber rifles in the last 30 years.

However,

One has to check the number of victims in each case, as law enforcement determines that just 2 or more victims warrant the mass shooting labels. Also, one has to remember what weapons used were on the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban list that sunset in 2004. Hope these following helps:

https://everytownresearch.org/maps/mass-shootings-in-america/

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/4296/text
 
Last edited:
Into the Night said:
Words are not defined by dictionaries. No dictionary owns any word. That is not the purpose of dictionaries.
Words are defined by people. The study of the origin of a word is called etymology.

'Well regulated' simply means governed, or led. 'Regulated' itself comes from Latin and means 'restricted' or a 'straight line', or 'led'. 'Well' is from Latin as well, with the meaning 'abundant'.

Dictionaries may provide an example of how a word is used, but they don't define them.

Democrats speak Liberal, not English. It looks like English, but it isn't. Words in Liberal have no meaning or shifting meaning. Speaking in Liberal usually results in nonsense gibberish.

Get your guns fixed up and maintained. You may need them.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely wrong about that. "Well Regulated" in the late 1700s meant "Functional and ready to go".

While I'm pretty sure that meaning changed organically and without leftist influence, it did change from what it was when written.

The militia was the entire populace that knew how to shoot in the late 1700s.
 
Taichiliberal said:
One has to check the number of victims in each case, as law enforcement determines that just 2 or more victims warrant the mass shooting labels. Also, one has to remember what weapons used were on the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban list that sunset in 2004.
Click to expand...

you have to be a real idiot to think that other weapons wouldn't have been used, like MORE handguns.............

go sit down and shut the fuck up, juvenile moron
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top