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

AProudLefty said:
BTW, look at my sig. You said something profound. Be proud. :D
Click to expand...

Profound?

LOL.

It's nonsense.

The 2nd Amendment ONLY applies to the organized militia ('well regulated').

And - under US law - the only organized militia is the one under federal government control.


So his 'profound' statement is 100% erroneous if he is referring to the 'unorganized militia'.
Which the 2nd Amendment does NOT apply to.


Jeez...I cannot understand how you people cannot see this...crystal clear.

Probably you just do not want to understand it.

Whatever...live in ignorance...have fun.
 
AProudLefty said:
BTW, look at my sig. You said something profound. Be proud. :D
Click to expand...

So proud!!!

im-so-proud-of-myself.jpg
 
McRocket said:
Profound?

LOL.

It's nonsense.

The 2nd Amendment ONLY applies to the organized militia ('well regulated').

And - under US law - the only organized militia is the one under federal government control.


So his 'profound' statement is 100% erroneous if he is referring to the 'unorganized militia'.
Which the 2nd Amendment does NOT apply to.


Jeez...I cannot understand how you people cannot see this...crystal clear.

Probably you just do not want to understand it.

Whatever...live in ignorance...have fun.
Click to expand...

Spell it out what is it that you are trying to say.
 
Walt said:
The modern militias are the National Guard and the State Troopers.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Not a lawyer, but the Constitution doesn't limit cities or groups in a state from forming militias. That would fall under the State's Rights and their individual State constitutions.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Clearly you can't do it. That's okay. I never thought you could. Since you are unable to converse on the topic in a calm, intelligent manner, I'll leave you alone.
Click to expand...

Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure that's the reason.

The truth is - and we both KNOW it - is you have great difficulty, reading long/complicated passages (perhaps due to creeping senility).
You have - in essence - admitted it several times.
No one has EVER said to me before my long-winded posts are too hard to understand. That they need a concise version...except you (in essence).

The conclusion is clear.

You are embarrassed by the fact you cannot digest, complicated thoughts.
So you try to cover it up with ad hominem's.

Maybe I need to add 'creeping senility' to my list of ways to describe you.

Bye now.
 
Last edited:
For over two hundred years plus no Court could define the Second Amendment because they couldn’t get by the prefatory clause, but Scalia in Heller took care of that, he decided since no one could explain the clause he could just ignore it, Originalism.

Matters little, even Scalia had to admit that the Amendment was not absolute, and regulations were necessary
 
AProudLefty said:
Spell it out what is it that you are trying to say.
Click to expand...

I already did.
If you cannot understand it?
Tough...I have wasted WAY too much time on this already.

I assumed most of you would not get it...that it would go over your heads AND/OR that most of your minds were too closed to decipher it.
But I thought you might be an exception to that.
I see I may be mistaken.
Either you are playing one of your jokes, this is going over your head or your mind is closed on the issue.

So be it.

We are done here.

Bye now.
 
McRocket said:
I already did.
If you cannot understand it?
Tough...I have wasted WAY too much time on this already.

I assumed most of you would not get it...that it would go over your heads AND/OR that most of your minds were too closed to decipher it.
But I thought you might be an exception to that.
I see I may be mistaken.
Either you are playing one of your jokes, this is going over your head or your mind is closed on the issue.

So be it.

We are done here.

Bye now.
Click to expand...

Uncle Dutch spelled it out.

If "The People" have no right to bear arms, then how can they form a militia according to the 2nd Amendment?

It's an if/then question. Basic logic in a Logic 100 class.
 
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.

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

And by these?
The 2'nd Amendment ONLY applies to the Military (full time or reserves).

It does NOT grant anyone NOT in the military the right to bare arms.
Click to expand...


The Supreme Court struck down this interpretation in the Heller case in 2008.

However, for the sake of argument, let's assume what you say is true. If there was no constitutional right to own weapons does not mean it would be illegal to do so. There would be have to be federal/state laws regulating gun ownership and we already have that now. Legislatures have the power to pass almost any gun regulations we want except for outright bans. It is not the Constitution that prevents gun regulations but because we choose not to restrict more than we do.
 
AProudLefty said:
Uncle Dutch spelled it out.

If "The People" have no right to bear arms, then how can they form a militia according to the 2nd Amendment?

It's an if/then question. Basic logic in a Logic 100 class.
Click to expand...

It appears that comes after HS graduation for McRickets.

Speaking of which, M' Crickets was the noise I've heard coming from him on several occasions including this thread. Perhaps you've noticed a similar pattern?

OTOH, after posting it I saw that it could be read as Mc Rickets which also struck me as funny and how I pronounce it in my head when writing about him.
 
McRocket said:
I wrote a bunch of bullshit that means jack shit about my idea of the 2nd Amendment
Click to expand...

McRocket, it is the ABSOLUTE height of stupidity to believe that the framers and ratifiers of the 2nd Amendment wrote it to mean that ONLY the government had a right to arms after those framers and ratifiers had fought and won a war for independence from a government that tried to take their arms.

It is also the height of stupidity to believe that a simple law can alter or modify the limitations set forth in the constitution...........i.e. your stupid reference to the 1903 militia act.

your post was seriously a waste of time.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
McRocket, it is the ABSOLUTE height of stupidity to believe that the framers and ratifiers of the 2nd Amendment wrote it to mean that ONLY the government had a right to arms after those framers and ratifiers had fought and won a war for independence from a government that tried to take their arms.

It is also the height of stupidity to believe that a simple law can alter or modify the limitations set forth in the constitution...........i.e. your stupid reference to the 1903 militia act.

your post was seriously a waste of time.
Click to expand...

:laugh:

In other words?
You are too stupid/uneducated to even begin to comprehend what I typed...which your answer proved.
So you changed my quote around - like 7 year old's do - and threw an ad hominem at it.

A little advice?
You NRA-types already have the general reputation as not being terribly bright.
Posting low-IQ stuff like above only solidifies that.
At least try and pretend your IQ is over 100.

Have a nice day.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
McRocket, it is the ABSOLUTE height of stupidity to believe that the framers and ratifiers of the 2nd Amendment wrote it to mean that ONLY the government had a right to arms after those framers and ratifiers had fought and won a war for independence from a government that tried to take their arms.

It is also the height of stupidity to believe that a simple law can alter or modify the limitations set forth in the constitution...........i.e. your stupid reference to the 1903 militia act.

your post was seriously a waste of time.
Click to expand...
Agreed about height of stupidity. IMO, McRickets is very young. Younger than he's claiming and, since one lie follows another, claims to be writing a 900,000+ word manifesto (War and Peace is 600,000).

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...al-crisis-of-legitimacy&p=4831789#post4831789

He could be a minor or just slightly retarded. Something off there and not the usual bipolar or schizo shit like the main wackadoodles.

FWIW, despite our differences, you appear sane to me. Arrogant and assholish to the point of fooling yourself, but still sane. I can PM you a certificate if you like. :thup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top