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

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...

Not to mention who "the people" it was referencing to.
 
McRocket said:
: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.
Click to expand...

the problem is you and your stubbornness to accept factual history. that and make up shit to make yourself somehow feel superior in the face of your ignorance. over the years i've been on this forum there have been DOZENS of links posted here about the meaning and intent of the 2nd Amendment.....are you too stupid to understand them?
 
Dutch Uncle said:
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:
Click to expand...

please do. I have more space on my A & A wall ;)
 
archives said:
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
Click to expand...

this is the brainwashing you suffered. the first 200 years of our nation there were several federal and state court cases that accepted the clear factual reality that the 2nd Amendment denied the federal government any power or authority over the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Throughout all of those cases, not one single time did the Supreme Court ever turn one of those over. why? because there was no need to. the SCOTUS was of the same opinion. Also, ANYONE believing the idiocy that all rights can be regulated is a coward who is terrified of the freedoms they were given and demand that the government control those around them to make them feel safer. the founders would have either shot you or exiled you back to england.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
please do. I have more space on my A & A wall ;)
Click to expand...

Congrats. Guaranteed for one year from date. :thup:

62qri3.jpg
 
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...

So you just want to discard the 2nd amendment through a semantic fallacy. Gotit. You apparently don't know what commas are used for.

The right of self defense is inherent, dude. That true for people as well as for a State.
 
McRocket said:
I guess you did not read the whole post.

2'nd Amendment - 'A well regulated militia...'
It is impossible for a militia to be 'well-regulated' and also 'unorganized'.



No, I didn't.

I dealt with it in the post 'Third'.
Click to expand...

A semantic fallacy is not 'dealing with it'.

Since you have chosen to discard the Constitution of the United States and the constitutions of the several States, it is obvious that you support The Oligarchy.
 
Damocles said:
This could only be true if the words "the people" mean something different in this one sentence than it does in every other part of the document, and you and I both know that isn't true.

In the language of today it basically says: Because the government can call on an armed group of folks at will (currently a standing army, back then an armed militia), the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
Click to expand...

"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."
More like the sentence, "Blue, the color of the sky, the color of green grass, are both colors."

Note the use of commas in both sentences is exactly the same.

The language of today has not changed. The right of self defense is inherent, both for the States, using militias, and the people. People have the right to keep and bear arms (weapons). The States have the right to form militias.
 
Never argue with fools!

Never try to get REPUBLITARDS to understand reason or sensibility!

Never expect Republicans to play fair!

Never expect them to understand reality!

All you can do is defeat them in the polls!
 
AProudLefty said:
In 1861 Connecticut was the first state to formally adopt the title "National Guard" for its militia, and the term became near universal following the Civil War. By the time the National Defense Act of 1916 mandated the use of "National Guard" as the title for all organized militia, only Virginia had not already adopted it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Army_National_Guard
Click to expand...

False authority fallacy.

The National Guard is the national militia. State militias are not national militias.
Any government has the inherent right to defend itself. They do this by forming militias.
 
McRocket said:
Correct.

As far as US law is concerned.
As stated in 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes






True.
So it cannot be the subject of the 2'nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

The U.S. Code does not have authority over the States here.
It cannot override the Constitution of the United States.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. A militia addresses concerns protecting the autonomy and security of each state plus the concern about Federal overreach. It was a given that citizens had a right to self-defense, but since a militia required firearms, they put the firearms in writing.
Click to expand...

The word 'firearm' does not appear anywhere in the Constitution.
 
AProudLefty said:
To me it's pretty clear that the militia and the people are one and the same. If "the people" want to organize a militia, they are free to do so. They are not a threat to the government.

In a nutshell, the militia are the people and the people are the militia.

Tell me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...

Go learn what 'militia' means.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top