A well regulated militia.

They wanted EVERY able bodied man to have a possession of a weapon that was in good working order. That is how we beat the British. Our citizens.

 

where the (*)(*)(*)(*) did you get the notion I said they didn't want a well regulated militia?!?!?! where are you making this garbage up... I CLEARLY am stating they RECOGNIZE the important of a well regulated militia... and BECAUSE OF THAT, the PEOPLE were granted a right, THAT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED... but they DID NOT grant it to the militia, they did not mandate BY LAW the training, they instead WILLFULLY participated in the training as members of said militia... but the PEOPLE were granted the RIGHT... not the militia...

did you not (*)(*)(*)(*)ing understand the simple english sentence structure I laid out for you... when I gave a prime example how if it was written backwards, as you're attempting to suggest it means, you would be right, but its NOT written that way, its written in the exact OPPOSITE way you are attempting to interpret english sentence structure... do you need me to repeat it all again because you're too slow??? or are you just intentionally spewing your garbage rhetoric because you have nothing factual to stand on and you can't actually defend or challenge the sentence structure I clearly laid out which EVERY GRADE SCHOOL KID LEARNS TO DISSEMINATE... (*)(*)(*)(*) man...

 

Beating my chest? I'm just telling you how it is.

- - - Updated - - -

They will do acrobats to twist words and meanings of words. They are highly dishonest, dishonorable, government lackeys who want the government to take care of ALL of their needs/desires. They are the antithesis of what America stands for.

 

You are getting very upset. The founders could have easily left out the words well regulated. They included it for a reason. Ownership of a gun does not make you a part of a well regulated militia. Everyone would agree with that. Being well trained in the use of that gun and in tactics would make you a part of a well trained militia. I can not make it simpler for you.

Now just insult me and run off as is the typical pattern here

 

US v Cruickshank. No they are not granted by the state. I promise the learning only hurts while it burns out the ignorance inside you.

 

No they wanted the militia to be well regulated. That is quite explicit

 

You are lost......

 

you mean just like republicans... see I told you not to stand next to me... I'll give you just as much (*)(*)(*)(*) as I give him for chest pounding...

 

Typical pattern example. LOL

 

I'm not a republican. So whatevs.

 

WOW! This thread really took off. I don't have time to go through all 19 pages of replies, so I'll just leave it to you guys who have been following. I can leave now. My job here is done.

 

look I offered the argument, of simple english grammar and sentence structure and why it doesn't mean what you THINK it means according to your own english teacher back in grade school... and I then offered the example of what sentence structure would mean what you want it to mean, and demonstrated the vast difference between the two... just because you're clearly not interested in an actual discussion and the very clear point I made when I did that, does not mean you're right by continuing to butcher and manipulate words to mean something they do not in their presented form... I'm sorry you can't get over that, I'm sorry you don't like english sentence structure... maybe blame your grade school teachers for failing you, did you go to a public school system, if so, maybe I can forgive you then for them failing you...

my second argument also you have failed to address or tackle... that the government recognizes people as militia when they register for the draft, and just because the government is derelict in its duties to train people once they register, does not negate the fact they are now officially recognized as militia by the government... so now that they are militia the militia argument becomes invalidated, now you're attempting to tell me they aren't well trained, well that onus does NOT fall upon them to perform, it falls upon the government who MANDATED they become militia, and then it failed to train them... so your attempt to side-step this issue as well as failed the smell test...

either way you try to suggest I've failed, has been handsomely proven wrong, and all you do is jump back and forth to restating the same things, without defeating what I have said, or attacking the core facts they rely upon in order to stand up... all you've done is spin and spew rhetoric rather than attempt to dismantle and dislodge the information I have presented in a clear and precise way to discuss and challenge your notions... so just because all you are capable of doing is repeating tired old lines like a parrot who just learned a fancy trick of repeating what someone else said, does not negate or refute the logic and facts I have presented today...

(please followup with more one-liners that do NOTHING to address the factual basis for my argument that has dismantled your tired old rhetoric)

 

Will not waste much time or effort with you as I have been reading a sad set of wisdom and reasoning skills on several different threads filled with your input. As it stands this morning the SC decisions with 2A are mopping the floor with you.

 

whatever (flips hair)

 

The Second Amendment, oy vey! It was given to us by the same culpable characters who bequeathed to us a constitution that sanctioned slavery (Article I, Section 2, Clause 3) (and some of whom in fact owned slaves). And of course the constitution that they drafted established a form of government that is not all that thoroughly and genuinely democratic; i.e., a form of government in which the outcome of presidential elections is not determined by the popular vote; in which high officials such as attorney general and secretary of state are not elected; in which senators were appointed rather than directly elected by their constituents; in which Supreme Court justices aren't elected, despite their enormous power; and of course the franchise was notoriously restricted to propertied white males – mm-hmm, all of this certainly suggests that the Framers of the Constitution were elites not only in terms of their socioeconomic status but also in their mentality, and seriously not enlightened believers in democracy, and that the idea that they were apostles of democracy is indeed merely a part of our society's self-validating mythology. Which is all simply to say that they were not infallible men, and the Constitution is most certainly not holy writ – and, to be quite blunt, along with the articles that permitted slavery, of course, the Second Amendment is certainly one of the more unholy bits to be found in it.

 

I agree the government has been derelict in mandating training of the militia. Our militia is currently a untrained mob. They should set about to make laws to ensure this militia is well trained and in good working order....or in other words WELL REGULATED.

- - - Updated - - -

More pattern examples. LOL

 

Regardless of your opinion of the Constitution, it remains in force.
Don't like it? Amend it.
Still don't like it? Your choices are to suffer, or to leave.

 

Or appoint justices that will set further limits

 

For what purpose? Why don't you explain how any of your limits are going to affect gun crime. The people who follow laws are not the criminal element. We use the word "criminal" because they are people who do NOT follow laws.

- - - Updated - - -

Let's use the same argument against Muslim immigration. There are a few loons among them, so let's limit or restrict their movement here in the US? Sound fair?

 

They will make it harder for he law abiding to get guns, with the (intended) result that fewer law abiding people will have guns.
This will make it easier from criminals to commit crime, with the (intended) result that crime will go up.

 

That is a very long discussion and I am about to go into a meeting. But it is an important one. I would say that this idea that new gun laws would only hurt lawful gun owners because only criminals break laws is kind of silly. It is like saying that speed limits or new traffic laws only hurt legal drivers....but we need new traffic laws and speed limits at times....right?

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah that is kind of silly

 

What the founders wanted is clearly written in the Federalist Papers, and clearly shows you are wrong.

Go ahead and explain how I'm wrong.

Wrong again. Every Marine goes through infantry and marksmanship training, because every Marine is a rifleman.

 

Honestly, it really doesn't even matter to me what the Founders wanted.

The fact is that the 2nd Amendment has been widely interpreted to mean that citizens can own guns.

 

Legal gun owners who follow the laws are not the ones out committing murders, genius.

 

What kind of limits exactly? Banning Assault rifles? Reducing magazine sizes?