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

[AProudLefty]

Exactly. And like the wise man said, "the right of citizens to have arms is essential to a community being able to form a militia."

A very, very wise man.

[Doc Dutch]

A very, very wise man.

More luck than skill.

[Doc Dutch]

Why do I need to know Latin to know what "militia" means in English?

Sybil drifts through the Twilight Zone a lot. I don't try to follow because only crazy people live there.

[NiftyNiblick]

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

The militia referred to in the 2nd Amendement is clearly NOT the United States military.
A militia is formed by its own civilian members,
and those members are almost all--probably all without a qualifier--"fuckin' retahds" as we call them in Boston.

Fuck guns.
Guns are the least of our problems.
We live in a time when getting shot could be a lucky break for most of us.

Let's talk about serious things.

The American republic is dead.
Total dystopia cannot be avoided because
so many Americans deserve nothing better, nor do they have the capacity or ability to do better anyway.

Republicans, with no exceptions whatsoever, are vile troglodytes. That includes the ones that call themselves "libertarians" instead.

Democrats are mostly pathetic pollyannas or craven cowards incapable of doing what's necessary, even if their hearts are in the right place.
Hearts are useless without guts and balls. We don't have enough people in our number with either.

Independents are fucking clueless. They stand for NOTHING and thus fall for anything.

Without good people, how the fuck are we supposed to have a good, just, functioning republic?

We're fucking dead in the water as a functioning republic.
We're most of the way there as a fucking corporate plutocracy
which itself is already collapsing into dysfunctional anarchy mainly due to actually getting its way and what has to inevitably come with that.

Our constitution gave us, beyond ANY credible argument, the most inefficient government on the face of the earth.
That was exacerbated by giving primitive rural conservatives MUCH more representation in government that their numbers would justify.

WHAT OTHER PROGRESSIVE LIBERALS ON THIS FORUM ARE EVEN TALKING ABOUT THAT?
Blame the Constitution? Who has the balls to do that? Me, mainly, and possibly Cinnebar, I'm not sure. WHO ELSE?
Who else can think for him/herself? How can people even survive to adulthood being such hopeless puppets of true believerism?

I'm not trying to make an argument to anybody, here.
What's the point?
Who on this forum has the will to do anything about it, even if he/she had the ability to work toward that?

You can't do shit with true believer puppets.

No, I'm just venting for me, and if you don't like it, put me on ignore.
That's where I have most of you, as you know already.

[Into the Night]

Exactly. And like the wise man said, "the right of citizens to have arms is essential to a community being able to form a militia."

Not what a militia is. Try again.

[Into the Night]

Why do I need to know Latin to know what "militia" means in English?

The word comes from Latin, dumbass. Go learn what 'militia' means.

[AProudLefty]

The word comes from Latin, dumbass. Go learn what 'militia' means.

Of course it came from Latin. What's your point?

[Into the Night]

Of course it came from Latin. What's your point?

RQAA.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

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-25...ge/n1/mode/2up

The actual text of the Militia Act of 1903 - https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbc0001...pam90993/?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-revoluti...-sentence.html

'A propositional phrase will never contain the subject of a sentence'
https://www.chompchomp.com/terms/pre...onalphrase.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/conte...ional-phrases/
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/w...r/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.


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

people who are citizens it says.

[Rune]

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.

Go ahead and prove that the second doesn't apply to the unenrolled militia.
Good luck.

FYI, we'll regulated doesn't mean what you think it means.
Not even close.

[Truth Detector]

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.

That's a wrap people. Well stated Damocles.

[Concart]

Yep, bingo. That being said....... the government has the right, and exercises that right, to abridge freedom of speech and prohibit the free exercise of religion in cases where the public interest outweighs the right. NONE of these rights is unfettered.

[Blackwater Lunchbreak]

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-25...ge/n1/mode/2up

The actual text of the Militia Act of 1903 - https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbc0001...pam90993/?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-revoluti...-sentence.html

'A propositional phrase will never contain the subject of a sentence'
https://www.chompchomp.com/terms/pre...onalphrase.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/conte...ional-phrases/
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/w...r/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.


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

wrong.

you're a totalitarian.

regardless of the talk about militia, the constitution says the right of the PEOPLE to bare arms will not be infringed.

go fuck yourself, deep state cocksucker.

[Into the Night]

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-25...ge/n1/mode/2up

The actual text of the Militia Act of 1903 - https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbc0001...pam90993/?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-revoluti...-sentence.html

'A propositional phrase will never contain the subject of a sentence'
https://www.chompchomp.com/terms/pre...onalphrase.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/conte...ional-phrases/
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/w...r/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.


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

False conditional. Semantics fallacy.

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.

The right of self defense is inherent. It does not come from a piece of paper.

The 2nd amendment discusses this right, both for States (as collections of people), and for people individually. In other words, it discusses two cases, not one.

The States have the right to defend themselves. They do this by organizing militias made up of the people of that State (armies).
The people have the right to defend themselves. They do this by owning (keeping) and carrying (bearing) Arms (weapons).

This is NOT a discussion what 'the Founding Fathers' intended. It is NOT about speaking for the dead. It is about what is in the Constitution TODAY.

The ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States is the Constitution of the United States. No web site or URL is a valid reference. Since you decided to open up yet another 'trillionth, nonsensical, hyperventilating' discussion about US gun rights, you have only yourself to blame.

There are NO limitations specified as weapons. ANY weapon is valid and legal. That includes ANY gun or accessory for them. And, before you try this extreme argument, yes...it includes nuclear bombs.

[Into the Night]

The militias are typically not "unorganized".

BTW you missed this part, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

Militias are organized by States. A militia is an army.