My understanding of this is that a military force that is raised from ordinary citizens is a fundamental constituent of a free state; therefore every citizen of the United States of America has the individual right to own all types of military weaponry including nerve gas, nuclear weapons and SAM batteries capable of shooting down aircraft.
Am I right?
Other urls found in this thread:
ONE POST BY THIS ID. CAN REDDIT NIGGERS FUCK OFF???
Yes. Should we fear a law abiding citizen?
Kek, this sounds like butthurt from a newfag.
Is self defense not a human right anymore?
>all types of military weaponry including nerve gas
The US military, as well as most militaries around the world, are not allowed to have chemical weapons. So for that one, no.
Answering a question with a question is aJewish trait.
Where does it say that in the 2nd Amendment?
Where does it say that you can have what the military has? And if it did, you can't have any chemical weapons because the military can't have them.
>absolutism on a 250 year old document. You do realize that well regulated is not infringement. Also that recreational nukes being allowed would literally end the world right?
My green text failed..
Where it says in the Constitution that International Treaties are the law of the and land and then the Paris Peace Treaties dumbfuck Ancap
M-16s for every law abiding citizen!
It says shall not be infringed
Any treaty the government signs that violates the rights of citizens is illegal
Yes. That is correct. That's exactly what it says.
The question is where does the constitution elaborate on what is meant by "right to bear arms"? If taken literally, the right to bear arms isn't infringed so long as there is arms for you to bear, even if it's pea shooters.
>you still have free speech as long as you make government approved statements
simple, it covers everything needed to take down a tyranical goverment as this is the original intention of this, as far as I understand.
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
>militia
militia
Absolute freedom is implicit in the right to freedom. The right to bear all arms isn't implicit in the right to bear arms. It would be if it were worded as the right to bear all arms, but it's not. Thus, if you don't want to be stuck bearing your dick as arms, there needs to be an elaboration. Your poor fee fees and how you want to interpret the words doesn't change this.
Guess what? Every fighting age male citizen is the militia. Also, that’s the precursory statement in no way negating the second statement that solidifies every citizens right to keep and bear arms individually
>not understanding that all male americans become part of a militia at age 18
>Thus, if you don't want to be stuck bearing your dick as arms, there needs to be an elaboration. Your poor fee fees and how you want to interpret the words doesn't change this.
That would be an infringement, fee fees or not.
That depends on what "right to bear arms" means. Do you have any reason but your fee fees to believe it means "right to bear all arms"?
You fear an armed citizen. That's the goal from the get go.
It certainly appears that they meant all arms since they were totally cool with citizens privately owning warships. And often times the government would hire these privately owned warships. Look up letters of marque.
Yes, we have those here too. Like this one:
63lightfoot.com
To me it seems like the militia would own the weapons (atleast the powerful ones) as an organisation
It means the right to bare arms.
That is what it means. But the true intention of the second amendment was killed in the civil war.
>The US military, as well as most militaries around the world, are not allowed to have chemical weapons.
According to bogus international law, which would not apply to the USA under original constitutional intention.
I could almost see the moment your mind reverted back to its old state when it couldn't process the new information. You don't understand what I mean. "right to bear arms" either means "right to bear some arms" or "right to bear all arms." Why do you think it's the latter? Let me make this even more simple for you: if every american were given a hunting rifle, they would each and all bear arms. Then if they were told they could never own another gun, that would not change the fact that they each and all bear arms.
prefatory clause - because the ability to spontaneously form a militia is necessary, guns need to be available to the people. This does not mean that the militia needs to pre exist the individual right.
There's no reason the militia couldnt own the bigger arms. A militia is a body of people who have the right to keep and bear arms. It works both ways
yeah, they had grapeshot, cannons, torpedoes, floating mines, and submarines long before granting the people those rights. You can have whatever floats your boat unless, you let hired legislators tell you otherwise.
It says the right to bear arms which means the right to bear arms. The state of my mind has nothing to do with it.
From my research:
>Webster’s 1828 dictionary defines “Arms” as “weapons of offense and armor of defense”
Hmmm I wonder what the modern equivalent of that is
>founders just escaped a tyrannical government
Obviously guns are only for self defense and hunting, why on earth would they want you to revolt against the government??
>that moment when you realized a few dozen common folk formed a militia and gave their lives at the battle of Concord and Lexington to prevent the redcoats from siezing their weapons
Obviously the founders forgot about this
>Well regulated militia means those trained by the government
Yes because the government needs to give itself permission to create an army
>No one needs to be capable of killing hundreds of people at once
MFW 360 people died from rifles in 2015 (not assault rifles, ALL rifles)
>Obviously we should ban assault rifles
The militia is not an organization. It consists of two groups:
1. The unorganized militia - Every able bodied male that is at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age.
2. The organized militia - Every member of the national guard, and the naval militia.
Source: 10 U.S. Code § 246
That's fine but op seems to think that the 2nd lets us have what the military has. So I was going with that.
Yes, that is correct.
Obviously the state of your individual mind is irrelevant, idiot. But what "right to be arms" means is pertinent to what our actual rights are. Just repeating "right to bear arms, hurr shall not be infringed," doesn't explain why you should be allowed to bear any arms. Holy shit. It's like you don't even understand the question.
It does, in fact there was a famous supreme court case regarding short barrel shotguns in which the supreme court ruled they werent allowed for civilian ownership because they AREN'T weapons of war
by "any arms" I mean having your choice of any arms
Yes, absolutely. Anyone who disagrees is a totalitarian who wants to turn the US into the Soviet Union, aka the Democratic Party.
911 digits wasted on newfag that doesn't know how IDs work
yes, some of the Haggadah (passover book) is in this form
canada might as well join the EU at this point, why even bother caring
maybe, the second does not exist for self defense however
yes, OP, you are in fact reading the 2nd amendment correctly.
provided they can afford it, a citizens right to own everything from smoke bombs to attack helicopters shall not be abridged and is clearly enumerated in the 2nd.
there is no ambiguity in this -- the 2nd was written sparsely and declaratively so as to remove any and all doubts in this regard.
the 'permission' they extend to own and use pea-shooters is a palliative of sorts...'allowing' us to own semi-autos in the hopes we'll fail to understand the intent of the 2nd and content ourselves with small arms.
if anything, the Constitution denies the feds the right to maintain standing armies...never mind posse comitatus.
The 2nd itself clearly explain the reason for its existance, to ensure the security of a free state. This means the right exists to ensure that states militia has capable military power to secure it from foreign invasion. The amendment literally says the civilians should be able to oppose an army.
SHALL.
>standing armies
armies yes, though it does say congress should maintain a navy. And it was understood at the time that navies need some ground force capability. They could roll the army up into the navy and it would all be justifiable, things like land based logistics and base building/security are easily justifiable towards the maitenance of the navy itself. In the you could probably extend all federal forces out of that navy, and think of the different branches as just administrative segmentation.
Stop doing this, it makes people who defend the 2nd look stupid. There is very clear and rational arguments and explanations why people can and should have weapons. Just saying 'because it said so!' is circular.
The state of my mind was pretty important to you a few comments ago but now it isn't because I'm an idiot. So now that we have established that, I do understand your question. You are asking if "the right to keep and bear arms" means all or just some. Now you are saying that we have to explain why we should be allowed to bear arms at all. Holy shit. It's like you don't even understand the 2nd Amendment.
Yeah, you are. In a world without minorities, this would be possible. Reflect on what we have lost and what has been stolen.
Yes I get that. OP's premise is that we can have what the military has. So short-barrel shot guns would be out if the US military can't use them.
>The 2nd itself clearly explain the reason for its existance
This.
Yes.
>Now you are saying that we have to explain why we should be allowed to bear arms at all. Holy shit. It's like you don't even understand the 2nd Amendment.
You absolute idiot. See You are one of the dumbest people I have ever encountered on here, and that is saying a fucking lot.
You are unironically correct.
that's actually correct, OP, but originalists will never admit their ideology is inherently contradictory so don't expect anybody to admit to it.
the framers originally didn't even intend for the US to have a standing army, that is, a roster of full-time, paid employees to serve as the nation's military defense. in fact, they loathed the thought of a standing army because it was exactly what britain was using against the coastal towns to collect taxes. britain ordered the americans to house their full-time soldiers without compensation and there is evidence to suggest they cucked the americans while the men went to work.
they believed the citizens themselves, farmers, laborers, artisans, and all, would arm themselves and fight the wars, not a standing army. not to mention, the militia that the second amendment names was primarily used to keep the blacks oppressed
You tried. I'll give you that. You wanted to use your powerful intellect to question the meaning of the 2nd A but you ended up just being a douchey child.
A militia to me is not something that you would expect to have nukes, assault rifles and the likes though certainly.
>You tried.
And for your sake I hope you didn't.
Shill harder anti-freedoms
Forgot pic.
As soon as a private business claims to have nuclear weapons and makes demands then you'll learn just how quickly the world will cuck itself.
>A militia to me is not something that you would expect to have nukes, assault rifles and the likes though certainly.
if the nation did not have a standing army, how else would the militias defend the country against foreign powers that did have nukes and assault rifles?
I wasn't trying very hard. Wasn't really needed. But I was wondering why you felt the need to ask if "the right to bear arms" means all or some or one or any. Did you not notice that "arms" is plural? Do you not think that is significant? One night argue that it's plural because people is plural but I would disagree with that.
Nukes, chemical weapons, and biological weapons are out because you never want that shit dropping on your home soil. Surface to air missile batteries are okay.
The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution presuming that technology could not outpace eternal and immutable principals.
The Founding Fathers were right in their presumption.