>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.
What did they mean by this?
>>75005125
>kikebook
>>75005125
As a well regulated militia is imperative in a truly free society, the rights of the civilians to have one and by extension have the tools used by one will always be safe
They're saying that because a militia is necessary for security, the people have a right to bear arms. The two statements are not totally connected, and they aren't suggesting that you need to be part of a government regulated militia in order to own guns.
>>75005125
doesn't matter. the 9 in robes will say it means whatever their ideology wants it to.
>>75005125
In case shit goes down, all you mother fuckers need to be strapped.
>>75005125
SCOTUS determined that the militia was all able-bodied men between 17 - 45.
>>75005125
it means we can own these freely.
>>75005125
Means the feds have no right to tell you that you can't own weapons.
States, weapon factories, and other private citizens might take matters into their own hands, though. Not exactly legal to do this, under federal law, but if the state says you aren't allowed to own an APC, good luck getting President O to make a stand for you (unless you're black or Muslim).
>>75005125
Im pretty sure it means that you're not allowed to own a gun.
The southern states needed armed militias to crush slave revolts. It has no relevance to modern society. This amendment is the only place they used 'State' this way, and has bizarre grammer because they didnt want to directly acknowledge slavery.
>>75006382
>>75005125
a domestic police state
>>75005125
That Governments often become bloated, turn tyrannical and oppose the will and desires of the people.
Having a heavily armed country gives "the people" the ability to oppose and defeat a tyrannical Government.
Without arms it becomes 1000x harder to revolt for obvious reasons.
A well planned armed rebellion is something many people would probably take part in.
A non-armed resistance group would have to revolve around swarm like tactics that would require enormous numbers of sacrifices.
Few people have the balls to run towards a group of heavily armed Government guards completely willing to gun them down.
But yeah our Nation has had gun rights for its entire history.
The idea that now "for some reason" the citizens must be disarmed at the period in our history when our Government has never been bigger, more powerful, more intrusive or more corrupt & tyrannical can't just be coincidence.
Disarming the people is always done for the same reasons and that is to prevent resistance to a Government that sees itself as above the people and the unabashed rulers of the land.
Freedom isn't free and freedom comes with risks but the fact is 99% of gun deaths come from ghetto thugs and the other .999% are from suicides.
The .000000000001% of deaths over any random decade from crazy people shooting up schools is not a valid excuse for taking away the freedom of the people or exposing all the citizens to the threat of systematic tyranny.
>>75006304
>tfw not able to legally own a rocket launcher
>>75005125
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.
It means that if enough people commit suicide the government can do whatever it wants.
>>75006827
You should be able to Canada-kun.
Go yell at Treudau.
>>75006738
this. this guy gets it.
>>75005125
people need arms so that they can form well regulated (meaning supplied in this sense) militas.
>https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
>inb4 liberals shouting muh militia
>>75006247
That's also in the US Code. All able men and childless women are legally part of the militia.
> A gun behind every blade of grass.
>>75006558
Nice bait faggot
>>75005125
It means Hillary keeps her whore hands off my guns.
>>75006738
>A well planned armed rebellion is something many people would probably take part in.
Too bad the government can oversee all communication now. It may have been viable to plan and organize shit like this, but now it's easy enough to find out when people are trying to start something.
Yer effects be all that stands between ye and a life of servitude, ye scurvy lubbers.
>>75005125
They mean the jew would undermine militias by disarming the people piecemeal, hence ANY regulation is out of the question.
>>75005125
The government should not be all-powerful. A peoples' uprising should be possible in a worst-case scenario.
>>75005125
They meant that citizens only have a right to bear arms when they're employed by the state.
:^)
>>75007637
>>75006304
Assuming you could afford one, you could even own the launcher as long as you went through the proper channels.
Everyone just assumes owning shit like that is illegal because the laws are a convoluted and often contradictory mess.
>>75007637
> They meant that citizens only have a right to bare arms when they're employed by the Gillette.
>>75008053
money is never, ever, an issue when a rebellion is truely taking place.
>>75006738
very well written anon
When any government fails to act in the best interests of the governed, it is the DUTY of the governed to overthrow that government. In order to do that, the founding fathers, wisely understood the importance of preserving the peoples right to bear arms.
>>75007379
There's this novel idea of pen and paper.
They really hate it when you use it.
>>75005125
It means that for the state to survive it must have an armed militia and it should be well regulated.
Every country has this but only americans are so stupid they need it written down to understand that an army is required to defend a state.
>>75009059
People don't even know what a fucking mailbox is anymore and you expect someone to rally a group large enough to overthrow the government?
>>75009060
I think you misunderstand. In technicality, the Federal Government wasn't supposed to have a standing army. Each State of the Union were to be able to arm and train their populace in individual State militias. If the Federal Government ever had to go to war, the plan was to have to request the Governors to send their militias.
>>75009479
Sounds reasonable.
>>75009651
It worked pretty well.
>>75009479
Seriously? Citation or sauce on this shit? sounds very interesting.
>>75005125
>>75009060
"While in The Federalist No. 46, Madison argued that a standing army of 25,000 to 30,000 men would be offset by "a militia amounting to near a half million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves...." [119] The Antifederalists were not persuaded by these arguments, in part because of the degree of control over the militia given to the national government by the proposed constitution. The fears of the more conservative opponents centered upon the possible phasing out of the general militia in favor of a smaller, more readily corrupted, select militia.
>>75006247
They also established that owning guns is an individual right
>>75005125
Ban assault muskets?
>>75010244
Who really NEEDS something like this?
>Inb4 (probobly after) europeans don't know what "the Militia" means in America.
Very-basically: It means every able bodied human American male over the age of 17 and under the age of 45.
>>75009479
how long after the founding of the nation did it take for this to change?
I heard that before the civil war State loyalty and pride was more important than an overall sense of nationalism in the US like it is now, did that change happen along with the military changes?
>>75009855
Will try when I get home if this thread isn't dead.
The system's weakness showed both its strength and weakness in the War of 1812. Militias from Kentucky and Tennessee were raised from populaces that were supportive of the war (and in Kentucky's case, their militias were hellbent on revenge for the 'River Rasin Massacre') and they performed fantastically in many battles in the Southern theater (like at New Orleans).
And then you had the Northern theater, with militias from the New England States of populaces who weren't very supportive of the war (the region relied more on trade with Britain) and thus they were near useless: see the burning of Washington.
>>75010485
The Civil War and Reconstruction changed a lot of the states-first narrative. The federal government became the center of public life after that war.
Lincoln was a faggot traitor and niggers ruin everything.
>>75006126
nailed it, we are too far gone for it to mean what it's meant to mean.
Even though free masons wrote it, that doesn't mean their plan from 200 yrs ago will play out exactly like they want it. You can never predict the human element and the knowledge us plebs have or the positions we hold.
>>75010176
>SC will revisit heller if a Dem gets elected president after the next false flag shooting
It's coming brothers
>>75005125
If you’ll give me your time, I’d like to posit a little thought experiment;
Imagine you are a hugely influential and powerful public figure. Everything you say is recorded and worshipped by millions as truth they can all live by. Naturally, you’d want to be very careful about what words you choose. You could, for example, say “You should get cut open with a knife and have parts of you pulled out,” and it would cause a disaster as people who respect your words harm themselves. For the sake of protecting your people, you could qualify it by adding, “If a surgeon does it to treat your appendicitis.” Because you’re a wise ruler, you put the qualifier first, saying, “If a surgeon does it to treat your appendicitis, you should get cut open with a knife and have parts of you pulled out,” making it very clear the context that the statement applies to.
Just like that, the statement goes from being disastrously destructive to useful common-sense advice. Fortunately, nobody would be able to misinterpret it and only read the second part, because that would only happen if they didn’t read the whole sentence.
But, hey… keep chanting “Shall not be infringed” like it’ll drown out the parts of the amendment explicitly demanding regulation.
>>75010485
It lasted a decent time. During the Civil War the Federal Governmen DID have a small standing army, numbering just a handful of Regiments. When the war broke out, the Lincoln administration had to ask various Governors to send Regiments of volunteers.
So for the Union side at least, they had maybe 10-20 standing Regiments. Maine sent something like 30 Regiments of Infantry; New York, Massachusetts, and Pennsylvania sent hundreds of Regiments of Infantry each. Most of the Union army were in all actuality State militias.
Kentucky coming up again, at the begining of the war the Governor declared neutrality in the war and refused to send its militia in support of either side. The Commonwealth would raise its militia as the 'Kentucky State Guard' to attempt to keep armed neutrality, though after the Confederate invasion the State would eventually send some 50-60 regiments of infantry and 20ish regiments of cavalry (plus a few regiments of 'mounted infantry').
>>75006738
I never thought about that, but we have enough people to fight and win by swarming with no weapons and taking the enemy into custody. I'd like to believe that throughout the history of upright hominids that has happened.
There is no feasible way to make this happen in our day and age. Our vent/personal coping mechanism for the outrage we feel is the chains that bind us. The internet brought us to a whole different level of nigger
>>75005125
>What did they mean by this?
See pic.
I think it's best worded in modern vernacular like this: because an organized militia is necessary for a free state, the right to own a gun is not to be infringed.
It prevents you from turning into Venezuela or my country.
Can't believe some of you guys can't understand this.
>>75005125
They wanted to ensure that tyranny, dictators etc. could never take over your country.
Also they wanted to ensure that noone could ever occupy you via conventional war. Guess why Swizerland was never invaded and occupied. They have always been armed to the teeth.
