The second amendment only grants the right to bear arms to the militia. It's right there in the text, can't you read?
Are you in a militia? No? I rest my case.
>>77240667
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8
(((You)))
>>77240667
Even if it did say that a militia is defined as all able bodied males 18 to 45 (iirc). So yes I am. :^)
>>77240667
SHALL
>>77240667
>>77241309
uninfringeable
>>77240667
Stop with this low energy bait.
>>77241422
The breakfast does, for without the food there is no breakfast
It's not hard
Another amendment describes a militia as "any man aged 18-45 able to take up arms". Or something like that.
>>77241540
So people don't have a right to food, breakfast does?
Does that really make sen- Oh fuck I forgot to check the flag.
>>77240667
kill
you
are
self
>>77240667
That is a misinterpretation. It simply argues that one of the key reasons to have a 2nd amendment is to have a well regulated militia. Originally this was more important because there was no plan for a centralized military (it was militias that fought the revolutionary war).
>>77241796
But anon, you misunderstand
A militia can not exist without the weapons
Think
>>77241722
That was the 2nd Militia Act of 1792, not a constitutional amendment. Go read your constitution again, this shit is important.
2008 Supreme Court ruling on District of Columbia v. Heller found that regardless of the wording and how you nitpick it, ownership of a firearm for the purpose of self-defense is covered by the second amendment.
>>77240667
Just say you're a militia innit
>>77241153
>Able bodied
>above 18
>browses /pol/
Nice try
>>77240667
That's canada level of shitposting.
>>77240667
>Are you in a militia?
Yes, I am.
>>77240667
In the 2008 Supreme Court case on District of Columbia v. Heller, judges examined the amendment, ruling “we find it guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation”.
Regardless of how you nitpick the wording, this is the current SCOTUS ruling on the matter.
>>77240667
>militia.
>The Militia Act of 1792
>That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, ... every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock.
So if you are a white male between the age of 18 - 45, it your patriotical duty to bear arms
This is even better than "guns for all" translation if you ask me
>>77240667
A well-regulated sewage system, being necessary to poo going in the loo, the right of the people to keep and use plumbing tools shall not be infringed.
Who has the right to keep tools? The sewage system? Or the people?
>>77240787
leaf with the fpbp
>>77242723
I like that one interpretation of this is essentially a duty for every US male to buy himself a gun withing 6 months of turning 18. We should throw in jail every limpwristed anti-gun cuck who doesn't.
>>77242723
This. The courts have ruled multiple times that every single citizen, armed or not, is actually a part of the nation's militia, specifically their state guard branch, of which most people probably don't know exists. It's law. The fact that most of our militia isn't armed due to communist meddling is a crime in and of itself, desu
>>77241939
>A militia can not exist without the weapons
False and stupid. You can still form a militia, it'll just not be a well regulated one. It'll be a terrible militia.
>>77240667
>Are you in a militia?
Yes, actually. According to Federal Law, which the courts have upheld on numerous occasions, all able-bodied young men over the age of 18 are considered to be Militia.
SHALL
>>77240667
It's just the preamble.
>>77240787
Fpbp
>>77242723
>6 months thereafter
but muh unrestricted access
>ctrl + f
>"gunfacts.info"
>0 results
Step it up scrubs
http://www.gunfacts.info/
>>77240667
>1 post by this ID
>>77243126
>>77243175
It's funny beacuse its puprouslly worded in a simple and self explanatory way.
>what do you need to secure a free state?
a well regulated millitia
>how do get such a millitia and how do you keep it in check ?
people have the right to bear arms
>what if someone tries to fuck that up? either by controlling the millitia, or trying to disarm the people
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
It takes great mental gymnastics to fuck that up, anti gun liberals are some of the most creative beings on the planet
>>77240787
Damn, good work Canada, booted this bait fag right in his ass, and in a very simple way at that. Bravo.
>>77243655
Imagine if today, a law was passed that required everyone to register with the militia and wait 6 months before obtaining fire arms. Gun nuts would be outraged
if the second amendment is about individual right, rather than the people as a whole, why doesn't it say "the right of a person to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
>>77244185
>within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock.
>within
It means you have to get that gun during 6 months of turning 18
not after 6 months
You can get it the same day you turn 18, but if you are not armed ater 6 months you are braking the law
>>77240667
It doesnt grant anything, you stupid fucking piece of shit.
It recognizes the right to bear arms
ITT: FBI getting people to admit they are in a militia. You guys are literally retarded.
>>77240787
TRASHMAN TAKES OUT THE TRASH ONE AGAIN
>>77244185
Yeah, a law like that could in no way be abused, right? Come on, you're being absurd.
>>77245215
The people = militia.
You're in it too pal. You're born into it you don't have a choice.
>>77245215
>guys, the FBI will know that there's a law!
Think they're a little ahead of you, guy.
>>77241656
SHALL BE INFRINGED
N
O
T
>>77241422
Logical fallacy, similar to the "some doctors are tall" exercise.
>>77240787
Leaf post best post
>>77240667
>>77240787
OP........BTFO.
but everyone knows this is a bot. Only one post.
>>77245215
State courts have ruled and confirmed over multiple rulings the idea that a state militia and state residents are one and the same.
Why is there a comma after "militia"? They fucked it up there.
>>77240787
Surprising coming from a leaf.
Do you really think this will make him realize he is wrong?
Leftist don't care.
>>77246813
I'm not a bot
>>77247157
Because you don't know english.
>>77247639
I always read it as if it has no first comma and starts with an invisible "with".
>[With] the evacuation of excrement being necessary to the sanctity of the vital humours, the right of the people to defecate in designated shitting streets shall not be infringed.
>[With] this thing being a necessary effect, the cause must be allowed.
Is this the wrong way to interpret it? The first comma makes it read like a broken compound sentence.
All militias are considered terrorists by our government
>>77248825
This makes no sense.
