![James_Madison[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/TgQBcKw.jpg "James_Madison[1].jpg")
>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 he mean by this?
From my point of view, it is the right of a people to form a militia, and in order for that militia to mean anything in the face tyranny they needed to be able to own weapons. Therefore, the people have a right to own weapons, period.
>>55284334
>A well regulated militia,
People with weapons willing to defend their shit, their family, their towns, their country.
>being necessary to the security of a free State
Well regulated Militias are needed for freedom of the state from invaders, alien and domestic (that means you, Gubbament).
>the right of the people
'Murrikans
>to keep and bear Arms
To own, understand, and use their weapons
>Shall not be infringed
No nigger, white or black, can revoke this freedom.
>>55284334
He meant that only cops should have guns I saw it on SNL.
>>55284334
the Supreme Court decision District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) explains the 2nd amendment pretty well
> (1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
> (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved
> (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment.
> (d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms.
> (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion.
>>55284334
Yet again forgetting that the 2nd amendment was made so that if there is a tyrannical government the people can reset it to its natural state.
>>55285075
It drives me nuts when liberals pretend well-regulated means government regulation. A concept that didn't even come into existence until the 20th century.
>>55284609
He didn't mean state as in the whole country, he meant the states as in the individual nations that make up the US
>>55284334
>shall not be infringed
Funny that this part seems to be ignored every few years.
>>55285852
The word "state" in the 1700's meant "sovereign nation." It's still used that way outside of the USA.
>>55284334
He meant that, as we all know, militias are composed of all able bodied MEN. Therefore, the second amendment excludes women from owning guns.
And that's how you shut down a liberal that's bashing the 2nd based on militia bullshit, by making him a misogynist.
the right to have muskets doesnt mean you can build a killdozer
>select all images wt construction vehicles
lmao
>>55286061
The Second Amendment doesn't use the word "musket". And the people that wrote it knew full well weapons technology would advance. They were men of the Enlightenment. They valued science and technology. Several of them were literal inventors. If you can imagine plasma guns, why couldn't they imagine a musket that is capable of shooting a ball every second?
>>55284334
He meant that the right of the people to keep and bear arms Shall not be infringed
>>55284890
And yet somehow this decision still came to it's conclusion as if the last four words in the sentence don't exist>>55285972
>And that's how you shut down a liberal that's bashing the 2nd based on militia bullshit, by making him a misogynist.
It's also how YOU fail at basic reading comprehension
>>55284334
The problem is that there are two different versions of this amendment, the one the scribe recorded and the one ratified by the actual states themselves.
>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.
versus:
>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.
To me, the first one seems to indicate that: 1) A military is needed to defend the state, 2) people are allowed to arm themselves, and 3) neither prior statements shall be infringed upon, i.e. you do not need to be in the military to own guns, but those in the military must have them to defend the country.
I read the second as: 1) A well-armed (and trained) people shall function as the "well-regulated" militia which defends the state, and this is non-negotiable, i.e. you can only own guns if you are in the military, but you are allowed to do whatever you want with them if and only if you actually are in the military.
>>55286061
It says arms mong
arms
ärmz/Submit
noun
1.
weapons and ammunition; armaments.
"they were subjugated by force of arms"
synonyms: weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, armaments, munitions, matériel
"the illegal export of arms"
Why is the 2nd amendment worth fighting for but not the 9th?
>>55284334
It never made sense to me why they worded it that way. One of the core principles of the Revolution, and it's so ambiguous that people can argue about it's meaning.
It should read:
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free people, shall be ensured by the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and shall not be infringed."
Or something along those lines. The current wording seems like globalist Tory obfuscation intended to weaken the new Republic.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGEEEED
REEEEEEEEEE
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>55284334
Let's ask him:
>"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
>- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
>>55286634
It's just how they wrote back then. It wasn't even common to phrase constitutional rights that way. The state constitutions written around that time had similar phrases for other rights that we recognize (free speech, etc.)
Consider some of these as examples:
>In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed --The 1784 New Hampshire Constitution
>The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever. --The 1780 Massachusetts Constitution
>That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience --Virginia Constitution 1776
>That retrospective laws, punishing acts committed before the existence of such laws, and by them only declared penal or criminal, are oppressive, unjust, and incompatible with liberty; wherefore, no ex post facto law shall ever be made. --Florida Constitution 1838
And dozens more examples here.
http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm
The wording of the Second Amendment only seems strange because it's the only right framed that way in the federal Constitution. But the state constitutions are replete with rights we all know and love framed in language similar to the Second Amendment.
>>55286986
Meant to say "wasn't even uncommon..."
>>55286634
It is only ambiguous to retards that can't read or people with an agenda trying to manipulate retards that can't read
>>55287078
Globalist filth detected
>>55284412
>the people have a right to own weapons, period
This is clearly spelled out in the Federalist Papers and is the backbone behind the concept of original intent.
The Harvard Method is to pick away at the word "regulated" in a way that ignores its clear military definition.
|
|>
|
|3
|
>>55285732
you really think Madison off all the founders trusted people to clearly distinguish tyranny?
>>55284334
"regulated' in this context means practiced.. as in the citizens , all of whom constitute the Militia need to be well practiced with their arms in order to be ready at all times to answer the call of a free people to repel tyranny.
>>55284334
What did he mean? That's right, racism.
https://youtu.be/5Peu6CnxAqA
>>55284890
>implying I care what the Supreme Court thinks
>>55284334
Here you go. Use this and pic related when statists are trying to lawyer it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOwy9OWfnAM
If the government decides to go totalitarian they will provide you with weapons to participate in a militia against them, a well regulated militia so to speak. (you may not use weapons of your own to fight in this revolution, only government officials are smart enough to decide which weapons you can use)
