>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.
Give me your interpretation so I can dispel it.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>>68555144
Instead of wasting everyones' time, just post all the goddamn "interpretations" you've cleverly anticipated, and dispel them on your own. Jeez.
>>68555373
>quit wasting my time I have other threads to shitpost on, I'm a busy channer
Wow
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
That is my interpretation. Good luck arguing against a verbatim quote.
>>68555216
No further discussion is needed.
>>68555144
No need to interpret. It means exactly what is says. Attempting to interpret it is an attempt to change it.
>>68555144
In order for the militia to exist, and to make sure the government does not turn tyrannical, the people need the right to keep and bear arms.
>>68555494
>Wow
>Wow
>Wow
>Wow
>Wow
Yep. There it is.
>>68555607
/thread
>>68555144
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
>>68555216
>>68555507
>>68555607
>>68555611
These are the correct answers.
I was hoping for some resistance
"OP is a faggot"
That's my interpretation.
>>68555144
If you were to put it into modern colloquial English it would be "Because an effective militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear weapons shall no be infringed."
so the people have the right to have weapons and you can't make laws that change that.
I wish they added a clause that says "Gun control infringes on it, Sotomayor is a dumb bitch"
>>68555924
This or "SHALL" are the only correct responses.
If you are anti-gun you are a cuck and deserve to be shot, and you won't even put up any resistance.
That means that in order to bear arms you need to be in a well regulated militia.
You can't just buy one, you need training and ability.
Gun licenses should cost thousands and should include several courses on gun safety and mandatory gun locks when not in use.
A gun should be a privlege, not a right
>>68555144
>shall not be infringed
What's to interpret?
>>68555144
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
U.S. Law says you are the militia.
Supreme Court also decided in Heller that people have the right to keep and bear arms for self defense.
They also just ruled that Stun Guns (and arms that aren't necessarily in use by the military and arms that weren't around back then) are protected by the second amendment. I believe they said any bearable arm is protected? It was a unanimous decision.
It literally cannot be debated now.
>>68555144
A [properly trained and capable] militia, being necessary [in the event of tyranny or invasion], the right of [mentally healthy and law abiding legal citizens] to keep and bear [all weapons that can be carried on ones person] shall not be infringed
>>68556553
not sure if baiting or just illiterate
The comma is all that's needed to interpret it.
The need for a well-regulated militia is a separate clause from the right of the people to keep an bear arms. That's how the supreme court sees it, anyway.
>>68555144
>tripfag
WOW LOL XD ITS LIKE THE CURRENT YEAR REDDIT
>>68556553
The people ARE the militia.
>>68556724
You are not even American, quit pretending to know our 2nd amendment.
>>68556286
>>68556395
>>68556553
>>68556634
>>68556653
>>68556660
>>68556724
>>68556747
>>68556763
Why are you posting? OP is a retard.
>>68555144
Shall not be infringed? How's the WiFi inside your tank? We infringe on the right in more ways than we don't, and we should infringe on it more.
>>68555494
wow. just wow.
>>68556810
I know English and your former master here explained it >>68556747
>>68555144
It protects the inherent rights of the people to bear arms so the free state has the means to form a militia if need be.
>>68555144
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONqcBKhikfk
The 2A is the most based legal right on the planet. I am jealous, and will forever curse you people if you ever allow it to be destroyed.
>>68556810
The right to bear arms is not an American invention, you fucking retard.
>>68556855
We should infringe on the rights of retards like yourself to live.
I have another question: how come noone has struck down the existing legislation that states you're not allowed to own FA items produced after some arbitrary year when your Constitution explicitly acknowledges your "inalienable rights" that in this specific case "shall not be infringed"?
>>68556855
You can buy tanks, are you retarded? Lots of private individuals own tanks in the US.
http://www.armyjeeps.net/armor1.htm
http://www.exarmyvehicles.com/offer/tracked-vehicles
>>68556553
The supreme court already ruled that the PEOPLE are the militia see>>68556653
>>68556660
Where in the constitution does it say that?
>>68556747
Wrong
>>68556763
It's not a trip you dunce
>>68556835
How?
>>68556855
You can actually buy a tank
>>68557502
I'm using tanks as a place holder for military equipment. There are plenty of weapons/equipment you cannot buy, which seems to go against the "shall not be infringed" portion.
MY DEFINITION OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT IS NOT THE SAME AS YOUR DEFINITION SO THEREFORE YOU ALL LOSE I WIN!!!!
Holy fuck, this is a tired topic of debate here. Guns are legal in the USA, and if people don't like it, they can get the fuck out, period. No debate, nothing any faggot anti-gun douche can do, it's a done deal. Stop being cunts about it and get on with your lives.
>>68555144
>A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free stat
Independent clause illustrating the necessity for a militia
>the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Unqualified clause specifiying the people shall not be debarred the ownership of weaponry, no qualifier necessary
>>68557452
The Hughes act is probably sitting on shaky legal ground after Heller, but the associations that would have legal standing to challenge the act will wait until a more favorable SCOTUS line-up before pushing such an issue to the upper courts.
>>68557897
>How?
>Come to my post to argue with me and stroke my ego. I'm stuck on the first stage of emotional development.
>>68558094
Legally you can buy just about anything
But due to classified technology it is not available to civilians for reasons other than weapons laws.
It is still ironic that a newly manufactured M1 Abrams (minus classified tech) is more legal for civilians to privately own than machine guns made after 1986
>>68555216
/thread
>>68555144
here's my interpretation
we have a right to defend ourselves and our families
you don't have the votes to do shit but whine
fuck off
/thread
>>68555849
>not posting the real quote
>>68558984
is getting an FFL viable for someone just wanting to enjoy post-1986 items but not really intending to open a gun store?
>>68555144
You have severe autism if you need an interpretation of any amendment to the constitution.
>>68560610
Pretty sure you have to do a set amount of annual business in order to keep your FFL.
>>68555144
To ensure the sovereignty of a state, it is oft necessary that she has adequate ability to call upon armed defenders should the need arise. Recognizing the problems a standing army has posed to the people subjugated by the rule of a rogue government, the solution of an armed militia was reached. However, as noted in the war of 1812, you can not rely upon an armed militia to go on the offensive, which had proven necessary.
A concession was made that an armed forces could be formed. Recognizing the growing imperialistic tendencies as a consequence, a choice had to be made, continue relying on a fragile militia system which proved in adequate for defense or fully establish a standing army. With an established standing army an ever looming threat from within now exists. Rather than abolish the militia, for the integrity of democracy, both are kept. The militia stands as a reminder that we are a union of states and nations, that in time, it may become the duty of the militia to defend the state from a rogue army.
>>68557897
>Where in the constitution does it say that?
Nowhere
>asks for interpretation
>give interpretation
>asks where in constitution
Either you don't understand [brackets] in writing or you expect me to argue against myself
>>68555144
SHALL. NOT. BE. INFRINGED.
