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.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, or a Constitutional Scholar. I'm just a citizen, who's duty to country could require armed support of the nation and people at some point.

That makes me part of the "militia". In order to clearly understand the purpose and scope of this amendment, you MUST have a clearly defined understanding of exactly what a "militia" is.

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the "militia" was an informal collection of average citizens who had arms, or could be armed to prevent various threats to the nation and people.

The "militia" is a large part of the "army" that defeated the British in the American Colonies.

With the abuses that went on just prior to the revolutionary war by the British Army in the Colonies, the people were unsurprisingly distrustful of a "standing army", thus the means to provide security to the people was the people themselves, in the form of a militia, suitable armed for the task, thus, the "PEOPLE" should have the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. But that also includes the "DUTY" to arm yourself to help protect your countrymen and neighbors.

It's actually a two edged sword, folks, on the one hand, it protects the rights of the people to not be oppressed by some standing army and/or military force, it also protects the security of the state should the need arise and the state is forced to call on the "militia" to help.

So, when you are all up here spouting bullfluff about the right to keep and bear arms, try to keep things in perspective, will ya?

What is the discussion? All you did was define what a militia is and reworded the 2nd amendment

You will hear my discussion about the relinquishment of the constitution and bill of rights with the report of my rifle. Everything else is hyperbole fluff.

Brilliant thread so far, huh? A guy who thinks I reworded the constitution, and a liberal spouting off like he's actually got a rifle. LOL

And, if I was shooting, the target wouldn't hear the report. :)

You're leaving out over 200 years of legal precedent

on what planet is heston a liberal? lol. stop thinking everyone who thinks you are wrong is a liberal. it doesnt help you.

Its ok he couldnt say it without laughing.

The "narrative", a word once referred to as "propaganda", has been used in an attempt to remove guns for longer than the 56 years that I have been alive.
I tend to look at facts. Case in point:

If you are on the "No-Fly" list, you shouldn't be able to purchase a "gun". Well, if you are on the list and a non-US citizen, your chances of purchasing a "gun" are slim to none.
If you are on the list, and you are a US citizen and have actually committed a crime, then no "gun" for you.
If you are on the list, and the Government thinks you so dangerous as to limit your ability to purchase a gun, then you should have already been locked up. When the Government has the right to place a name on the list, then anyone could be next. Innocent until proven guilty is a pretty cool thing in 'murica.

UR A LIBRUL!

being serious for a moment, how do you know that the founding fathers weren't talking about these http://i.imgur.com/9Dm2n.jpg ???

stop trying to interpret the constitution to fit your own views, cerberus!!!!!111

Now that trife has chimed in, your thread is complete. Good talk brother.

shadup u got dayumed librul1!!!

Yooooooooooo shuddup. I dont take lip from white conservative christian males named trife.

Esp on mlk day

Where does the 2nd amendment draw the line on arms? Like... rocket launcher? Nuclear arms?

Ak47?

SHALL NOT INFRINGE!

tanks, ATGMs, grenades, MIRVs, mustard gas should be allowed for everyone to use!!!!!!

lets hope kimmy jonny ullsalot misses and hits west virginia with his UNALIENABLE right to bear arms.

the third amendment should have been everybody has the right to understand words used in the language they speak..
http://grammarist.com/spelling/bare-bear/

oh, wait, i dont think any government, ever, has prohibited the correct defining of words..

tell tella, he'll ban me and you wont have to argue against my being wholly and inexorably correct.
(and yes, not bare vs bear, but the point being bear vs bear, you children of childs.)

It will stop at nukes gawd willing. I want the largest direct fire automatic artillery with all the goodies so i can protect my rights. I would rub it with a diaper tuck it under my pillow at night.

https://youtu.be/HI9tov6A2DI
https://youtu.be/iJmFEv6BHM0

I wanna .30 cal magazine clip.

how do you feel about the davy crockett?

A level that can overthrow the government should it be needed. At least that was the original intent.

It not very difficult, the people shall not be infringed from maintaining the Arms that would be needed to be part of a militia.

So sounds like we have the right to have what would be needed to defend the country with whatever weapons might be needed. So in current day that might be a Sam site, howitzers, tanks, or maybe an F-35, or Bill Gates might want an Aircraft Carrier to pitch in and do his part in protecting the Homeland.

Its like finally getting to bang a woman you have been chasing and she has a fluffed up asshole with moles on her stanky catchers mitt and ruins everything about her. 👎😞

I would keep one for lolz at cerbs house if i had fodder to fire it.

You're a moron who's been living in a cave for the last 45 years.

It is the government being driven by the leftists that are "redefining" the words we use, for example, the word diversity, it doesn't mean what you think it does.

Diversity means that "whitey" can't be alone, ever. Doubt the definition, look at how it's used.

cerb calling someone else a moron is my favorite thing. it is so cute!

Out of all the respondents to choose from, cerb picks the banned combative forum drunk with felony rings to dispute and call a moron.

Cerberus, you are a heavily compromised conservative that has no reasoned perspective on this issue. Just like the extremes at the other end of the spectrum should not be heard. Moderates and reasonable people simply think this part of the American constitution is completely retarded. Just like that amendment that tried to ban alcohol. DING DING not all amendments are the gospel truth that shouldn't be challenged for millennia.

The simple facts are, a lot of years ago some people wrote a very crappily worded amendment to your constitution that allowed political interest groups in the 20th century scope and leverage for their own profit and gain. It's as simple as that. Remember the tobacco lobby? You're practically doing the same work and will be shamed in due course.

People like you on these issues are immune to facts. Clinging to your nationalistic, pseudo-patriotic, Southern sympathising stupidity simply ruins the debate.

Facts are;

No other country on earth is so paranoid that it deems it a necessary right to arm their citizens against their own government or even their own military.
A militia is not you, you self important ass.
No other country comes close to murdering its own citizens at the rate the USA does. Please try logic here.
Citing objects like cars and baseball bats as in the same league is fourth grade discourse

Oh

I stand corrected. Now that some asshole that isnt even a US citizen has offered his gospel on the matter, the tread has reached its retard capacity. Good work dagga.

ironically this post is just as full of bullfluff, bias, and hyperbole as cerb's post.

entertaining as ever dagga.

One is a prefatory clause and the other is an operative clause. Or so that's how SCOTUS read it.

you have some mighty strange ideas of "facts". Facts from whom? My guess is facts as stated by Dagga. Certainly not any verifiable facts.

http://fc09.deviantart.net/...aceandjocelyn-d30rnp5.jpg