Those scumbag founding fathers just had to include the "militia" clause so gun grabbers could obfuscate the issue and claim the modern-day militia is actually the police or National Guard
The tragedy is that the extra wording in fact says very clearly--in the parliance of the time--that the reason for the amendment is to make sure the citizenry can constitute effective scratch infantry (well-regulated refers to drill and discipline in the fighting style of the day). It's saying specifically that citizens should be able to oppose a professional fighting force. AFAIC that means the 2A itself specifies we should be able to own anything. I should have an MG3 and RPG in my closet, you know, in case of trouble.
Most idiots also don't realize that fully-automatic fire has a very specific place on the battlefield; it's not some implicit lethality multiplier. But given the 10 moving boxes clipazine shoulder-thing-that-goes-up understanding we observe among politicians (as well as their nefarious, duplicitous intent), it's no surprise we are in the situation we're in.
It kinda does mean that, but the 2A does not grant the militia the right to bear arms, it grants the people the right to bear arms, because the government must have a militia/military.
"As long as the government has shooty boys, the people should have guns too."
The first half of the 2A is merely establishing the reason the actual clause exists. And it's absolute bullshit that anyone ever tried (let alone succeeded) to claim otherwise.
The people themselves were the militia. Every able-bodied person in a community is supposed to be equipped and fit for fighting, at all times. That's why the first half of the amendment is so important.
I've read them, where would the right to bear arms have been questioned? That's something we inherited from English law, why George trying to disarm the colonies still made him a tyrant even when we were rightful subjects.
There was debate about how important militias are, usually versus how dangerous it is to keep a standing army, but when they do talk about "the militia" in general they absolutely mean the people. That's why the 2nd Amendment's the only one with that kind of structure.
Those scumbag founding fathers just had to include the "militia" clause so gun grabbers could obfuscate the issue and claim the modern-day militia is actually the police or National Guard
The tragedy is that the extra wording in fact says very clearly--in the parliance of the time--that the reason for the amendment is to make sure the citizenry can constitute effective scratch infantry (well-regulated refers to drill and discipline in the fighting style of the day). It's saying specifically that citizens should be able to oppose a professional fighting force. AFAIC that means the 2A itself specifies we should be able to own anything. I should have an MG3 and RPG in my closet, you know, in case of trouble.
Most idiots also don't realize that fully-automatic fire has a very specific place on the battlefield; it's not some implicit lethality multiplier. But given the 10 moving boxes clipazine shoulder-thing-that-goes-up understanding we observe among politicians (as well as their nefarious, duplicitous intent), it's no surprise we are in the situation we're in.
It kinda does mean that, but the 2A does not grant the militia the right to bear arms, it grants the people the right to bear arms, because the government must have a militia/military.
"As long as the government has shooty boys, the people should have guns too."
The first half of the 2A is merely establishing the reason the actual clause exists. And it's absolute bullshit that anyone ever tried (let alone succeeded) to claim otherwise.
Respect
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary for healthy living, the right of the people to keep and prepare foods, shall not be infringed.
It's plain English; it's just that morons don't understand plain English.
The people themselves were the militia. Every able-bodied person in a community is supposed to be equipped and fit for fighting, at all times. That's why the first half of the amendment is so important.
It's not just a right, it's a necessity.
I've read them, where would the right to bear arms have been questioned? That's something we inherited from English law, why George trying to disarm the colonies still made him a tyrant even when we were rightful subjects.
There was debate about how important militias are, usually versus how dangerous it is to keep a standing army, but when they do talk about "the militia" in general they absolutely mean the people. That's why the 2nd Amendment's the only one with that kind of structure.