That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the 2A by so many people. When it mentions a militia that DOES NOT say that you have to be part of one to "keep and bear arms"; that's the FALSE argument that the left and others use to claim that 2A is only a collective right and NOT an individual right, which is totally FALSE.
The term "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is the founders saying "Look, we understand that as a nation, there's a 'necessary evil' to keep a standing military force BUT that can lead to tyranny over the people THEREFORE....": "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Back then, the word "militia" referred to the army that was put together on demand from the people to fight for the nation, not quite like the word's connotation today. The people didn't suddenly gain the right to have firearms when they got together with each other in the form of a militia and then give up the right and surrender the firearms when the militia was not together, but that's how gun control advocates would try to tell you the 2A actually means.
Every single right outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT and NOT a "collective right". Why would the founders make this ONE right a collective one in contrast to all of the others? The answer is, they didn't.
Every citizen has an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms and DOES NOT have to be part of a militia to possess that right.
Don't fall into the trap of gaslighting and language of the left.
EDIT: Also, the Constitution does not "give" us any rights, they come naturally from God and are merely outlined for protection in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Let's be accurate with our language regarding such things.
Here is something I posted that adds on nicely to your statement...
(I said "settled law" cause the left likes to throw that term around!)
This is now settled law.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).
Held:
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. Pp. 2–53.
(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. Pp. 2–22.
Another word people get hung up on is regulated. In this context it doesn’t mean to limit the rights... it’s like regulating the airflow in a home so that all rooms are getting the same amount of cold air. Unfortunately some of our states wouldn’t be able to step up if needed because their rights have been taken away.
Thank you for your internet service, Pede. About 3 years ago I wrote an essay in college about this very subject, 10 pages, and my argument was framed such as that. Perfect score on the essay, by the way.
The other thing that leftists and other pretend not to know about is the Federalist Papers.
For those not familiar, they are a group of articles/essays by 3 of the key founders of the USA prior to the ratification of the Constitution who were trying to convince the individual states (New York primarily) to order themselves into this new proposed union to be called the USA. The point is, the states were going to have to give up some liberty in accepting membership into the USA (Federal supremacy etc) and the FP were written to explain in more detail what they were getting and what they were giving up. Mostly trying to reassure they weren't signing on to another tyrannical gov't.
All one has to do is read them and several "controversial" constitutional rights become very clear what the framers intended.
There are plenty of other speeches and letters from the framers after the Constitution was ratified which similarly detail their thoughts but the FP are the most well-known and were created prior to ratification.
Does depend though, not sure it's the same in WI, but in MN because of the "pistol grip" on the the AR-15 you are not allowed too.
It's honestly stupid since you can have any standard style rifle or shotgun, but to purchase anything with that style grip you need a permit, which you can't obtain till 21
Yup, and next thing you know, a man from another country comes into your country, with magazines and attachments that are illegal, which the police and customs fail to prevent, then shoots up a mosque.
Next thing you know, NZ's doing a forced buy back, because a foreigner came to New Zealand and shoot up a mosque.
Jacinda Ardern a fucking Commie, she disarmed New Zealand Citizens because of the actions of a FOREIGNER.
Prior to that, New Zealand had life time licenses, they took those away too - my dad refused to hand his back however and kept using it.
One thing that bothers me is that they call these "buy backs". They never owned it or sold it to me to begin with. They can't buy back something they never owned. And in fact you have nothing at all to do with a citizen and their arms other than protecting the Constitution. Buy back my ass.
"Hey man, can I buy back a cigarette from ya." You'd be looked at like you were insane.
So true. I remember when I was 14 walking from my house with my gun all the time to go bird and rabbit hunting. Additionally, we're talking about Wisconsin, a pretty big deer hunting state. If it is illegal, and that's a big if, it's most likely a city ordinance misdemeanor. Small potatoes.
I try to dig man all that we can do its know our own laws and regulations, only way to change them, without the proper knowledge and facts people make dumb decisions. especially mobs.
On a side note our states gun laws are a straight up run around..chase the tail.. i know i spoke with some one earlier who laid out all the statues for me but i cant find it now.. the one that states that "minors can not possess a dangerous weapon" does not pertain to this because he is old enough, atleast that was my understanding. its more for 14 year olds alone..
however being in a "organized Militia" definitely gives him the legal right by our US Constitution. so its really moot at this point.
This is 100% accurate. There is a WI statute that does have the verbage to the tune of that the posession of a rifle or shotgun by somone under 18 is illegal without a parent or guardian but ONLY if it is a SBR (short barrel rifle) or SBS (short barrel shotgun). Be ready for the left to conveniently leave that part out (either because they are idiots or liars.. but probably both).
from my understanding sbr and sbs (wisconsin regulations) are illegal any ways because they miss the ATF minimum barrel length anyways.. i could be wrong however
Minors are allowed guns, no penalty.
Also part of a "militia" soooo right there gives him the right by our constitution.
Minors can possess rifles/shotguns in Wisconsin. Just no pistols unless supervised.
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the 2A by so many people. When it mentions a militia that DOES NOT say that you have to be part of one to "keep and bear arms"; that's the FALSE argument that the left and others use to claim that 2A is only a collective right and NOT an individual right, which is totally FALSE.
The term "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is the founders saying "Look, we understand that as a nation, there's a 'necessary evil' to keep a standing military force BUT that can lead to tyranny over the people THEREFORE....": "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Back then, the word "militia" referred to the army that was put together on demand from the people to fight for the nation, not quite like the word's connotation today. The people didn't suddenly gain the right to have firearms when they got together with each other in the form of a militia and then give up the right and surrender the firearms when the militia was not together, but that's how gun control advocates would try to tell you the 2A actually means.
Every single right outlined in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT and NOT a "collective right". Why would the founders make this ONE right a collective one in contrast to all of the others? The answer is, they didn't.
Every citizen has an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms and DOES NOT have to be part of a militia to possess that right.
Don't fall into the trap of gaslighting and language of the left.
EDIT: Also, the Constitution does not "give" us any rights, they come naturally from God and are merely outlined for protection in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Let's be accurate with our language regarding such things.
Excellent points!
Here is something I posted that adds on nicely to your statement...
(I said "settled law" cause the left likes to throw that term around!)
This is now settled law.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER (No. 07-290) 478 F. 3d 370
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).
Held:
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. Pp. 2–53. (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. Pp. 2–22.
Another word people get hung up on is regulated. In this context it doesn’t mean to limit the rights... it’s like regulating the airflow in a home so that all rooms are getting the same amount of cold air. Unfortunately some of our states wouldn’t be able to step up if needed because their rights have been taken away.
Thank you for your internet service, Pede. About 3 years ago I wrote an essay in college about this very subject, 10 pages, and my argument was framed such as that. Perfect score on the essay, by the way.
The other thing that leftists and other pretend not to know about is the Federalist Papers.
For those not familiar, they are a group of articles/essays by 3 of the key founders of the USA prior to the ratification of the Constitution who were trying to convince the individual states (New York primarily) to order themselves into this new proposed union to be called the USA. The point is, the states were going to have to give up some liberty in accepting membership into the USA (Federal supremacy etc) and the FP were written to explain in more detail what they were getting and what they were giving up. Mostly trying to reassure they weren't signing on to another tyrannical gov't.
All one has to do is read them and several "controversial" constitutional rights become very clear what the framers intended.
There are plenty of other speeches and letters from the framers after the Constitution was ratified which similarly detail their thoughts but the FP are the most well-known and were created prior to ratification.
This is one of the best comments I've seen here. Good explanation!
throws flag
flag shot down
Laundry on the field!
Does depend though, not sure it's the same in WI, but in MN because of the "pistol grip" on the the AR-15 you are not allowed too.
It's honestly stupid since you can have any standard style rifle or shotgun, but to purchase anything with that style grip you need a permit, which you can't obtain till 21
Yup, and next thing you know, a man from another country comes into your country, with magazines and attachments that are illegal, which the police and customs fail to prevent, then shoots up a mosque.
Next thing you know, NZ's doing a forced buy back, because a foreigner came to New Zealand and shoot up a mosque.
Jacinda Ardern a fucking Commie, she disarmed New Zealand Citizens because of the actions of a FOREIGNER.
Prior to that, New Zealand had life time licenses, they took those away too - my dad refused to hand his back however and kept using it.
One thing that bothers me is that they call these "buy backs". They never owned it or sold it to me to begin with. They can't buy back something they never owned. And in fact you have nothing at all to do with a citizen and their arms other than protecting the Constitution. Buy back my ass.
"Hey man, can I buy back a cigarette from ya." You'd be looked at like you were insane.
We k ow thats how we got the clintons
so are they taking that to the supreme court?
So true. I remember when I was 14 walking from my house with my gun all the time to go bird and rabbit hunting. Additionally, we're talking about Wisconsin, a pretty big deer hunting state. If it is illegal, and that's a big if, it's most likely a city ordinance misdemeanor. Small potatoes.
The only firearm illegal for a minor to possess in Wisconsin alone is a pistol and the minimum age is 21.
15-17 don't need supervision 14 younger do.
I live in Wisconsin. Has been this way all my life. MSM is lying flat out about this
Even this bullshit law violates the 2A. Nowhere does the 2A say anything about age.
i agree this pistol age law is more for Milwaukee, seeing as almost all gun violence are pistols.. its makes sense.
Thank you for being true to your username and helping people see through the smoke and mirrors.
I try to dig man all that we can do its know our own laws and regulations, only way to change them, without the proper knowledge and facts people make dumb decisions. especially mobs.
On a side note our states gun laws are a straight up run around..chase the tail.. i know i spoke with some one earlier who laid out all the statues for me but i cant find it now.. the one that states that "minors can not possess a dangerous weapon" does not pertain to this because he is old enough, atleast that was my understanding. its more for 14 year olds alone..
however being in a "organized Militia" definitely gives him the legal right by our US Constitution. so its really moot at this point.
Ed Hochuli's arms, if true
I was gonna say...I have yet to hear a law that a minor can’t carry a weapon....
This is 100% accurate. There is a WI statute that does have the verbage to the tune of that the posession of a rifle or shotgun by somone under 18 is illegal without a parent or guardian but ONLY if it is a SBR (short barrel rifle) or SBS (short barrel shotgun). Be ready for the left to conveniently leave that part out (either because they are idiots or liars.. but probably both).
from my understanding sbr and sbs (wisconsin regulations) are illegal any ways because they miss the ATF minimum barrel length anyways.. i could be wrong however
They are leaving it out because Chinese bots on Reddit provided them the information and they ate it up.