>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 infringedDoes this not imply that the right to bear arms should be for regulated militias only?
>>538169302When people in the 1700a said “well regulated” they didn’t mean regulated by the federal government like fags use the word today. “Well regulated” can just be any group that takes itself seriously, government or not
>>538169468It literally means trained, IE the sights on my rifle were regulated at 100 yardsPeople need to possess weapons and train with them because it is necessary for the defense of the nation
>>538169302>the right of the people to...Figure it out, disingenuous retard.
>>538169302they only had muskets back then too. barely considered "guns" at this point. inaccurate and took a long time to load. the entire constitution needs a rewrite due to the ambiguity and lack of application to modern times, but oh well.
>>538169302note the language, who does the right belong to?>the right of the peoplewhen this right was written, it was not a standing army, but a citizen militia that was organized when needed, it consisted of normal everyday American citizens who were expected to keep their own firearms and know how to use them.the 18th century use of "well regulated" also means that they have their own guns and ammo, and have trained with them, it means that they're prepared. Again it stems out of the idea that the US did not have a standing army, so they needed armed citizenry who were proficient at using firearms so that if we did get into a war, or had Indian raids, they could mobilize a militia quickly without having to take noguns dipshits and have to arm and train them while the country is burning.
>>538169302They are stating the people have a right to create their own well regulated militia's, should the need arise. You are perverting it to take that right away from the people and placing it in "established organizations".
>>538169302do you not know what the fuck a militia is? it also explicitly says "the right of the PEOPLE" not the right of "militias"
>>538169302A well balanced meal, being necessary for healthy living, the right the people to eat food shall not be infringed. >whose rights are being protected? Thepeople’s or the well balanced meals?
>>538169302>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,This is a statement saying a well armed and maintained populace is necessary for the security of a free country>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringedThis is the law being established, following the logic of the statement above.Keep and bear means own and carry btw. It's already highly infringed but which one of our rights isn't these days?
>>538169302GUN CONTROL USA
>>538169302GUN TRAINING USA
>>538174295>but which one of our rights isn't these days?Our third amendment, due to lack of peace time.Looking forward to the supreme court decision in about a year.
>>538169302regular military force means troops trained for combatfor the opposite, see: irregular military force
>>538175325Nortii vs Marlboro?
>>538169302>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringedYou have it right in your damn post. Do better or go back.
>>538169302Kill yourself you shitskin jeet.
>>538169302The first part sets up the justification/explanation for the second part. It isn't meant to be a requirement or facet of the second part. In other words:>Security is necessary, therefore you can't limit access to gunsIf they had intended it to apply only to militias, they would have said "the right of militias to keep and bear arms"
