"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

>"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."

Who the fuck wrote this shit and thought it was easily interpretable?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#History
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

dude

commas

lmao

>Americans follow rules made in the 1700s

Militia is composed of private citizens with guns pretty self explanatory imho

any miltias of the people and any weapons they own cannot be handicapped or confiscated by the goverment
t.non american

It's awkward but hey, it was centuries ago, that was probably perfectly clear to them

as to how it turned out, I'm sure they had no inkling of how nation states would develop and how antiquated the notion of a militia of the kind they knew would become. So we here are of two minds about this.

>americans try to take away the guns of other americans by trying changing constitution then when someone they don't like threatens the constitution they are all for muh freedoms and muh libertys
what did they mean by this?

citizen militias was a very liberal idea of the time and was absolutely necessary for the defense of the early settlements.

in reality it's still a liberal idea and one we need to get back too if we want to fix areas like chicago and detroit.

Even just adding a "because", changing the first comma and the word "being" to "is" and getting rid of the capitalization of random nouns would improve it pretty significantly.

"Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Except it's still today one of the greatest constitutions ever written

Milita's are the private citizens who keep and bear arms. This is the interpretation most constitutional scholars take. The "only militia are allowed to have guns" argument you here from retarded neo-liberals (calling them liberal or leftist is disengenous) is pretty much false.

it is easily interpretable, unless you're trying to force the words to mean something they don't to take arms away from the people

I'm a little bit confused. How do you get "everyone should be able to own a firearm" out of "well regulated militia"? What is a well regulated militia? does that mean that people outside of well regulated militias shouldn't have a right to own a firearm?

The commas are confusing as fuck but the part "the right of the people" is clearly a separate sentence from my own interpretation.

>How do you get "everyone should be able to own a firearm" out of "well regulated militia"?

Militia are common citizens who, in an emergency, can supplement the armed forces as well as defend their communities. There's official (National Guard) as well as unofficial militias in the US, and so keeping a gun extends to pretty much everyone as a result.

idiot, learn to reading comprehension.

"a well balanced breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to stock bacon and eggs shall not be infringed."

the people don't have a right to a well regulated militia, they have the ability to form a well regulated (read well equipped) militia because they have the right to keep and bear arms.

But what does "well regulated" mean?

English is not my first language, sorry

Well supplied/equipped. Militias have to adhere to certain standards to be classified as such.

well equipped.

more specifically uniformly outfitted.

"regulated" at the time meant closer to what "balanced" or "functioning" would mean today

They honestly just need to teach the basics of gun safety/conflict resolution in schools, especially in poor neighborhoods, and they'd fix a lot of the issues with how guns are used in poor minority communities in America.

Are you implying that's a bad thing?

>teach the basics of gun safety/conflict resolution in schools,
fucking kek, they dont even teach science at public school anymore

in good working order. In the 18 and 19th centuries, well-regulated had nothing to do with government regulations.

I dunno, first time a dumbass kid decides to pull a gun on a teacher or something the entire country would flip.

>lol what do words mean guize

the kids who need better conflict resolution skills are also the least likely to pay attention in those classes.

btw, accidents make up a very small minority of gun deaths. Most are suicides; something like 19k per year, out of 30k.

OP here.

After reading it over and over dozens of times, it does seem to me to be protecting individual right to own a firearm.

Why the fuck did they like commas so much? It's all throughout the amendments.

you're the idiot, he asked what the definition of well regulated militia is

Shut up, retard.

Stop acting like it's obvious. It took over 200 years for the Supreme Court (people far more learned than you) to finally make a conclusive decision.

different time, conventions change.

he asked several questions einstein

>took over 200 years for the leftist judges (people far more corrupt than you) to finally convince a large number of people that something completely obvious had been thrown into doubt

fixd

Its certainly a very weird way to say it. Was it so hard to just say "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"?

>far more learned
I guess the memes about American education were true.

Idiot. Learn what learn-ED means.

>fixd
Dude you Americans have been arguing over this since before it was even written

They felt that wasn't strong enough. They brought up the militia to emphasize that the people should be armed as well as the military.

And they were at the time; John Paul Jones gave his famous speech on his own ship. Not a US navy ship or whatever, a privately-owned warship.

>Americans
>arguing about the 2nd Amendment
No, Americans have been arguing with monarchists and commies.

1(of a person) having acquired much knowledge through study:
‘a learned, generous, and notoriously absent-minded man’

Fuck off.

Civilian Militias, not Military and Police State, OK!

What other constitutions are well written?
Asking because as far as I'm aware, only the American one is worshipped.

The swiss constitution is pretty good

I'm not a fan of constitutions in general, do more harm than good really. Im glad my country doesnt have one

>neo-liberals (calling them liberal or leftist is disengenous)
No you're just thinking of liberals. Leftists tend to be pretty pro-gun, and neo-liberalism is purely an economic philosophy.

It's pretty clear that the right to keep and bear arms shall not fucking be infringed you dumb commie dickbreath.
That means firearms on par with the military of the country.

it's so easy to interpret, that only oppressive statists and the newer crop of extreme 'liberals' seem to struggle with its meaning.


It clearly means that to have a militia formed by the citizens, you obviously need to allow them to own their own weapons to use in that militia

Why has no extremist constitutional scholar taken the US Government to court for the failure of successive administrations to field these constitutionally mandated citizen's militias, or even at the state level? On the face of it, the Constitution seems to require militias to be fielded.

honestly it reads pretty easily comparative to the way they wrote legal documents back then

Pretty much only the Magna Carta and the Code Civil even come close to the universal themes and global recognition that the American Constitution has

Sounds like some ancap retardation.

>teach the basics of gun safety/conflict resolution in schools

why doesn't the NRA ever fund programs like this? Oh wait I forgot they are an industry lobby group

Non american here, I thought it meant something like
>If we want our country to stay free, the country needs to have an effective militia
which is more of a reasoning for the second part which is to not infringe on the right of citizens to bear arms

but the supreme court judges or the guy who wrote it probably knows more than i do, I just wonder why a lot of focus is put on the 'Militia' part when the second part states the actual right they're protecting

I believe there have been judges who interpreted the 2nd Amendment as a right to join the military,.

>It took 200 years for the minarchist ideals of the Jeffersonians to erode to such an extent that the SCOTUS felt the need to make "a ruling" on something so fucking obvious the rest of the country's (outside of the nebulous lib-filled shithole that is DC of course) firearms ordinances didn't even predicate on any alternative definition.

the military and militia seem to be differentiated between in the document but it's pretty unclear, it references "calling forth" militias but then mentions a military as well

yes im sure your ancestors meant that you carry grandpas arsenal to compensate for your small dick

instead of a precaustion in case the bongs take a visit to a newly independent cunt with a week military

Yes, most stable countries still follow the same rules and procedures after hundreds of year

Most of the Founding Fathers were classical liberals big on small government and thus held up the militia as the purest form of national defense as it was done at the state and local level compared to the tyrannical federal overreach of a standing army. The right to keep and bear arms is pretty self-explanatory despite whatever "debate" but does spin out of the glorification of the militia. After all, if everyone owns a gun, then when the militia is needed a man can easily grab his weapon and join up.

Of course the idea of the militia being the ideal form of military protection is retarded as was proven by the War of 1812 and the fact Rome didn't start BTFOing people until it gained a professional army but there you go.

oh wait they fucking do. Someone never heard of Edddy Eagle and stop/dont touch/leave the area/tell and adult

>non-Americans have to have a violent changing of government every couple of decades

>as to how it turned out, I'm sure they had no inkling of how nation states would develop and how antiquated the notion of a militia of the kind they knew would become.
Hamilton was pushing for a standing army almost from the outset because he spent a lot of time researching the European states and what led to their successes and the idea of a standing army was a huge debate at the time (Jefferson hated the idea for instance).

So yes, the founders were perfectly aware that the militia was falling by the wayside but some were too stubborn because of how much they hated the idea of federal authority to admit as such.

The reason the UK constitution is good is that, because most of it is not written down, and therefore virtually unalterable without significant cross-party support, stupid shit like this can be tossed aside.

At the time the new trendy hip idea was that a locally driven initiative for self defense would prove an adequate response to the threat of both foreign invasions and the country from becoming too tyrannical. In actuality, local militias would perform very poorly against a relatively modern standing army.

The founding fathers I believe wanted everyone to be able to access guns but it wasnt held in the same almost religious mission that is seen nowadays. It was more of a practicality to have one.

So while I agree with your attitude that worshipping guns is retarded, I do have something of a problem with your idea that citizen militias would do poorly against a modern military. Asymmetrical warfare has been and for the foreseeable future will continue to be a viable way to fight. Having a good percentage of your national population at least somewhat prepared for that kind of fight is an advantage. While I'm not for totally eliminating the US military, I do think that the idea of national security should be democratized.

While Asymmetrical warfare is always a pain in the ass, historically extremely few "rebels" have ever won a fight without a great power indirectly or even directly assisting them.

In any case, if the totality for the 2nd Amendment was to fight a foreign power, its unhelpful in the context of America. In this case only a national military effort makes sense. And in any case no one has the will or resources to be able to fight the USA in an existential war and win.

Of course, things get murkier when you consider the intent for using such guns in a revolution against a bloated and tyrannical government. But again, if a government really was willing to stay onto power at all costs and the rebels have no outside help, it would be an uneven fight.

For the record I am for guns, I just think there needs to be greater educational efforts to teach the stupid off of people regarding guns.

m.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8

It never occurred to them that in 200+ years people would still consider it relevant. Like politicians today they don't think for the long haul. When Obama wrote an executive order, you think his main question was "how will people in the year 2300 grapple with this?" Fuck no. Is Trump wondering how people in the next thousand years will maintain the wall? Shit he's not even thinking a full week in advance, of course not.

Passing the buck down the line is great when the line is multiple generations long.

Because the freedoms that exist don't exist in a vacuum. They exist because they benefit the society, and they have to be defended because they hurt the established power. Who ever is in charge doesn't like free speech, free press and free guns but they can't do shit about. We the society benefit from being able to say what we want about our leaders, report any facts we learn about our leaders, and own guns so our leaders aren't the only ones who can resort to the final argument.

That said, some people want to change the right to own guns because they believe that its value to society (in keeping the government weak and the country defensible) is not worth the cost to society in the form of gang violence and murders. I'm not convinced that they're right, but we can at least admit that their goal is not simply to curtail freedom for the sake of it.

>Asymmetrical warfare has been and for the foreseeable future will continue to be a viable way to fight.

No it always gets fucked hard unless the weaker force has a lot of help and those were periods where the military tech gap was less gaping then it is now..

What modern country doesn't have a constitution?

Gang violence and murder happens for reasons entirely separate to that of gun ownership. Gangs exist in the first place due to socioeconomic reasons that lead to their formation, not simply because there are 'guns'

This is perfectly clear to anyone who knows how to read.

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

written law does more harm than good

>ctrl+f
>whig
>0 results

What's wrong with you fags

gangs happen due to cultural reasons*

I agree. There should have been some kind of connecting clause or connecting words. This is a mess and it has nothing to do with age, there's Shakespeare more readable than this, there's KJV Bible sections more readable than this.

I've never heard of them either and I've spent tons of time on /k/. You would think one person would bring them up.

they taught conflict resolution in my elementary school, although to be honest I don't remember what it entailed and it was mostly focused at people who acted up
what's needed is teaching how to not fly off the handle, not even to the solve the problem because that's always different and people will want to use their own method, people just need to take some time to fucking calm down and think about their situation
sadly this
you can fix people, no matter their genetics or background, but you can never fix people that don't want to be fixed, and hotheads usually like being that way

>every Supreme Court for the last 200 years has been leftist
uh-huh
if that was true it would mean the US has a traditionally leftist bent to it, or at least US jurisprudence, I mean a strong leftist tradition, that's really something

>implying Congress wants guns in DC that aren't in military hands
lad

>constitutions are bad
why?

this
you can have your guns, but don't think you're going to overthrow the government
the most ordinary citizens could do is just about overthrow North and South Dakota and that's it

well then they are very stupid judges because militias exist now and existed then and at both times too were standing armies. There has never been any confusion between the two. They are distinct and serve different purposes

It is important now for the same reason it was then: it keeps the jackboots on the back foot. The need to watch out for tyrants has certainly not abated in the modern world.

they saw it as obvious and requiring no special zeal to put forth; as it stands now, considerably more zeal is required to defend it

Every culture forms gangs though. Socioeconomic is more applicable.

>tfw just want to have guns to shoot on my property and hunt
>tfw just want to have fun
>dumb liberals, europeans, and city niggers insist upon regulating my fun
fuck off. firearms are a tradition and an ingrained part of american culture at this point; if you don't like it, fuck off to canada or europe

It's not really all that hard to make sense of.

"A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the healthy start of the day, the right of the people to keep and consume fruit, shall not be infringed."

Who has the right to fruit: the well balanced breakfast, or the people?

I'd say the main criticism against the second amendment is that its main purpose wasn't realized: having militias as a core component of its national defense rather than national militaries.

Meanings of words change over time. For example "well regulated" sounds to us like it has to do with being under regulations, but at the time meant something closer to "properly equipped."

It has been repeatedly modified and updates since then, though.

prussian constitution.

yea and I spend lots of time on /k/ too but you know where I heard it? In my elementary school. Not my fault if you went to a shitty one that didn't show Eddy Eagle tapes

Non American here but why is arms in the second amendment apparently synonymous with specific guns rather than arms as a general concept of a weapon?
Why are restrictions on 'bigger' firearms, explosives, various chemical or even nuclear arms rarely a part of second amendment discussions?

how about you educate us then? this is a piece of obviously historical Americana that's not well known

nearest I can tell, it's because almost everyone is willing to draw a line somewhere and say "well, this is kind of ridiculous for a private citizen to own, let's clamp down on that"
also the strongest defense of that right these days is, well, defense, of yourself, your family, and your home, and ABC (or CBRN) weapons are not feasible for that, and neither are explosives unless you use them in traps, and setting traps for thieves is illegal in a lot of places because it's indiscriminate

The NRA actually supported most gun control legislation, until there was a coup in the late 70s.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#History

It was perfectly clear. Especially when it was written, since it came from a time when the USA literally almost had *no* Military.

Following the American Revolution, there was a great debate concerning the armed forces.

You had one side who opted for the classical citizens militia which was the staple of Free city states & Classical European republics. The logic being that for a truly free state, citizens ought to be responsible for its defense, not a standing army of professional soldiers who would be loyal to a king/general/whoever paid them.

Then you had military men who pointed out that the above was wishful fucking thinking and that professional soldiers should exist for the USA's defense. The Revolutionary War *was won by professional soldiers,* and soon the whole world would be filled with professional fighters.

Anyway they debated this shit until they compromised in points.
1) The Continental Army would be disbanded.
2) A small professional army would exist in the form of the first US Army Regiments, the US Navy and its Marine Corps.
3) A school for the training of professional officers would be established. This was Westpoint.
4) But most of the United States Military will draw its men from volunteer armies formed by individual states mustering militias.

To aid #4, the second amendment was therefore necessary. Since the USA *did fucking raise armies of people who brought their own fucking uniforms and weapons into the fight.*

That system however lasted up until the Civil War- when volunteer militias created a nightmare of ill trained men in mismatching equipment getting slaughtered in the field.

Volunteer Militias participating in the military however would last up until WWI, when USA went over to Europe and was so woefully outdated they had to spend two years or so training for a modern Western Battlefield.

>what does "well regulated" mean?
/rummages

>kikes follow rules made in 700s. 700s BC.

>Humans use tools in which the design hasn't changed in any way, shape, or form for the past 200,000 years xD

But the original sounds more like the right to bear arms is only there in order to provide for a militia. Not as an individual right per se.

The US have a highly effective and well funded military, airforce and navy so the chances of invasion are, outside science fiction novels, zero.

So what is the point of having a militia anymore? Regardless of how effective (or not) it would be, the chances of it acutally being needed to protect the country are effectively nil.

If the point is now to protect the right to own a firearm, wouldn't it be better to make another amendment about it or simply to modify the 2nd and conserve the right to bear arms while erasing any mention of militia? Because from what I gathered, the debate nowadays isn't really about a militia but gun owner rights, with the former used as a justification for the latter.

Not American here so forgive me if I sound ignorant about the subject.