The Heart of the 2nd Amendment

Sorry not context reason why. Well regulated in the terms of the day means able to make effective use of their weapons and nothing else.

 

Sorry but that well regulated militia is described in form and usage in Article 1 Section 8

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

 

STDs kill more people than guns in this country but no one wants to regulate penises and vaginas.

 

Agree that it's meaningless and outdated...but until it's repealed betamales people in this country have a right to own a gun for protection, hunting, target shooting or if they just get a hard on from looking at their 'toys'.

 

Exactly. The constitution doesn't contain any grant of power to the union to prevent the people of the several states from acquiring, keeping, or bearing any type of weapon.

Which means, 2nd amendment or no 2nd amendment, the constitution doesn't empower the union to prevent the people of the several states from acquiring, keeping, or bearing any type of weapon.

What rights the 2nd protects is moot. Regardless of the 2nd, the union has no authority to prevent the people of the several states from acquiring, keeping, or bearing any type of weapon.

 

Hence ... Fast & Furious. ::

 

Sorry talking different things.

 

I don't know anyone saying that the 2A prevents anything.

It simply doesn't apply to guns absent reference to a well regulated militia

 

It doesn't matter what you think the 2nd amendment applies to. Even if the 2nd amendment didn't exist, the constitution still contains no language giving the union any power to prevent the people of the several states from acquiring, keeping, or bearing any type of weapon.

 

My thought is that anyone obsessing over what the 2nd Amendment actually does or does not mean is wasting a colossal amount of time.

 

So a separatist group launches an illegal armed insurrection against the government and you want to limit the Army to light infantry tactics in order to put them down?

I assume you will volunteer to be on the frontlines under that ROE yes?

 

True to an extent. What you omit, however, is that the idea was for such resistance to be under the control of the STATES. The STATES were nervous about having a too-powerful federal government, and wanted the STATES to have enough firepower to resist an over-reaching central government.

I, for one, have no issue with states maintaining TRAINED militias, such as the National Guard. Heck, if a state wanted to go the Swiss route (where nearly every adult is part of the Army Reserve), they could. But that would require a state to provide regular, supervised training to everyone it declares part of the militia. And the most-destructive weaponry would be owned by the state, not individuals.

Since you omitted the part about states being the ones leading the resistance, the rest of your post falls apart.

 

#1, what an epic deflection fail.

#2, you are wrong. Penises and vaginas are heavily regulated. Just try to put your penis in the vagina of a woman who doesn't want it. Or try walking around naked in public.

Epic DOUBLE fail.

 

Source for this claim?

 

So you would be cool with privately owned nukes?

 

Damn it, we are slipping, where is my full auto selector switch

 

Natural and Individual rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

 

However, Lesh, Article 1, Section 8, articulates the Powers of Congress. It is not articulating the rights of the People. The 2A does articulate the right of the people.

 

I'm not so sure I'd take your word on if there will ever be or never be a insurrection in this country.. Then again I may have spent more time in and around the some leftist maintained ghettos that could qualify as strongholds for insurgents!

Then we have the state of California and all those insurgents claiming and threatening secession, so as a property owner in the Bay Area, I'm certain it will be ground zero when that insurgency breaks out and I will need self protection

 

No. CONGRESS has the authority to call forth the Militia, arm them, train them, assign them to their duties and 22 States plus Puerto Rico have State Defense Forces recognized by the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and supported by them. Those are proper militias although there is the unorganized militia its only properly in effect when Congress issues an authorization to call men and women to such duty likely I would say in a SHTF scenario or invasion they would do so to allow for uniformed Partisan Militia to be part of the armed forces to allow for Geneva Conventions protections. I would think the State Defense Forces would be considered preferable to the people with guns running around and getting in the way.

As for the armed rebellion if you can rise up, defeat the government and win then you can declare the win but if you lose your committing Treason and are Domestic Terrorists. But let me ask if say twenty groups rise up and you have white radical groups and black radical groups and feminist radical groups and religious radical groups and perhaps more and you tear down the government what's going to stop civil war as the one thing you united against is gone and you turn on each other? The government we have can be taken down peacefully its called VOTING if you don't VOTE then you are the problem. Set up a third party, back it and get them into local and state power and say take 30% of Congress and get your say in the system. That would be a good Revolution and no guns needed.

 

First of all, that's not all that existed at that time.

Secondly, are you telling me that the founding fathers were stupid and believed weapon technology would never advance beyond what they had????

 

The People are the Militia. You are, either well regulated and Necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.

 

What I'm cool with has nothing to do with what the constitution actually says. The constitution contains no language giving the union any power to prevent the people of the several states from acquiring, keeping, or bearing any type of weapon.

 

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

Why not petition for a local militia to better ensure the security of your area of our free State?

 

Of course this is just your ridiculous interpretation and nothing more