You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
9

[–] lemon11 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

The point was to reinforce that the purpose wasn't for irrelevant stuff like sport and hunting. People don't read the founding fathers' works or words. They don't read the Constitution itself. They don't need to. They have no use for it. They make the argument for hunting and against self-defense even today.

No words would have prevented this. Only blood.

0
3

[–] Awful-Falafel 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago 

We are all the militia, just like we are all considered the "press." You don't need a permit for free speech.

0
3

[–] NoisyCricket 0 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago  (edited ago)

This is one of the most fundamental elements of the US Constitution. It was specifically written such that a child could understand it. It was written such that any educated laymen would inherently understand the language. They in fact did achieve exactly this. Unsurprisingly, it's lawyers with legalease who have sought to undermine and destroy which is inherently obvious to even children.

The most confusing part of the Second Amendment is the "regulate" portion. Simply because of evolution of the language. Which simply means to be well trained in the use and maintenance of your arms. Which is the requirement clause to participate as militia. Which makes sense, as they don't want a Nancy, who doesn't understand their ARMS, to become a detriment to the militia. That, however, does not prevent ownership, but rather participation as militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason