…to keep and bear arms in a state militia…

in_a_state_militia.jpg (100 KB)


  • Leave A Comment

    Notify of
    Inline Feedbacks
    View all comments

    You’re bullshit.


    Well played, sir.


    Me thinks we observe slappycuffs between men of lavender.






    I second the bullshit. If that is real who in the hell is teaching that crap.


    Advanced Placement = people who go on to higher education, degrees, law school, etc.

    Make of that what you will.


    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.


    The coon beat you to it.

    Again. 😀

    nobody k­nows

    But I’M the coon.


    uhh no. Correcting for a more modern and easily understood sentence structure, it basically says this:

    A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. A well regulated militia is the right of the people whereby they can keep and bear arms. A well regulated militia shall not be infringed.

    See, it’s all in the full stop vs comma. Full stops indicate separate thoughts and ideas. Commas indicate additional information. If the second amendment meant what people seems to think it means, then it would be two separate sentences:
    “A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.” FULL STOP, then “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
    But there is no full stop. This is one single sentence, with one single thought, but with two concurrent asides both describing what a militia is. Let me highlight them in brackets for you, one at a time:

    “A well regulated militia (being necessary to the security of a free state) shall not be infringed.”
    “A well regulated militia (the right of the people to keep and bear arms) shall not be infringed.”

    The second amendment made the mistake of putting them both together, causing confusion. But lets see what you think of it written this way:

    “A well regulated militia (the right of the people to keep and bear arms), being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.”

    Does that make a little more sense now? Still not convinced? Still believe that a militia and “the people” are entirely different things and so one can’t be used to describe another? Then let’s look at the definition of militia:
    “A militia /m??l???/[1] generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular, full-time soldiers.”

    Here we can see that a militia is, by definition, citizens or subjects (that is, “the people”) who are NOT formal or professional fighters (that is, not military).
    So basically, a militia can ONLY be formed by “the people”. If it is not formed from “the people”, then it is not a militia; it is a professional fighting force, aka military.

    The second amendment is both recognition of the peoples right to rebel against regulations (and hence, bear arms to do so), but not to terrorize or go to war with their neighbor (hence being well regulated, including specifically WHAT arms are at their disposal).

    The second amendment ensures you can and always will have the right to bear arms. It does not ensure that you keep an AK-47 in an average suburban home.


    I disagree.

    Keep in mind that English grammar in earlier times was more “Germanic”. Reverse the clauses and it should make a little more sense.

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed; A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.

    Or paraphrased: The people are guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms because they may need to form a militia.

    So… feel free to own an AK-47. One day you may need it in your militia.



    so where does the “well regulated” part come in?


    Its just a descriptor for the militia. The “militia” part is a supporting clause. In the main clause (freedom to keep and bear arms) “well regulated” has no direct effect.

    I have done a lot of technical writing and translation. This would be my “most likely” interpretation.

    As much as I like and appreciate the writers of the constitution… they kind of dropped the ball on this one.




    Maybe. You interested?


    interested in putting your penis into my butthole or the other way around and suffering through the pain, blood and shit you call a sex life?

    nah I’m good
    I’m good without all that you proud noble faggert


    Help me out here, Bubba.

    Are you anti-homosexual or anti-grammar and punctuation?


    It’s sad that this armed militia of the people has not helped against making USA a less free state.

    Oh well, at least having guns must be a fun hobby.


    The ATF doth disarm it’s citizens since Waco.


    It’s sad that wee little brainwashed people like you are too stupid to even wonder about qualifying their logic with facts let alone accepting they’re wrong.


    If you’re too lazy to log in, then surely you’ll forgive me for being too lazy to answer you with anything more than snark.


    I doth hear rage and vitriol, yet find a rebuttal absent.


    If you’re going to speak ye olde English you need to learn more words than “doth”.


    Still not hearing a forthcoming rebuttal.


    Hear ye, hear ye!: Guantanamo Bay, Patriot Act, oh, and Obamacare.


    All post ATF. Try again.


    Ooooooooooo, tis yet another click drive! I shall do my part, yea verily.


    The militia in question was for hunting down escaped slaves during wartime. Just sayin’.

    Mark Antony

    It’s one thing to think highly of those who came before you, to pay your respects to heroes of old, to give thanks to the fathers of the nation, and to honor trailblazers no matter their field of endeavor. We collectively feel a sense that we would not be here if it were not for them. And we recognize the wisdom that laid a strong foundation.

    Many of those historical figures were brilliant. Geniuses, even. That’s why they are remembered. But what fucktard thinks that someone who died 200+ years ago is qualified to make specific decisions on public policy in today’s world? Plenty apparently.

    This is not to say that all of what was said, written and done yesterday isn’t important. But you MUST to take into account what happened after that. We just don’t live in the same world anymore, and there’s a wee bit of a difference between being a visionary and a fucking time traveler.

    I’m always amazed at how the fucktards, while screaming originalist 2nd amendment drivel at the top of their lungs, are never heard to insist that we should stick to Newton alone and forget about Planck, Bohr or Einstein.

    Neither are they known to claim that the teachings of Adam Smith should firmly supplant those of John Hicks or Kenneth Arrow.

    Can’t say I’ve ever heard one of the fucktards lobby to have military academies stick to Napoleonic warfare, while dismiss areal projection/strategy as “dangerous, modern nonsense.”

    Funny, that.

    Sir Phillip semen

    depends on wich book your reading… I read that same phease once and had “Bear” arms replace my own, haven’t wiped my ass in years

  • here's some related content from the store: