Started By
Message

re: The 2A Gives Individuals the Right to Weapons -This Right May Also Be Reasonably Regulated

Posted on 5/31/26 at 9:26 am to
Posted by BestBanker
Member since Nov 2011
19500 posts
Posted on 5/31/26 at 9:26 am to
Tell us what part of Chi-nuh you reside? 0600 CDT...hmm
Posted by SuperSaint
Sorting Out OT BS Since '2007'
Member since Sep 2007
150540 posts
Posted on 5/31/26 at 9:29 am to
quote:

by RFK
you’re either smart but highly autistic
Dumb but try to act smart
Or a bot


I keep going back and forth on which one
This post was edited on 5/31/26 at 9:52 am
Posted by Don Quixote
Member since May 2023
5075 posts
Posted on 5/31/26 at 9:30 am to
quote:

The 2A Gives


stopped reading at the word "gives"
Posted by imjustafatkid
Alabama
Member since Dec 2011
65946 posts
Posted on 5/31/26 at 9:42 am to
quote:

However, if we are going to take the clause as written (regardless of different grammatical norms of the day) then we have to also take “well regulated” militia at face value, as well.



We do. Only armed citizens can make up a well regulated militia, therefore citizens must be armed in case such militia becomes necessary.

ETA:

quote:

Maybe this is a moot point. If there was a need to overthrow the modern government, there’s no way personal arms can reasonably counter the modern DoD.


True. People should be allowed to own any weapons the government can.
This post was edited on 5/31/26 at 9:43 am
Posted by olgoi khorkhoi
priapism survivor
Member since May 2011
16798 posts
Posted on 5/31/26 at 9:53 am to
This fruit hangs so low as to make one think you are not serious but a much wordier El Gaucho.
Posted by oldskule
Down South
Member since Mar 2016
25413 posts
Posted on 5/31/26 at 9:54 am to
responsible, law abiding, citizens are NOT the problem.....irresponsible thugs are the problem!
Posted by Centinel
Idaho
Member since Sep 2016
46259 posts
Posted on 5/31/26 at 9:55 am to
quote:

If there was a need to overthrow the modern government, there’s no way personal arms can reasonably counter the modern DoD.


*laughs in Vietnam and Afghanistan*
Posted by Gaspergou202
Metairie, LA
Member since Jun 2016
14416 posts
Posted on 5/31/26 at 9:57 am to
quote:

If you are in the camp that believes there should be no regulations on what type of weapon or who can possess such weapons, then you are fine with a 3 year old owning a gun.


I’m perfectly fine gifting a gun to a baby before their conception!

My uncle gave me my first gun when I was 8. It is a Sears side by side double barrel 410. It is precious to me! I could fire and or clean it in my father’s presence until I was 13. Then I could clean it independently.

My father started talking me rabbit hunting when I was 7. I was able to bring and load it it next to him when 12. Then away from him at 13.

The responsibility of that firearm for that child is the responsibility of the parents as God intended, not big daddy government!

quote:

… a well regulated militia …


Merriam Webster
regulate
verb
reg·?u·?late 're-gy?-?lat also 'ra-
regulated; regulating

1 : to govern or direct according to rule
2: to bring under the control of law or constituted authority
3: to make regulations for or concerning
regulate the industries of a country
4: to bring order, method, or uniformity to; regulate one's habits
5: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of; regulate the pressure of a tire

In this case the militia was a voluntary group of people who banded together for self defense that could then join a colony’s regular militia.

The word regulated here means well equipped. In order to be useful in defense against bandits, Indians, or soldiers of a nation (French, Spanish, or British) you probably were told by the group to bring a firearm, so much powder, shot, a side arm ( pistol, sword, knife, tomahawk, etc.), food, clothing, water bottles, etc.

You privately owned these without infringements to be able to fight the Redcoats, the best army on the face of the earth, and the lawful soldiers of your government!
Posted by ChineseBandit58
Pearland, TX
Member since Aug 2005
49574 posts
Posted on 5/31/26 at 10:01 am to
quote:

As long as there are idiots like AOC and Biden, and evil like Obama, I’ll take a hard no on regulating the 2nd amendment.


amen!!!

Until we have a population that more closely resembles the founding population, we have yo be on guard every day to ward off the socialist slime who have been trying to replace the true patriots who are holding the fort against constant onslaught - many times with the assistance of rogue officials.
Posted by VOR
New Orleans
Member since Apr 2009
68913 posts
Posted on 5/31/26 at 10:03 am to
Utah, why don’t you enlighten us with your insight as to the meaning of “regulated”. I think most of us are literate…

Some of us are even knowledgeable of the contemporaneous discussions and debates among the Founders during the
drafting of the Constitution…
Posted by RFK
Mar-a-Lago
Member since May 2012
3204 posts
Posted on 5/31/26 at 10:07 am to
quote:

The funny part is they are ignoring the most important part "Shall not be infringed". What part of this says regulation?
You are actually making my point for me.

Your approach is why the right loses credibility, which is striking because it’s the same approach the left takes. You are selectively reading one clause by itself, without the context of the entire amendment.

What “shall not be infringed” is the right to a “well regulated militia” - this plainly indicates that while the people’s right to bear arms cannot be infringed, in general, the militia can be “well regulated.”

Posted by Centinel
Idaho
Member since Sep 2016
46259 posts
Posted on 5/31/26 at 10:08 am to
quote:

Some of us are even knowledgeable of the contemporaneous discussions and debates among the Founders during the
drafting of the Constitution…


Ooo. I want to play. Educate us on what the Founders' intent was concerning the 2nd Amendment during the drafting.

However, I may or may not have written my master's thesis based on readings of the entire extant library of personal correspondence between the Founders prior to and during the drafting of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself.

Of course my username should also give you a bit of a hint on how much I enjoy this very subject, so I look forward to your analysis.
Posted by LSUbest
Coastal Plain
Member since Aug 2007
16528 posts
Posted on 5/31/26 at 10:09 am to
quote:

this militia can be “well regulated.”


Refers to the regulation of the militia members by the militia leadership.

Obviously not the ability of the tyrannical government to prevent militia members from owning, possessing, loading, or firing weapons.

Shall not be infringed obviously means any restriction of the right.

They weren't prevented from owning any new technological advances ie: rifled barrels and repeating arms so similarly there should be no restrictions on the current technological advances ie full auto, smart targeting, suppressors, SBR, short barreled shotguns.
Posted by lepdagod
Baton Rouge
Member since Jan 2015
6132 posts
Posted on 5/31/26 at 10:14 am to
I agree with you… I understand the premise… either weapons should be “regulated “ or there should be absolutely no regulation on weapons ie. felons, minors etc. … I think that’s what your trying to convey
Posted by Jbird
Shoot the tires out!
Member since Oct 2012
91150 posts
Posted on 5/31/26 at 10:15 am to
VOR will ghost the frick out of you.
Posted by moneyg
Member since Jun 2006
63196 posts
Posted on 5/31/26 at 10:15 am to
quote:

a history of punctuation
Posted by Clames
Member since Oct 2010
19617 posts
Posted on 5/31/26 at 10:22 am to
quote:

This has always been the best argument for responsible (see: common sense) gun control.



It's the most continuous demonstration of poor education and willful ignorance of gun-control advocates.

"Well regulated" has never implied government regulations. "Regulated" was meant in the same context as one would have a mechanical watch regulated, maintained and adjusted for proper functioning.

Aa for the rest of your pointless, abdjectly moronic bloviation on a topic you know nothing about, you gun-control losers lost the whole individual v. collective interpration theory back in 2008 (actually in the mid-1990's but we know your education on this topic is minimal so I'll stick to the big cases you might actually know).
Posted by Clames
Member since Oct 2010
19617 posts
Posted on 5/31/26 at 10:24 am to
quote:

ome of us are even knowledgeable of the contemporaneous discussions and debates among the Founders during the
drafting of the Constitution…



No you are not, you are as uneducated as the OP here....
Posted by billjamin
Houston
Member since Jun 2019
18265 posts
Posted on 5/31/26 at 10:25 am to
quote:

It’s why you can’t buy a tank
The frick I can’t. My neighbor has one. I have a decommissioned nuclear missle silo.
Posted by VOR
New Orleans
Member since Apr 2009
68913 posts
Posted on 5/31/26 at 10:27 am to
More to the point of how we interpret the document today. Even that far left radical, Justice Scalia, explicitly stated there could and should be reasonable regulation of firearms…

As far as the Founders are concerned, it’s pretty clear they wanted individual states to be able to form armed militias
There is precious little discussion of details and limitations of “regulation” of individual ownership…
first pageprev pagePage 5 of 8Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram