1. It's an individual right.
2. Militia, in this case, is a class of weapon. So, basically, infantry arms.
The highest court in the land did it for me.
It was meant to protect liberty via the common man
Show me where the highest court in the land specifically said this
The court ruled we the people have the right to bear arms, they didn't rule anything out, they didn't say "just for hunting" it is all inclusive.
is just hyperbolic BS.it was meant to protect liberty via the common man.
Militia are part-time soldiers who also have jobs in civilian lives. There is more to it than that, but it's a good basic definition.Militia and infantry are not the same thing. A militia is a group of citizens that ideally have some training. Infantry refers to professional soldiers. Wouldn't those be separate classes of weapons?
Right, but I thought the common argument was that all able bodied citizens between 17 to 45 are considered part of the militia? If that's the case I would think describing that entire subset of people as part-time soldiers is pretty wild. I'm speaking about a militia in present day terms. It gets more confusing to me because we also have distinct groups that claim to be militias like the Oath Keepers. I realize a lot of them are vets, but I'd think it would be impossible to join if you are currently in the military. So is a militia, by today's standards, still really comparable to the military?Militia are part-time soldiers who also have jobs in civilian lives. There is more to it than that, but it's a good basic definition.
Infantry are foot soldiers, as opposed to cavalry (mounted) and artillery (cannon).
Militiamen who are foot soldiers have the right to have weapons that are appropriate for foot soldiers. This includes machine guns (real ones, not bump stocks), grenades and grenade launchers, anti-tank bazookas, and Stinger missiles.
Another key aspect of militias is that they take their weapons home with them instead of leaving them under government control.
The militiamen who would have standing to press a claim for heavy weapons like Stinger missiles would have to be organized by state governments into an actual fighting force according to the rules that the Constitution lays out for the militia.Right, but I thought the common argument was that all able bodied citizens between 17 to 45 are considered part of the militia? If that's the case I would think describing that entire subset of people as part-time soldiers is pretty wild. I'm speaking about a militia in present day terms.
The militia movement was the result of a misguided effort by the gun banners to claim that people only had gun rights if they were part of an organized militia.It gets more confusing to me because we also have distinct groups that claim to be militias like the Oath Keepers.
It would be distinct from the standing army. But militiamen would have the right to have heavy military weapons.So is a militia, by today's standards, still really comparable to the military?
Illusions aren't real, you know that right?
Scientific concepts, while not physical, are certainly real. Not illusions.
Billions of animals killed by humans and other animals over time prove that natural rights exists.Natural rights are a figment of the human imagination and you have no way of proving otherwise.
Okay, you tell ME if we've officially lost our minds.
View attachment 67229365
Church Holds 'Blessing' Ceremony Featuring AR-15s
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/nat...sing-Ceremony-Featuring-AR-15s-475432943.html
Okay, you tell ME if we've officially lost our minds.
View attachment 67229365
Church Holds 'Blessing' Ceremony Featuring AR-15s
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/nat...sing-Ceremony-Featuring-AR-15s-475432943.html
The first amendment was written to protect dissent. The second amendment was written to establish militias and armed citizens. Gun control has a very long history in this country, so I would suggest that you read some our history and gain a responsible perspective on it.
Militia and infantry are not the same thing. A militia is a group of citizens that ideally have some training. Infantry refers to professional soldiers. Wouldn't those be separate classes of weapons?
“On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
― Thomas Jefferson
Yes, you want to read, but don't provide sources. You don't even make an argument here, except to repeat what we all already know.
Billions of animals killed by humans and other animals over time prove that natural rights exists.
Stating otherwise, simply means you do not understand the definition.
The more refined definition of the natural rights of man as defined by John Locke, is only a little different.
Read more history!
is really an ignorant statement.Billions of animals killed by humans and other animals over time prove that natural rights exists.
This is for all those who wish to weasel word their way to a specific interpretation not intended by the founders.
That's the legal definition of the militia. Frankly I'm not sure I believe in the unorganized militia.Right, but that is why the second amendment is argued about so much. It isn't clear what a well regulated militia is referring to. I understand that the common argument is that all citizens of a certain age are considered part of the militia. Those citizens belong to the "unorganized militia" which is why it confuses me so much. Is the unorganized militia automatically considered well regulated or what?
And from where did Locke derive his inspiration for said writing on "Natural Rights"?
The only way a natural right exists is if there are two people who agree to them.
And this - is really an ignorant statement.
Animals posses natural rights, which are loosely based on their place on the food chain.Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government,
and so are universal and inalienable
You completely misunderstand what natural rights are, perhaps Wiki, can help you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights
Animals posses natural rights, which are loosely based on their place on the food chain.
Also two people do not have to agree on what natural rights are.
The natural rights of man is an enhancement of pure natural rights,
in as much as we form governments for the purpose of protecting those rights we value most.
The US constitution enumerated them in our Bill of rights.
This is for all those who wish to weasel word their way to a specific interpretation not intended by the founders.
The only way a natural right exists is if there are two people who agree to them.
Incorrect. The only way a right exists is if two people agree. The only way a natural right exists is if everyone (equal before the law and sane) agrees. Life, expression and self defense we all agree on, they're socially natural.
Prove what you just asserted.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?