Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Remote-District-9255 t1_ja23w7o wrote

Your interpretation means that regular citizens can't own firearms. That's ok if you and your little army friends think that, but you know that's never how it's been done here right? Like never.


dungone t1_ja3ly0r wrote

It doesn't distinguish between the militia and the citizenry. The purpose is to secure the state. You have the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. That's your right as a "regular citizen".

This amendment has been completely perverted by traitors over time where now, people like you think it means that you, as an anti-government terrorist, dangerous lunatic, secessionist, white supremacist, serial killer, mass murder, or whatever other rogue element in society you belong to, believe that you have a constitutional right to threaten the security of the state.


Remote-District-9255 t1_ja6qr1k wrote

Are you serious? It has nothing to do with the integrity of the state. If the founders gave a shit about that we would all be eating tea and crumpets right now. The entire point of the constitution is to limit the states power over the individual. Our education system has completely failed you


dungone t1_ja6qx7j wrote

Have you ever actually read it?

> A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...

I guess you never read it.


Remote-District-9255 t1_ja6rfhq wrote

Yes of course I have. There is obviously a huge debate as to exactly what each word means in a 18th century context as well as the intent of the amendment. The point you need to deal with is why it has been implemented the way it has for the entirety of the nation's existence. Feel free to advocate for a change to the amendment or a new one, but to try and say this one means something totally different is asinine