Interpreting 2A

[Contrvlr 17]

Found this in the comment section of a news article, first time I've read this one ;

 

" The founders set to produce the countries founding documents. The country was full of noble earls and dukes and baronets and people that held noble titles. The titles were denied but these men of noble appointment by other countries were granted the right to bear their Arms. However, the Arms were not guns, because guns and swords were so common that it was not the issue of the day like today. Guns and swords were a natural part of these settlers life. The Arms mention in the founding documents were the noble person(Shield) or "Coat of Arms" who held an appointment in another country's or had be knighted by the king or Queen of another country. Americans just twisted it into a local right to bear a fire arm when no written law ever founded the personal possession of weapons because it was such common fixtures back then. "

 

Commenter claimed to be progun but felt that the truth must be shared

[diamondd817 828]

Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. Sometimes its hard to distinguish between the two.

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

There are so many holes in that theory its not even funny.

What would a militia need a right for noble people for?
 

[bravozulu14 0]

That quote has set the bar extremely high for the funniest thing I've read this month...

[heaterbob 53]

BULL SCAT

[illy 1]

Wait.
So this d*ckhead is saying that the 2nd could read:

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

GTFO...

[SgtToadette 59]

[Contrvlr 17]

Wait.

So this d*ckhead is saying that the 2nd could read:

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

GTFO...

Yep

Toads gif shows my reaction when I read it 

[Michael2013 56]

 

 

Exactly...

[Pizza Bob 1,488]

Poppycock and balderdash

[louu 399]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RablPaIREkk

[LorenzoS 100]

That's just fucking stupid.

[NYMetsFan86 9]

I like Ted Nugents explanation from a recent documentary Assaulted: Civil rights under fire...

 

"What does the second amendment mean?.......It's simple, keep and.BEAR ARMS!     Which means... They're Mine, you can't have em', i've got some on me right now...and they're loaded!

[njpilot 671]

Yeah, someone should tell the author of that comment that if he's interested, there's a book called "The 2nd Amendment For Dummies". Explains exactly what the Founders meant.

 

It's called the Federalist Papers and the writings of the Founders. Explains it all, very simply.

[NicePants 58]

[45Doll 5,881]

As many of you may have noticed, pollution of the meaning of words/language (in this case English) is essential to advancing the reach and scope of government, and obviating any existing law. Once words and language have no concrete meaning, the government is unleashed and can do whatever it wants with no inconvenient restraints.

 

A recent example: "If you like your health plan and your doctor, you can keep them. Period" now means "You can keep your health plan and your doctor if I decide they're adequate for you. And if not you'll buy what I specify and pay for it or be taxed or imprisoned."

 

See how easy that was?

 

Now "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is a phrase to which we can attach any convenient meaning. But the government is the only one that can make it stick.

 

'Legally'.

[KramD52 0]

Wait.

So this d*ckhead is saying that the 2nd could read:

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

GTFO...

 

Ha.  I think this clears it up beautifully. Well done!

 

If that "commenter" is really pro gun, then we are in deep shite.....but much more likely that it is just another anti spreading his propaganda.

[njpilot 671]

Ha.  I think this clears it up beautifully. Well done!

 

If that "commenter" is really pro gun, then we are in deep shite.....but much more likely that it is just another anti spreading his propaganda.

Don't forget, there's all kinds out there. People who own guns cause they're "cool" or "fun", but could care less about the 2A.

 

We have gun owners who vote Dem even though the Dems continually work to take our firearms away.

 

You have a member on this board who recently said PA gun laws are "too lenient". 

 

Just because someone likes guns doesn't mean they support the 2A or your right to own them.

[Contrvlr 17]

 

You have a member on this board who recently said PA gun laws are "too lenient"em

Maybe he meant not as obstructive as ours, oh, I read that one yep he meant too lenient

 

 

Sent from my stupid phone using my fat fingers on a little keyboard what a pita