Leftforge Doesn't Understand the Second Amendment...

I don't think so. What he has demonstrated so far is that he didn't know the meaning of the word militia before I provided him with the definition and he didn't know what happened to the militias before I provided him with a link and an explanation. He apperantly is not capable of doing his own research so in fact I have been the one doing the schooling. The only thing he did was restate what's already been said that militias should be well regulated. In other words, well trained, well equipped, efficient, disciplined and organized. Nobody is arguing against that. Unfortunately, militias don't exist anymore. That doesn't include civilian militias though. One would think that civilian militias would well trained as well, but I'm not a part of one and have never seen one so I can't say.

You're absolutely right.

And we can add the Socratic Method to the list of things Federal Farmer doesn't understand.

So now that there's no such thing as a well-trained, well-equipped, efficient, disciplined, and organized militia at the state level (though @gturner claims there is), is the Second Amendment to be translated as "I can haz gunz because reasons"?

No, it's "I can has gunz because no reasons." That's the meaning behind Heller, as Paladin has clearly explained.

I think it's "my hobby has constitutional protections and yours doesn't. nyeaaaaphttdddpt!"

Then what you arguing?

that I'm agreeing with you?

No, because as Paladin pointed out, the part about militias is seperate from the individual right. We don't have militias true, but that's not to say that we can't have them. The individual right exists with or without the militia. It's not a question of either or,it's both. It's not a question of an individual right or a collective right, it's both. We have and individual right to bear arms as well as a collective right in the militias to defend ourselves. That defense can be from a number of things including, but not limited to our own government, should the need arise. Despite Tererun's claim, the second amendment was written as a protection against the government should it become tyrannical.

IOW, "I can haz gunz because reasons, or because no reasons, or just because," as most recently exemplified in that eminent role model Cliven Bundy.

Oh, yes, we understand that perfectly.

Individuals having guns for their own defense and, if necessary, defense of the community *IS* "the social benefit." Individual freedom is a good--the highest good IMHO--in itself.

Antigunforge seems to be suggesting that the 2nd is meaningless if it doesn't serve the state, because they can't grasp that one of its benefits is allowing a counterweight against a tyrannical state.

No, because it's a fundamental right inherent in all humans to be able to fend yourself. Or do you think Bill Cosby's rape victims should just shut up and take it? That right is further cemented by the second amendment which says in plain fucking English:

"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."

Since you are either too stupid to understand this , hence the reason I created this thread, and you've read the OP and still somehow don't get it or you are being purposefully obtuse or willfully ignorant, there's really no reason to continue playing this game that you insist on playing in every single thread. I suspect you are just being purposely obtuse. No matter what the circumstance, you and your statist boyfriend will never, ever get it, so it's a waste of time trying to explain it to you. To me it's easy to understand because I've actually done the research, but you don't care to and I'm not going to do it for you. You are a lost cause. Even if I did do the research it wouldn't matter because you'd rather fling poop and watch shadows on the wall instead of coming out of your cave and bask in the sun light. Yes gul, I do know who Socrates is and I'm familiar with the Socratic method, so shove your pretentiousness up your ass.

Oh no you don't. You're the one who said that he wasn't interested in the first half of the amendment, nor in any other consequence from the second half than your specific interest in owning guns. You're the one trampling all over your constitution here, not us.

How is owning a gun trampling over the Constitution, especially since all the Founding Fathers owned guns, as did almost everyone they knew?

I'm fine with their own defense. I do not trust them to defend me, however, so not fine with that part.

Proven to be ineffective, so who is it that doesn't grasp that part?

If it was ineffective, how come we don't have to bow to Queen Elizabeth?

In modern times, it is ineffective.

So smooth bore muzzle-loading muskets are effective, but semi-automatic rifles are not. Hrm....

A military grade weapon in 1792 took three minutes to load, you mongoloid. Obviously there have been some advances in fire power in the past two centuries that I'm sure the Founding Fathers would have taken into consideration if any of them had the gift of prophecy.

These days though the disgruntled people don't have tanks, aircraft, etc.etc. to fight a tyrannical government. Back in the day the military had pretty much the same weapons that the citizens had. Sure they can cannons but the guns were the same. That said that's no reason to toss the 2nd Amendment aside - other than keeping the government in check (dubious today) self defense against similarly armed criminals and hunting are two very good reasons to keep the 2nd Amendment. Ban guns and it will drive up the price so the only people willing to go thru the hassle of owning them will be criminals and rich old white men. Basically the same thing to liberals, but either way the US would not be the gun-free utopia they envision.

Well, I promise I won't use my guns to defend you.

Huh? Armed civilian resistance has been shown to be VERY effective, even against the best the U.S. Army has to offer. It's where civilians are unarmed they get massacred.

The same people that are arguing guns can't be effective against the US government are the same ones who argued that the US couldn't possibly win in Iraq because the Iraqis had guns.

The muzzle-loading rifle was the M16 of its day.

If the whole purpose is to enable civilians to defend against tyranny, then OF COURSE the weapons owned by civilians must be effective in a military sense. A muzzle-loading rifle is not.

Tell that to the Iraqi insurgency or the Taliban.

I've never heard the latter sentiment expressed by anyone.

I *never* said that. I said that it has no bearing on the individual right. I even provided the Supreme Court ruling that explicitly says so.

You're the ones trying to make one of the Bill of Rights not be about, y'know, rights.

No one's disputing that. Some of us just take issue with the fact that some of you believe the ONLY way to do that is to be the guy on the block with the Most Toys.

Add to that the fact that you in particular have a hair-trigger (yes, that's intentional) temper, and you and oldfella just keep figuratively shooting yourselves in the foot.

Actually, I'm wrong there.

It *does* have a bearing on the individual right, but probably not in a way you'll like.

The connection with the militia strongly implies that the weapons protected by the 2nd are exactly the kind of weapons that would be useful to a militia. That goes back to United States v. Miller (1939), where a federal prohibition on a weapon was upheld because it was not normally used by a militia.

So when y'all are willing to take some time off from yawping on WF to train so you can pass a physical, wear a uniform, and devote x-hours per month to actual service, get back to us.

Until then, you're just yawping. And you're an insult to anyone who is willing to do those things.

so, it's just that militias are no longer useful?