We've all heard something along these lines many times, and especially recently:
"The Second Amendment is about the militia and does not give the general public the right to keep and bear arms."
closely followed by...
"The National Guard is the militia."

I'll get to the breakdown of the 2A and why it's not about militias later, but for now let's discuss the proper response to the above. The proper response is as follows:

Present to them the idea that they could be right about the 2A being exclusive to a "well regulated militia". The psychology behind this type of reply is complex, but in a nutshell it will automatically portray you as the most reasonable person in the debate, while simultaneously increasing the attention of the Anti's so they don't brush off your response. The execution of your next move is up to you, but here's the next point that you need to deliver:

Per US Code: Title 10 - Subtitle A - Part I - Chapter 13 - § (section) 311, the militia of the United States consists of more than just the National Guard (Source). What this means is that the militia of the United States consists of two classes: The Organized Militia (The National Guard and Naval Militia) and The Unorganized Militia (all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States). The 2A does not specify a militia class, only that it be well regulated. Also, per US Code: Title 32 - Chapter 3 - § 313, anyone under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps, can be a member of the militia. Therefore, if the 2A only applied to the militia, every able-bodied male 17-45 years old citizen of the US, and future citizens of the US, and military veterans, have the right to keep and bear arms. The only females who have that same right are those in the National Guard, a Naval Militia, or a military veteran. Hey, I thought Liberals were for gender equality!

Well that was fun. Now, let's get back to the breakdown of the 2A and why all of the above is incorrect anyway. This argument comes down to one thing: you're debating against someone who can read the 2A, yet doesn't understand it mostly due to the sentence structure. The 2A is written in a complex manner and although you've probably memorized it, the 2A is as follows:

"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."

Your next move is to present a sentence worded similarly to the 2A, but on a topic other than guns (preferably something your audience can relate to) then breakdown that sentence. The following is an example for you to use:

“A well regulated Facebook Page, being necessary to hipster culture in every state, the right of the people to keep and bear Smartphones, shall not be infringed.”

Your ultimate goal with this sentence is to answer this question: Does that sentence say that only members of a specific Facebook Page have the right to own and carry smartphones?

The sentence has three parts. The breakdown of the sentence is as follows:

“A well regulated Facebook Page, being necessary to hipster culture in each state, the right of the people to keep and bear Smartphones, shall not be infringed.”

The blue part states the following: A well regulated Facebook Page is necessary to the hipster culture of each state. NJ gets a page for hipsters, TX gets a page for hipsters, etc.
The green part states the following: The people have the right to own and carry Smartphones. Self explanatory, but emphasize "the people". It does not say "hipsters".
The orange part states the following: The terms of this sentence (regulated Facebook Pages for hipsters in each state, and people being allowed to own/carry Smartphones) shall not be broken.

So there you have it. The above sentence states that each state needs a regulated Facebook Page for their hipster culture, and that everyone, not just people belonging to the specific hipster culture Facebook Pages, have the right to own and carry Smartphones. Bring it back to the original 2A wording: every state needs a well regulated militia for their security, and that everyone, not just members belonging to the specific militia, have the right to own and carry arms. "Arms" being short for "armaments", another word for "weapons", which ranges from clubs, swords and guns, to (under debate) complicated modern intercontinental ballistic missiles, biological and cyber weapons.

Hopefully all of the above helps those who are debating the good debate

It is the whole people except for a few public officials.

George Mason

Many have always argued that the sentence structure is what is wrong with the 2A.

The example provided is pretty good to help explain to the ignorant masses.

Ridicule their premises and suppositions is more of a win than presenting facts like that.

They aren't going to read, nor comprehend all that.

Mockery is a much better tool for people who won't change their minds.  It will marginalize them.

The only thing I hate most next to Liberals in a Prius, are Hipsters in a Mini

Regulated = trained and prepared.



Militia = All able-bodied citizens.



Simple as that.

I don't waste reasoned arguments on irrational people.

Along those lines it's very necessary to point out that although words themselves may remain in common usage over the years, the meaning and context can completely change.

The best example to use with modern liberals are the words "gay" and "literally".

The whole change from "happy" to "homosexual" context for gay.

And the way "literally" now is used very often to mean "figuratively".

The 2nd Amendment is about a "well regulated militia" only to the extent that the founders understood that a militia would be necessary in this new country, they understood the dangers of having that military power just laying around, and thought that the people should retain the right to bear arms in case that military power would be used in the service of tyranny.

For goodness sakes, look at where the 2nd amendment is .... it's right there in the Bill of Rights.  Look at the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights.  Each is written to secure the rights of the people and the states against an overreaching tyrannical central government.  That is the whole raison d'etre for the Bill of Rights.  The idea that right smack in the middle of this list of rights to protect the people against the government that the founders would wedge in a right to bear arms in order to supply a well regulated militia is on it's face laughable.

The people were not to have the right to bear arms so that they could be part of a well regulated militia ..... they were to retain the right to bear arms because having a well regulated militia would be somewhat dangerous to liberty, but it could not be avoided.

Just scream at them

You're an intolerant... racist... homophobic... elitist supporter of the 1%... TRIGGER WORDS!!! TRIGGER WORDS!!! TRIGGER WORDS!!! TRIGGER WORDS!!! I no longer feel safe because of you and your intolerant, homophobic elitist racism!!!!! I DEMAND YOU LEAVE MY SAFE SPACE, NOW!!!

Then erupt into wailing, fall to the ground, kicking your feet like a. 2 year old in full meltdown.

I got into this years ago after OK City.

I wrote the governor asking for a mule and 40 acres because the militia was all men 18-45 and I had turned 45.

Any of you that know me might have recalled the convoluted letter. It was during the militias behind every tree scare and was a gentle reminder that the Militia is all of us.

I got back a refusal and a correction.

On PA the militia is ALL CITIZENS between the ages of 17.5 and 55 and that I had another 10 years to serve...unless I requested to continue service past 55. I sent them a letter of intent to continue service for the rest of my life.

Who is the Militia?

It is all of us.

2A was written long ago. People spoke different words then. Need to go into the Federalist Papers and writings
of the  signers of the Declaration to understand what they meant.

Its quite simple. " It Says What it Says and Doesn't Say What it Doesn't"

Original intent and strict construction trigger their feelings.  Better wear hearing protection in case they pull out their rape whistles in response to you introducing them to concepts like liberty and the rule of law.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is," says Thomas Jefferson, "...to protect themselves against tyranny in government."


The Bill of Rights places limits on popular desires to destroy individual rights

My family and I are my militia.
Individual
single human being, as distinguished from a group.
2.
a person:
a strange individual.
3.
a distinct, indivisible entity; a single thing, being, instance, or item.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

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.
Any questions?

or you could simply point out that theres already a section defining the powers of the branches of govt talking about arming of militas and such.

First thing I do is ask them what it is the Second Amendment is amending.  That immediately lets them understand they have no clue what they are talking about.

I then explain it, and emphasize congress has no right to arm and regulate the militia, and the only other group mentioned is we the people

So give up your guns at the age of 45; unless you're prior service, then you can keep them till you're 64? Yeah, sure. I'll get right on that.

Came here to post this. I always preface it with, "In the verbiage of the day...."

It has settled by the Supreme Court that the 2A confers a right upon the individual and not a collective group.  Are First Amendment rights limited to those of the professional media?  Are Fourth Amendment rights applicable to society as a whole or to individuals.

BTW, if the Second is repealed, they can ignore the Third.  Yay for UriNation troops in your bedroom.

Tl:dr.

Simple answer: a militia cannot exist without an armed citizenry. Historically, most militias required participants to bring their own weapons (and some ammo).

The idea that the militia precedes private gun ownership is rationally and logically insupportable.

the antis have been touting 29 all  last week
mainly these sections , as supporting the collective state controlled army angle



 

The office libtard started a rant about 2A only for militias a little while ago. He made the remark that he had never even met a member of a militia. Imagine his surprise when I explained to him that according to section 219 of the Kentucky Constitution, that he was a member of the militia of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.

He has been very careful to stay away from rants about firearms since that day when everyone in the office, mostly democrats, immediately jumped his case and started telling him how completely wrong he was. It was glorious.

Great quote.

That's what you got out of this?

Firearm owners should be better regulated.  TRAINED.  I see no problem with militias and in fact encourage it.  I do have a problem with the radical neo nazis who stole the title of militia and made it a vilified term.

What are the Anti's trying to say here (in regards to private ownership of firearms)?

Thanks.

came here to post this...

"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." not the right of the militia...

“of the people” – So who does this right belong to? “the people”. Everywhere else in the Constitution where this phrase is used, it refers to everyone – not some nebulous subset like “the militia”. So, this right already exists, and everyone already has it. Madison himself reinforces this reading in Federalist #46, where he talks about the American people as a whole being armed. He sees this as an advantage that we have against tyranny as opposed to the people in the European countries whose governments don’t trust them with weapons. It’s also helpful to remember that Federalist #46 was published in January of 1788 – almost 4 years before the 2nd amendment was ratified. Further proof that this right was not “made” by the 2nd amendment.( found it from another site)

Fucking a right I've been posting that video in a bunch of Facebook threads

Pretty much this. I've decided liberalism is a form of mental illness and anything I say isn't going to cure anyone of it. I basically ignore the conversations these days or tell them bluntly - I don't care what you think.

Just not worth the time.

Here's my answer...

Who were we fighting during the revolutionary war?   Not the British... we WERE really british citizens that happen to live in the colonies.  We were fighting to overthrow OUR OWN GOVERNMENT which hat had imposed harsh restrictions on us the most well known, as tax on tea.

The militia IS the people and the militia needs to be WELL REGULATED and trained to keep the sitting government in check through fear of revolt.

Been there, done that. They always claim the unorganized militia law is outdated and needs to be abolished, or that it otherwise doesn't matter somehow.

Proposing the 2nd A to be a right granted to the government is so stupid one struggles to find an argument.

Why in the world would any country need to espouse a right for the standing armies to "keep and bear arms"?

So the whole of the Bill of Rights protects individual liberties except the 2nd?

Yeah.... OK.

That's stupid, lazy, and the reason why we are losing.
You may not change the mind of the statist with a calm, rational argument.
But anyone sitting on the fence listening to it will come over to our side.

Basically claiming  Hamilton  said that each state should have an army and the 2nd doesn't apply to the general population

Here's  one that  keeps getting reposted







 

I hate them both, equally.

I'm all for inclusiveness and equality.

From Heller:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.


Debate on militia over. Mic drop.

As stated in the Virginia Constitution.  Smart guy, that Mason.

Yes!  You are the militia.

Back in the day...........

well regulated = practiced.  Dude, it wasn't easy to reload correctly (many steps to remember and follow) all the while standing shoulder to shoulder with bullets flying around.

militia = the people who would willingly join the "party."   Remember, the standing army isn't like it is today.

Aloha, Mark

My personal favorite:

"A well-educated populace, being necessary for the prosperity of a free state, the right of the people to own and read books shall not be infringed."

A liberal's interpretation: Only well-educated people have the right to own and read books.

Got anything a grown up could use?  



 

Love it.