Thread 515066409

>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
Why do Americans always talk about this part of the 2nd:
>the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
But not this part
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
Where are the "well regulated militias" in the US? Shouldn't the 2nd also protect people who wish to organize into "well regulated militias" as well as the right to bear arms? If the founders put down into text that a "free State" can only exist if there is a "well regulated Militia", then there should be no debate as to the legality of creating said "well regulated Militia", otherwise by the text written in the Constitution itself, the United States is no longer a "free State". And no, a professional military is not by any definition (neither today nor in the 18th century) considered a militia.

because americans dont want to do the work required to maintain a militia. they focus on the "we get to have guns" part because guns are toys to americans, not actual tools to protect them from a tyrannical state.
the modern US is a company with employees, not a nation with citizens.

regulate
/rĕg′yə-lāt″/

transitive verb
To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
To adjust to a particular specification or requirement.
"regulate temperature."
To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.

I don't see in thing in this word that implies I can't own as many guns as I want and team up with my neighbor should it become necessary based on just principle alone or for a one off event

Reminder to Americans to put sage in the options field and never waste time talking to non Americans about our news, politics or rights

>>515066409 (OP)
>Where are the "well regulated militias" in the US?
The FBI has a history of infiltrating them to destroy them from within because the feds fucking despise the notion of rights.