Tyranny of the ATF

[Seran]

Can you show me an actual cite source that "A well regulated militia" literally means "regulating firearms"? Like I have heard so many retarded arguments against the 2nd Amendment... but I'll be honest, I don't believe I have ever read one THIS fucking retarded.

SPOILER: The Second Amendment's "well-regulated" clause historically refers to a well-trained and organized militia, not gun control for individuals. It emphasizes the importance of a citizenry capable of defending itself, rather than government regulation of firearms.

Really dude? SP already quoted the single defining case of our century pointing to the Second Amendment protecting an individuals right to bear arms. If you're going to participate, read the fucking posts you're defending by getting you nose out of his taint.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER 2008

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.

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

I don't even agree with the Supreme Court interpretation, but even I know the case law.