Another retard who doesn’t bother to find out what “well regulated” meant in the 18th century.
“Another retard who doesn’t bother to find out what “well regulated” meant in the 18th century.”
Exactly. His total ignorance is showing
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary. …Now Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 (the so-called Militia Clause) gives Congress (not the President, as the 1792 Militia Act did) the power “to provide for the calling forth of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions”—opposed by the Anti-Federalists due to the threats to states’ rights. But that is independent of the injunction to never infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms, of course.
>>Another retard who doesn’t bother to find out what “well regulated” meant in the 18th century.
He should write a new book called “Killing The Second Amendment” so Martin Dugard can find out what it means and tell BOR so he can take credit for the book and “take care of the folks”.
Well regulated meant something different in the 1700-1800’s, not what democrats want to regulate in 21st century. Well regulated in 1700-1800’s meant in good working order, or working as intended.