Please take a stand for our Constitution and Our Rights

[DS-1]

Very nice analog! very good.

[DS-1]

At least for now, you still live in a country where you are allowed your opinion, and in some places, still allowed to say it as well. Let’s hope you, and the rest of us, somehow manage to retain such rights.

[Michael854]

As if I needed yet another reason.

[Shamrock]

@DS-1

I will argue here that the simple meaning of one goal and intent expressed in the constitution is not negated by confusion over the precise meaning of a less understood provision.

It is my understanding (following the rules of English grammar and the opinions of legal scholars who are not ignoring them to try and fit their personal anti self defense agendas) that the prefatory clause in the 2A is not a provision. The rules regarding the make up and leadership of the militia are laid out in other parts of the Constitution.

The purpose of the prefatory clause in the 2A is simply to provide one of the many examples why the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The active clause clearly states that right is given to the people, not the militia or only the people capable of serving in the militia.

So while I agree with many of your points on the concepts of a well regulated militia, it is clear that they are completely irrelevant to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Though the right of the people to do so is clearly relevant to the ability of the militia to defend communities from threats.

[Joseph488]

Ya know, I was going to make a joke about banning cookie packs with more than 10 cookies, because it sounded so absurd as to be laughable, but then I realized the mayor of NYC actually does that exact kind of insanity, and people LET him!

These are strange and dangerous times, my friends!

[DS-1]

I am neither a expert on English grammar, nor am I a legal scholar. Yet it seems that we arrive at essentially the same point, (so far as the point that I wished to make is concerned)

My response was to the oft made suggestion that the inclusion of the words “well regulated” should just naturally lead someone to make a modern interpretation conclusion regarding their inclusion ahead of the word “militia”. That was the focus of my response. I find those two words are often laid out as a kind of “anvil” if you will, upon which the word “militia” is then hammered into a desired shape.

The (my) response was “in the opinion” of a layperson.

I’m grateful for any contribution to the discussion that might further explain and refine a rightful understanding, such as yours. And since any argument I make should stand or fall based upon it’s merit, and not at all upon who said it, I am happy to have it examined. Let it stand or fall on it’s merits, as it should.