And the second clause “is about” the right of the people to keep and bear arms. So crystal clear, only a Dumbocrat could be confused by it.
Well regulated militia are People too; who, may not be Infringed when it is about the security of a free State or the Union?
no, they are not. there are no natural rights expressly stated or implied in the second clause of our Second Amendment.
Explaining why they recognized THE PEOPLE'S right in no way limits or restricts that right. Sorry. Thanks for playing
Of course it's "the people". Would it be "the orangutans"? Of course it doesn't limit anything. It simply ONLY protects those rights in the context of the militia
Oh, exactly . . . if you're illiterate and have no clue how sentence structure works. Buy a grammar book, dumbass. I don't know about anyone else here, but I'm very much over going 'round and 'round with someone who flunked high school English and wants to just blankly declare over and over, "No, REALLY, all the rules of grammar are wrong! It means THIS! I don't care what every effing expert since forever has said, I think it means this, so it DOES! It DOES mean this! No, it DOES mean this!" You're ignorant, and you're always going to be ignorant, because education might force you to realize the world doesn't give a shit about what you want, and isn't going to change itself for you.
They are a subset of the people, the people whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed by Congress.