Show us where it says you can use a comma to appeal to ignorance of any terms.Thanks for posting the full Amendment.Well regulated militia is declared Necessary not optional to the security of a free State. It really is that simple.And whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed? That's right, the people, NOT the militia, the people.This is a sovereign right of a State not individuals:That is the whole Point, right winger. The People are the Militia not Individuals. There is no such Thing as well regulated militia of Individuals under our Constitutional form of Government.Yes, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; the unorganized militia as Individuals of the People do not.Our federal Constitution is express not implied in any way. If you have to imply, you are already on the slippery slope to fallacy.Yes, they are. See how easy that is without any valid arguments, right wingers. Too lazy while being hypocrites about hard work?Why is that? There are no Individual terms in our Second Article of Amendment. All terms are collective and plural.Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State not individual liberty or natural rights. States have a right to organize their own militias.All this hair splitting over the prefatory clause, and outright IGNORING the operative clause is further proof that the gun grabbers are not acting in good faith.
The prefatory clause announces a purpose. Not the sole purpose, but the important government purpose. (Militia)
The operative clause holds the legal effect intended. (right of the people...shall not be infringed)
What does the 2nd Amendment actually do?
Establish a militia?
of
Protect the right of the people?
The US Supreme Court has consistently ruled it an individual right.
No, they are not.
Sure, it is easy to spout inaccurate information. You do it quit often.
But the 1st Amendment does no protect a collective right to free speech. Nor does it protect a collective right to free exercise of religion. Nor does it protect a collective right to petition the gov't for redress.
The 4th Amendment does not protect a collective from unreasonable search and seizure.
The 6th Amendment does not protect a collective right to a speedy trial.
Daniel, you are welcome to disagree. That just means you are wrong. Every constitutional scholar worth his salt, and the US Supreme Court has always ruled that the Bill of Rights is about individual rights.
Yes, it expressly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. (Illinois State Constitution)
And the militia is gathered, when needed, from the population. As I have said, you are welcome to disagree with constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court. But your opinion carries very little weight.
Yes, there is. A militia, especially in the time our constitution was written, was individuals who would answer a call to arms. Not a call to collect their gov't firearms. But a call to bring their own firearms.
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.
Note that it points out the reason it exists "A Well Regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
I posted instructions for danielpalos to learn about commas, I mistakenly presumed that you would learn from it too. Apparently, neither of you could learn from that one, how about this one?
Are you really so ignorant about punctuation in the English language or are you pretending to be ignorant? How can we tell?
Wow, you really did skip English grammar and punctuation. Even more amusing is that you seem to relish boasting about your ignorance. Well, whatever floats your boat!