Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

[danielpalos]

Judicial activism does what You are implying; faithful execution of the Wisdom of our Founding Fathers, does not.

Very Funny!
It's based on our history of individualism, which was what our Founders believed.
Judicial activism is what the progressives do.


I was talking about basic political ideology, not the courts.
Collective ideology is larger government.
Individualism ideology is less government.

so what. how is that relevant to a discussion regarding our Second Amendment?

Because the Supreme Court ruled that guns, are individual rights. Like every single one of the amendments are for ,each and every single American individually.
Not collective rights.

Not true. We have our Second and Tenth Amendments. The federalist position is that, States' rights, are included.

The 10th amendment does not effect the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is an individual right.

Only judicial activism claims our Second Article of Amendment, is an Individual right. The federalist position is, it is an expressly declared, civil right.

 

[WinterBorn]

Very Funny!
It's based on our history of individualism, which was what our Founders believed.
Judicial activism is what the progressives do.


I was talking about basic political ideology, not the courts.
Collective ideology is larger government.
Individualism ideology is less government.

so what. how is that relevant to a discussion regarding our Second Amendment?

Because the Supreme Court ruled that guns, are individual rights. Like every single one of the amendments are for ,each and every single American individually.
Not collective rights.

Not true. We have our Second and Tenth Amendments. The federalist position is that, States' rights, are included.

The 10th amendment does not effect the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is an individual right.

Only judicial activism claims our Second Article of Amendment, is an Individual right. The federalist position is, it is an expressly declared, civil right.

No, the Bill of Rights was specifically written to guarantee individual rights. It was not to guarantee rights to states or groups.

 

[MaryL]

The second amendment was written before machine guns and well before the industrial revolution. How stupid do you think our forefathers where?

 

[WinterBorn]

The second amendment was written before machine guns and well before the industrial revolution. How stupid do you think our forefathers where?

When the 2nd amendment was written, the citizen soldier had the same weapons that the best armed infantry in the world carried.

 

[MaryL]

The second amendment was written before machine guns and well before the industrial revolution. How stupid do you think our forefathers where?

When the 2nd amendment was written, the citizen soldier had the same weapons that the best armed infantry in the world carried.

The second amendment was written before the industrial revolution or machine guns. Before mass shootings, in an age of our better mercy. Did Thomas Jefferson envision kids shooting each other in schools?

 

[danielpalos]

so what. how is that relevant to a discussion regarding our Second Amendment?

Because the Supreme Court ruled that guns, are individual rights. Like every single one of the amendments are for ,each and every single American individually.
Not collective rights.

Not true. We have our Second and Tenth Amendments. The federalist position is that, States' rights, are included.

The 10th amendment does not effect the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is an individual right.

Only judicial activism claims our Second Article of Amendment, is an Individual right. The federalist position is, it is an expressly declared, civil right.

No, the Bill of Rights was specifically written to guarantee individual rights. It was not to guarantee rights to states or groups.

Where does it say that in our Constitution?

 

[WinterBorn]

Because the Supreme Court ruled that guns, are individual rights. Like every single one of the amendments are for ,each and every single American individually.
Not collective rights.

Not true. We have our Second and Tenth Amendments. The federalist position is that, States' rights, are included.

The 10th amendment does not effect the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is an individual right.

Only judicial activism claims our Second Article of Amendment, is an Individual right. The federalist position is, it is an expressly declared, civil right.

No, the Bill of Rights was specifically written to guarantee individual rights. It was not to guarantee rights to states or groups.

Where does it say that in our Constitution?

It says that in the writings of the men who wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.

 

[danielpalos]

Not true. We have our Second and Tenth Amendments. The federalist position is that, States' rights, are included.

The 10th amendment does not effect the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment is an individual right.

Only judicial activism claims our Second Article of Amendment, is an Individual right. The federalist position is, it is an expressly declared, civil right.

No, the Bill of Rights was specifically written to guarantee individual rights. It was not to guarantee rights to states or groups.

Where does it say that in our Constitution?

It says that in the writings of the men who wrote the amendments that make up the Bill of Rights.

Our federal Constitution is express, not implied. Text is key.

 

[Flopper]

The second amendment was written before machine guns and well before the industrial revolution. How stupid do you think our forefathers where?

When the 2nd amendment was written, the citizen soldier had the same weapons that the best armed infantry in the world carried.

The second amendment was written before the industrial revolution or machine guns. Before mass shootings, in an age of our better mercy. Did Thomas Jefferson envision kids shooting each other in schools?

If you're saying the US Constitution was a product of the times, you're absolutely correct. Whether we like it not, a constitution is either a living or dead document.

People treat the Constitution as if it’s some all-knowing mystical force, beamed to us from outer space by some omniscient entity. Is it reasonable to think that when the founders wrote the Constitution, they had foresight into gay marriage and iPods and 9/11 and self driving cars and lunatics shooting people in shopping malls and schools? What would Benjamin Franklin have to say about the absurdity that Alaska, with less than a million inhabitants, has the same Senate power as California, a state with over 38 million people? The most of the basic ideas the founders had were good, they just need to be re-framed in the context of 21st century.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are expressly declared Necessary to the security of a free State, not the federal government or the People.

The stupidity here is unbelievable.

What is the militia?

yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.

Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.

Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.

the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.

The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.

The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.

It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.

A really bad placement.

The founding fathers were not dumb.

that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.

 

[WinterBorn]

The stupidity here is unbelievable.

What is the militia?

yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.

Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.

Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.

the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.

The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.

The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.

It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.

A really bad placement.

The founding fathers were not dumb.

that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.

Punctuation means everything.

"Hey, let's eat, Dad!" "Hey, let's eat Dad!"
Are you claiming those two sentences mean the same thing?

And calling something a collective right while refusing to explain why speaks volumes where your argument is concerned.

 

[danielpalos]

yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.

Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.

Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.

the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.

The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.

The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.

It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.

A really bad placement.

The founding fathers were not dumb.

that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.

Punctuation means everything.

"Hey, let's eat, Dad!" "Hey, let's eat Dad!"
Are you claiming those two sentences mean the same thing?

And calling something a collective right while refusing to explain why speaks volumes where your argument is concerned.

special pleading much? now, try it with our Second Amendment. story telling, right wingers.

 

[Flopper]

The stupidity here is unbelievable.

What is the militia?

yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.

Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.

Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.

the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.

The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.

The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.

It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.

A really bad placement.

The founding fathers were not dumb.

that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.

Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.

The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..

However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".

One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.

Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun. 38% said it was hunting. Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection. There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.

Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay. Most muskets were passed down from father to son and were not well maintained. In fact, a survey at the time done by a North Carolina militia found that over half were inoperable. They also had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.

 

[WinterBorn]

Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.

the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.

The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.

The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.

It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.

A really bad placement.

The founding fathers were not dumb.

that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.

Punctuation means everything.

"Hey, let's eat, Dad!" "Hey, let's eat Dad!"
Are you claiming those two sentences mean the same thing?

And calling something a collective right while refusing to explain why speaks volumes where your argument is concerned.

special pleading much? now, try it with our Second Amendment. story telling, right wingers.

Just calling something a logical fallacy does not make it one. My example on punctuation is accurate. And you never have explained your reasoning for insisting the 2nd is a collective right. Which is not surprising, since every constitutional scholar has argued it is an individual right. Even the ones that don't like it agree that it is an individual right.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.

Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.

Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.

the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.

The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.

The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.

It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.

A really bad placement.

The founding fathers were not dumb.

that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.

Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.

The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..

However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".

One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.

Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun. 38% said it was hunting. Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection. There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.

Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay. They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.

"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."

Source?

 

[danielpalos]

yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

Only well regulated militia of the whole People, a few public officials excepted, are declared Necessary, the unorganized militia is not declared Necessary and may be Infringed by well regulated militia, when Necessary for the security of a free State.

Our supreme law of the land is about the resolution of any conflict of laws, not the whole and entire concept of natural or individual rights.

Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.

the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.

The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.

The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.

It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.

A really bad placement.

The founding fathers were not dumb.

that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.

Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.

The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..

However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".

One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.

Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun. 38% said it was hunting. Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection. There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.

Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay. They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.

Judicial activism?

Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.

Not in the Case of our Second Article of Amendment. It means the Same Thing, regardless.

Only judicial forms of activism appeals to ignorance of the term, militia.

 

[danielpalos]

the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.

The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.

The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.

It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.

A really bad placement.

The founding fathers were not dumb.

that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.

Punctuation means everything.

"Hey, let's eat, Dad!" "Hey, let's eat Dad!"
Are you claiming those two sentences mean the same thing?

And calling something a collective right while refusing to explain why speaks volumes where your argument is concerned.

special pleading much? now, try it with our Second Amendment. story telling, right wingers.

Just calling something a logical fallacy does not make it one. My example on punctuation is accurate. And you never have explained your reasoning for insisting the 2nd is a collective right. Which is not surprising, since every constitutional scholar has argued it is an individual right. Even the ones that don't like it agree that it is an individual right.

just another story, right wingers. all political talk and no political action.

put it in writing, right wingers, like the left is willing to do.

 

[MaryL]

Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.

the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.

The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.

The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.

It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.

A really bad placement.

The founding fathers were not dumb.

that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.

Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.

The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..

However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".

One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.

Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun. 38% said it was hunting. Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection. There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.

Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay. They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.

"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."

Source?

Coincidentally, there were no mass school shootings in the 1700's, No assault rifles, either. Thus proving what an anachronism the 2nd amendment has become.

 

[jon_berzerk]

the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.

The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.

The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.

It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.

A really bad placement.

The founding fathers were not dumb.

that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.

Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.

The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..

However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".

One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.

Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun. 38% said it was hunting. Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection. There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.

Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay. They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.

"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."

Source?

Coincidentally, there were no mass school shootings in the 1700's, No assault rifles, either. Thus proving what an anachronism the 2nd amendment has become.

i post this to simply demonstrate your stupidity once again

--LOL

1700s
The earliest known United States shooting to happen on school property was the Pontiac's Rebellion school massacre on July 26, 1764, where four Lenape American Indian entered the schoolhouse near present-day Greencastle, Pennsylvania, shot and killed schoolmaster Enoch Brown, and killed nine or ten children (reports vary). Only two children survived.

 

[Flopper]

Then the 2nd would have ended at the second comma, since it didn’t, it is expressing a right granted beyond the militia.

the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.

The punctuation means everything. It’s why the 2nd is in The Bill of Rights. Using your logic, the article would not be within the 1st 10 articles at all.

The 1st 10 outline individual rights, and the 2nd would be so out of place as to be laughable.

It would be like adding The History of the Ford Mustang within the Old Testament.

A really bad placement.

The founding fathers were not dumb.

that is Your story bro; the punctuation changes No Thing about Second Article of Amendment. Text is Every Thing.

Punctuation is important in any legal document because it changes the meaning in one way or another.

The courts have ruled that in the 2nd amendment the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' The bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,..

However, it is has also been successfully argued in court that the use of commas was far less restrictive in 18th century; that is writers liberally used commas between most all clauses thus the primary two clauses were a conditions for the operative clause, "shall not be infringed...".

One can argue this point either way but the fact is the 2nd amendment was a compromise between states who favored a strong standing army and states who simple wanted local militias. So just as today, the two sides could read the amendment as favoring their belief.

Today 60% of gun owners state that protection is the reason they purchased a gun. 38% said it was hunting. Those were certainly not the reasons the founders put the 2nd amendment in the Constitution. Guns in those days were muskets without a rear sight that were certainly not very useful for hunting or protection. There only really practical use was in being fired in volleys as in militias.

Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay. They had no rear sights making them very inaccurate and loading time for most people was 30 seconds to a minute. Thus, a good knife or axe was much better self protection at a fraction of the cost of a musket.

"Unlike today, the approval of the 2nd amendment was not a news worthy event because most people had little interest in owning guns. Only 1 in every 5 households owned a musket and few people had any interest in buying one since the cost was 2 weeks to a months pay."

Source?

To best of my recollection, it's all here.
ARMING AMERICA
The Origins of a National Gun Culture.
By Michael A. Bellesiles.