danielpalos
Diamond Member
- Jan 24, 2015
- 73,961
- 5,055
No, it doesn't. The actual words, mean something, not the punctuation. Our Second Amendment is completely legible and means the same thing, with out, "punctuation on the right wing".the punctuation changes nothing. you can remove all of it, and it means the same.yes, and only the right wing appeals to ignorance of the law, and plain reason, not to mention, legal axioms.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?
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.
- "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
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 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.
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