So what IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings?

[Sun Devil 92]

"Nothing" -- and yet there's that inconvenient conditional phrase, batting leadoff ....

It is neither inconvenient nor conditional, it merely states a reason why a the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...to ensure the basis of a well-regulated (trained, disciplined, equipped) militia, which is essential to the security of a free state (unlike other states of the time where standing armies were the norm).

It's not rocket surgery, and these lame attempts to play word games with such a simple phrase doesn't make you look smart...it makes you look silly and not well educated.

The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".

Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.

Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.

You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.

You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.

I don't have to suggest anything, you can simply refer to Heller where the Court held in part:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part[emphasis added], the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Again, your silly arguments have no basis in simple English, logic, reason, or law.

We'll see when Hillary starts appointing judges. The mood of the court seems to wish to make the nation a better place nowadays. The monthly bloodbaths are not good for the nation so I expect them to do something to either remedy the problem or provide some relief to those affected by the existence of the 2nd Amendment--i.e. people getting killed needlessly. It's much easier to remedy the problem than mitigate the outcome.

When Hillary starts appointing judges. When's that gonna be, Chuckles? The week after she wins the Miss America pageant?

Hillary already appoints them in her dreams.

 

[candycorn]

It is neither inconvenient nor conditional, it merely states a reason why a the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...to ensure the basis of a well-regulated (trained, disciplined, equipped) militia, which is essential to the security of a free state (unlike other states of the time where standing armies were the norm).

It's not rocket surgery, and these lame attempts to play word games with such a simple phrase doesn't make you look smart...it makes you look silly and not well educated.

The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".

Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.

Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.

You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.

You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.

I don't have to suggest anything, you can simply refer to Heller where the Court held in part:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part[emphasis added], the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Again, your silly arguments have no basis in simple English, logic, reason, or law.

We'll see when Hillary starts appointing judges. The mood of the court seems to wish to make the nation a better place nowadays. The monthly bloodbaths are not good for the nation so I expect them to do something to either remedy the problem or provide some relief to those affected by the existence of the 2nd Amendment--i.e. people getting killed needlessly. It's much easier to remedy the problem than mitigate the outcome.

When Hillary starts appointing judges. When's that gonna be, Chuckles? The week after she wins the Miss America pageant?

Hillary already appoints them in her dreams.

Soon she will do it in reality as well. The GOP implodes more every day.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".

Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.

Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.

You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.

You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.

I don't have to suggest anything, you can simply refer to Heller where the Court held in part:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part[emphasis added], the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Again, your silly arguments have no basis in simple English, logic, reason, or law.

We'll see when Hillary starts appointing judges. The mood of the court seems to wish to make the nation a better place nowadays. The monthly bloodbaths are not good for the nation so I expect them to do something to either remedy the problem or provide some relief to those affected by the existence of the 2nd Amendment--i.e. people getting killed needlessly. It's much easier to remedy the problem than mitigate the outcome.

When Hillary starts appointing judges. When's that gonna be, Chuckles? The week after she wins the Miss America pageant?

Hillary already appoints them in her dreams.

Soon she will do it in reality as well. The GOP implodes more every day.

We know....

we know....

The far left 1 year orgasm.

Spare us.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Total cop out. Totally expected.
Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.
But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.
I own you.

You barely own the stains in your underwear.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.
Nothing.

If that were the intent, it could have been articulated as,

quote:

Amendment II:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.​

end quote

Had it been writ as such, it would follow exactly the same format as the other 26. It would have been direct, clear, concise and unambiguous

But it wasn't, and it doesn't and it isn't.

Why the departure?

The preforatory clause of the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia".

A well regulated Militia is dependendent upon the right of the people--the whole body of the individual soverigns--to keep and bear Arms, which is why the 2nd Amendment declares that the right shall not be infringed.

Ah good, the old "preforatory" lawyeristic song and dance again. Unfortunately it still fails for the same reason it always did, and the same reason I already articulated. And you articulated it too, right here:

"which is why..."

As already noted, "why" is not an element in a constitution. It need not "explain" itself. A constitution is a declaratory statement -- "here's the way it will go down"---- period. Any reasoning for including this or excluding that is done in committees before said constitution is finalized and agreed on.

Basically a constitution says, "here's what the rules are". What it does not say is "here's WHY the rules are what they are". It doesn't need to, nor is that its function, nor is it the place for the base of reasoning.

And you'll notice, which is why I also brought up the question that still stands untouched --- nowhere else does any Amendment attempt to justify or explain itself. Which is as it should be, explanation is not the function here.

Or to take your post the other way:

"the 2nd Amendment only declares that "the security of a free State" is contingent upon the existence of "a well regulated Militia"."
​

--- again, philosophies of what the "nature of a free State" is, is not the domain of a constitution. That's the realm of philosophy books.

This is the same flaw just described above -- purportedly explaining the base of reasoning for what follows. But that -- the interpretation that it's an explanation -- still does not follow. There's no reason to put it in there as such, nor does such exist anywhere else. Constitutions don't do that --- they simply declare how things will work. As every single one of the other Amendments do.


In short, this phrase is an anomaly, the intent of which cannot be explained except by those who wrote it, who are all long gone. It's a verbal train wreck, even if we continue to ignore the commas.

I'm afraid this "preforatory" tactic is a latter-day lawyerist attempt to excuse away and dismiss ("nothing to see here, move along") what is unavoidably problematic language. It's reaching for a definition that does not exist and trying to dress it up in a lawyerly-looking term. But as articulated above -- it simply doesn't work logically. It's a non sequitur. It should never have been approved as worded, because what it means cannot be determined.

No, you're actually afraid that it's NOT; that it's actually exactly what it is, ie. simple English grammar that you can't twist to make the world be what you want it to be.

As articulated above, you and your handful of wishful thinkers are the minority on this, on the wrong side of history, and even on the wrong side of the Supreme Court you slavishly worship most of the time.

 

[candycorn]

I don't have to suggest anything, you can simply refer to Heller where the Court held in part:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part[emphasis added], the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

Again, your silly arguments have no basis in simple English, logic, reason, or law.

We'll see when Hillary starts appointing judges. The mood of the court seems to wish to make the nation a better place nowadays. The monthly bloodbaths are not good for the nation so I expect them to do something to either remedy the problem or provide some relief to those affected by the existence of the 2nd Amendment--i.e. people getting killed needlessly. It's much easier to remedy the problem than mitigate the outcome.

When Hillary starts appointing judges. When's that gonna be, Chuckles? The week after she wins the Miss America pageant?

Hillary already appoints them in her dreams.

Soon she will do it in reality as well. The GOP implodes more every day.

We know....

we know....

The far left 1 year orgasm.

Spare us.

Nah.....unlike 4 years ago, I don't plan on making any bets to cast off the inferiors. All of them welched on the bet anyway so what is the point (I made the mistake of thinking conservatives would keep their word). This time around, I plan on inviting you asshats to every thread as Hillary wraps up the nomination in March and the GOP spirals into total chaos.

 

[JoeB131]

Easy for you to say.

Is that what they would say?

Any fetus that an object to being aborted gets a free "Get out of my uterus" card.

You really are a retard, aren't you?

Same response as southern Democrats gave when asked about the slaves they kept: Black people aren't people, they are property. So that makes it OK.

Nobody ever denied that slaves were in fact, "People". They were in fact counted as people for purposes of censuses. So that's sort of a lame argument.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Don't allow registered democrats to buy guns. That would stop most mass shootings.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

We'll see when Hillary starts appointing judges. The mood of the court seems to wish to make the nation a better place nowadays. The monthly bloodbaths are not good for the nation so I expect them to do something to either remedy the problem or provide some relief to those affected by the existence of the 2nd Amendment--i.e. people getting killed needlessly. It's much easier to remedy the problem than mitigate the outcome.

When Hillary starts appointing judges. When's that gonna be, Chuckles? The week after she wins the Miss America pageant?

Hillary already appoints them in her dreams.

Soon she will do it in reality as well. The GOP implodes more every day.

We know....

we know....

The far left 1 year orgasm.

Spare us.

Nah.....unlike 4 years ago, I don't plan on making any bets to cast off the inferiors. All of them welched on the bet anyway so what is the point (I made the mistake of thinking conservatives would keep their word). This time around, I plan on inviting you asshats to every thread as Hillary wraps up the nomination in March and the GOP spirals into total chaos.

Not sure why I care if the GOP spirals down into chaos.

More and more I am liking Bernies Sanders.

Hillary represents nothing but another moronic politician. Can't tell the difference between her and Donald Trump.

 

[candycorn]

When Hillary starts appointing judges. When's that gonna be, Chuckles? The week after she wins the Miss America pageant?

Hillary already appoints them in her dreams.

Soon she will do it in reality as well. The GOP implodes more every day.

We know....

we know....

The far left 1 year orgasm.

Spare us.

Nah.....unlike 4 years ago, I don't plan on making any bets to cast off the inferiors. All of them welched on the bet anyway so what is the point (I made the mistake of thinking conservatives would keep their word). This time around, I plan on inviting you asshats to every thread as Hillary wraps up the nomination in March and the GOP spirals into total chaos.

Not sure why I care if the GOP spirals down into chaos.

More and more I am liking Bernies Sanders.

Hillary represents nothing but another moronic politician. Can't tell the difference between her and Donald Trump.

If you can't tell the difference it is only because you haven't studied the candidates, their stands on the issues, their histories or (most likely) any sort of political science...ever.

 

[Rustic]

Total cop out. Totally expected.
Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.
But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.
I own you.

You barely own the stains in your underwear.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.
Nothing.

If that were the intent, it could have been articulated as,

quote:

Amendment II:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.​

end quote

Had it been writ as such, it would follow exactly the same format as the other 26. It would have been direct, clear, concise and unambiguous

But it wasn't, and it doesn't and it isn't.

Why the departure?

Clearly the Framers were interested in the Militia being well-organized (hence the text); a bunch of liquored up chairborne warriors posting on the internet probably wasn't what they had in mind.

I do like how, all of the sudden, the framers were all for people having ultimate power. Many (if not most) decried the people having too much power--hence the indirect election of the President (article II, section I). Anyway, Hillary will appoint some judges who probably will have a strong urge to turn off the blood spigot.

Where did you get from??
Sounds like Karl Marxs diary...

 

[candycorn]

Total cop out. Totally expected.
Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.
But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.
I own you.

You barely own the stains in your underwear.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.
Nothing.

If that were the intent, it could have been articulated as,

quote:

Amendment II:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.​

end quote

Had it been writ as such, it would follow exactly the same format as the other 26. It would have been direct, clear, concise and unambiguous

But it wasn't, and it doesn't and it isn't.

Why the departure?

Clearly the Framers were interested in the Militia being well-organized (hence the text); a bunch of liquored up chairborne warriors posting on the internet probably wasn't what they had in mind.

I do like how, all of the sudden, the framers were all for people having ultimate power. Many (if not most) decried the people having too much power--hence the indirect election of the President (article II, section I). Anyway, Hillary will appoint some judges who probably will have a strong urge to turn off the blood spigot.

Where did you get from??
Sounds like Karl Marxs diary...

The US Constitution. Feel free to pick up a copy some time.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Hillary already appoints them in her dreams.

Soon she will do it in reality as well. The GOP implodes more every day.

We know....

we know....

The far left 1 year orgasm.

Spare us.

Nah.....unlike 4 years ago, I don't plan on making any bets to cast off the inferiors. All of them welched on the bet anyway so what is the point (I made the mistake of thinking conservatives would keep their word). This time around, I plan on inviting you asshats to every thread as Hillary wraps up the nomination in March and the GOP spirals into total chaos.

Not sure why I care if the GOP spirals down into chaos.

More and more I am liking Bernies Sanders.

Hillary represents nothing but another moronic politician. Can't tell the difference between her and Donald Trump.

If you can't tell the difference it is only because you haven't studied the candidates, their stands on the issues, their histories or (most likely) any sort of political science...ever.

Oh, I've studied them for quite some time. They are both stuck on themsevles and think they entitled to something. I realize, of course, that your compelling need to hide your hero worship forces you to say such silly things.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Total cop out. Totally expected.
Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.
But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.
I own you.

You barely own the stains in your underwear.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.
Nothing.

If that were the intent, it could have been articulated as,

quote:

Amendment II:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.​

end quote

Had it been writ as such, it would follow exactly the same format as the other 26. It would have been direct, clear, concise and unambiguous

But it wasn't, and it doesn't and it isn't.

Why the departure?

Clearly the Framers were interested in the Militia being well-organized (hence the text); a bunch of liquored up chairborne warriors posting on the internet probably wasn't what they had in mind.

I do like how, all of the sudden, the framers were all for people having ultimate power. Many (if not most) decried the people having too much power--hence the indirect election of the President (article II, section I). Anyway, Hillary will appoint some judges who probably will have a strong urge to turn off the blood spigot.

Where did you get from??
Sounds like Karl Marxs diary...

The far left playbook of "win the courts...screw the people...and the constitution".

 

[Rustic]

Total cop out. Totally expected.
Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.
But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.
I own you.

You barely own the stains in your underwear.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.
Nothing.

If that were the intent, it could have been articulated as,

quote:

Amendment II:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.​

end quote

Had it been writ as such, it would follow exactly the same format as the other 26. It would have been direct, clear, concise and unambiguous

But it wasn't, and it doesn't and it isn't.

Why the departure?

Clearly the Framers were interested in the Militia being well-organized (hence the text); a bunch of liquored up chairborne warriors posting on the internet probably wasn't what they had in mind.

I do like how, all of the sudden, the framers were all for people having ultimate power. Many (if not most) decried the people having too much power--hence the indirect election of the President (article II, section I). Anyway, Hillary will appoint some judges who probably will have a strong urge to turn off the blood spigot.

Where did you get from??
Sounds like Karl Marxs diary...

The US Constitution. Feel free to pick up a copy some time.

It starts out "clearly the framers"??
Na, your making sh!t up...

 

[Programmer]

I think a stop and frisk program with racial profiling for white suburbanites may work.

 

[candycorn]

Soon she will do it in reality as well. The GOP implodes more every day.

We know....

we know....

The far left 1 year orgasm.

Spare us.

Nah.....unlike 4 years ago, I don't plan on making any bets to cast off the inferiors. All of them welched on the bet anyway so what is the point (I made the mistake of thinking conservatives would keep their word). This time around, I plan on inviting you asshats to every thread as Hillary wraps up the nomination in March and the GOP spirals into total chaos.

Not sure why I care if the GOP spirals down into chaos.

More and more I am liking Bernies Sanders.

Hillary represents nothing but another moronic politician. Can't tell the difference between her and Donald Trump.

If you can't tell the difference it is only because you haven't studied the candidates, their stands on the issues, their histories or (most likely) any sort of political science...ever.

Oh, I've studied them for quite some time. They are both stuck on themsevles and think they entitled to something. I realize, of course, that your compelling need to hide your hero worship forces you to say such silly things.

For Trump, you may be on to something; thus proving the blind squirrel theory. For Hillary, this will be her fourth election. For someone who supposedly thinks she is "entitled" putting your name on a ballot is a strange way to exhibit it.

 

[candycorn]

You barely own the stains in your underwear.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.
Nothing.

If that were the intent, it could have been articulated as,

quote:

Amendment II:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.​

end quote

Had it been writ as such, it would follow exactly the same format as the other 26. It would have been direct, clear, concise and unambiguous

But it wasn't, and it doesn't and it isn't.

Why the departure?

Clearly the Framers were interested in the Militia being well-organized (hence the text); a bunch of liquored up chairborne warriors posting on the internet probably wasn't what they had in mind.

I do like how, all of the sudden, the framers were all for people having ultimate power. Many (if not most) decried the people having too much power--hence the indirect election of the President (article II, section I). Anyway, Hillary will appoint some judges who probably will have a strong urge to turn off the blood spigot.

Where did you get from??
Sounds like Karl Marxs diary...

The US Constitution. Feel free to pick up a copy some time.

It starts out "clearly the framers"??
Na, your making sh!t up...

Sorry if you cannot comprehend simple English phrases.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Total cop out. Totally expected.
Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.
But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.
I own you.

You barely own the stains in your underwear.

"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.
Nothing.

If that were the intent, it could have been articulated as,

quote:

Amendment II:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.​

end quote

Had it been writ as such, it would follow exactly the same format as the other 26. It would have been direct, clear, concise and unambiguous

But it wasn't, and it doesn't and it isn't.

Why the departure?

Clearly the Framers were interested in the Militia being well-organized (hence the text); a bunch of liquored up chairborne warriors posting on the internet probably wasn't what they had in mind.

I do like how, all of the sudden, the framers were all for people having ultimate power. Many (if not most) decried the people having too much power--hence the indirect election of the President (article II, section I). Anyway, Hillary will appoint some judges who probably will have a strong urge to turn off the blood spigot.

Where did you get from??
Sounds like Karl Marxs diary...

Sounds like you're ignorant of both Marx and the Constitution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Abortion.

fetuses aren't people.

Same response as southern Democrats gave when asked about the slaves they kept: Black people aren't people, they are property. So that makes it OK.

Some things never change.

Such as the ignorance of most conservatives, this post being one of many examples.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy, as the issue of privacy rights is in no way related to slavery.

 

[Politico]

So what IS the best way to reduce or prevent mass shootings?

Proper parenting.