True Interpretation of the 2nd Amendment

[WinterBorn]

Once again, of course all of them are plural. There were 2.5 million people in the country then. Not all fell under these rights at the time. But it was certainly not a situation for a singular word.

we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.

YOu are quibbling. I am stating a fact that the word "people" would have to be plural since it refers to the population of citizens. The whole "it is a collective right" does not bear up if you know the history of the Bill of Right. There is also not one iota of proof that it was ever intended to be a collective right. The rest of the amendments that use the same word certainly are not collective rights.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about terminology, either.

all i need is a dictionary; not right wing, fallacy induced fantasy.

And your dictionary shows that the word "people" is plural. Your imagination shows the word "people" to mean collective.

collective requires plural. Only the right wing, never gets it.

I get that you are claiming the "people" is always plural and therefore collective. That is wrong.

 

[Auld Phart]

nope

Not then, not now

yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.

no age limits?

no gender limits?

you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?

the right wing, never gets it.

The People are the Militia. The legislature is responsible for an Organized militia of the people.

Did Germany, have only statutory militia?

The People are the Militia.

no

only able bodied men between the ages of 16-45 were allowed in the militia

This is an actual part of a State supreme law of the land:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not the concept of individual rights.

part?

what's the rest of it?

 

[WinterBorn]

you seem to be telling stories...


Worthy of Mother Goose

All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.

"The right" is singular. That is what the 2nd amendment guarantees to "the people", which is plural. It is not even limited to militia. That is why they used the word "militia" in the first clause and the word "people" in the second clause.

It is a right guaranteed to the people.

the militia and the people are plural.

Congrats. You passed 4th grade grammar.

But that has nothing to do with what I said, does it? The fact that "militia" was used in the first clause and "people" was used in the second clause shows they meant the right to keep and bear arms is for the people, not just the militia. Or they would have used "militia" in both places.

No, they wouldn't. The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary not the unorganized militia of the whole People.

The right wing is simply, reading comprehension challenged.

The people are the ones who will become the militia, as they had done for 2 years of war with England. And then the militia went back to being citizens who owned guns.

 

[danielpalos]

The people are the militia. It is a part of a State supreme law of the land. No amount of right wing, fallacy induced fantasy, can change that.

What kind of nonsense is that? What in the Hell is your point?

There is no "state supreme law of the land." In law, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, the states have ruled that YOU ARE WRONG.

So what. The people are the militia. No argument there. BFD. The people have a Right to keep and bear Arms. That Right has been ruled to be an individual Right by the highest Courts of the land, including the United States Supreme Court. When it was challenged, it did not matter what the state said, the United States Supreme Court ruled and they say YOU ARE WRONG ON ALL COUNTS.

where are you from? you seem to be clueless and Causeless as to our federal form of Government.

Back to that standard canard that serves you so well.

You don't have a single, solitary statute, case or even another liberal to rely on. That would make YOU clueless.

You have never shown anyone on this board (or any other where I've encountered you) that you have something resembling a cause... which makes YOU causeless as you call it.

Stop projecting. It's only adding to the destruction of any credibility you thought you had.

dear, natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.

Our Second Amendment has terms that are plural, not singular.

That is where you sound either gay or a woman. Men do not address other men as "dear." So, champ, back to the standard canard.

FEDERAL LAW SAYS THAT STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS. You are now arguing with the states regarding that issue. But, since you want to go to the states, let's do that and let's get the state supreme courts to give you a lesson (for at least the third time on this thread alone):

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."

Nunn v. Georgia - Wikipedia

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Cockrum v State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

The states say your are full of shit. You've discounted the Constitution. You've shown you're no Perry Mason. Singular, plural... the states have said that the Right does not come from the state. The states say the Right is an individual Right and you do not have to be in a militia in order to own a firearm. That still squares with the rulings of the United States Supreme Court.

How much longer do you want to be like a rodent on a treadmill?

natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution. why appeal to ignorance?

 

[danielpalos]

we are quibbling, dear; not merely telling stories.

YOu are quibbling. I am stating a fact that the word "people" would have to be plural since it refers to the population of citizens. The whole "it is a collective right" does not bear up if you know the history of the Bill of Right. There is also not one iota of proof that it was ever intended to be a collective right. The rest of the amendments that use the same word certainly are not collective rights.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about terminology, either.

all i need is a dictionary; not right wing, fallacy induced fantasy.

And your dictionary shows that the word "people" is plural. Your imagination shows the word "people" to mean collective.

collective requires plural. Only the right wing, never gets it.

I get that you are claiming the "people" is always plural and therefore collective. That is wrong.

look in Any dictionary.

 

[WinterBorn]

yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.

no age limits?

no gender limits?

you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?

Not having served in a militia, danielpalos seems to not be able to back up his / her statements. Furthermore, he / she wants to lecture everybody about where your individual Rights come from. Let's check out this article:

"Q:
What is the definition of individual rights?
A:
QUICK ANSWER
Individual rights is defined as the freedom to act, work, and behave without retribution bestowed upon members of an organization through legal, regulatory and societal standards, according to BussinessDictionary.com. Individual rights are sometimes natural, meaning the right exists just by virtue of being born; an example is the right to life.


Individual rights can be constitutional rights, such as those liberties granted to American citizens in the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights. In the USA, individual natural rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution include personal security, personal liberty, such as the right to practice one's religion and personal property rights.

Human rights are another name for individual natural rights. Human rights recognize the dignity inherent in every person as a human being, regardless of his or her particular nationality, race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexuality, class or any other group affiliation or characteristic. The concept of human rights asserts that the rights of an individual have primacy over the rights of institutions or groups.

Individual rights are often sub-classified as civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights.

Individual rights can be positive or negative. Positive rights oblige action, whereas negative rights oblige inaction. Individual civil and political rights typically are negative rights, while social and economic rights tend to be positive."

What is the definition of individual rights?

I want you to notice an important thing in that quote. It says:

"Individual rights are sometimes natural, meaning the right exists just by virtue of being born; an example is the right to life."

If you care to check it out, that is the legal definition of an unalienable Right. And the United States Supreme Court in its earliest decisions have ruled that the Constitution does not grant Rights.

The people are the militia. It is a part of a State supreme law of the land. No amount of right wing, fallacy induced fantasy, can change that.

The SCOTUS rulings are not fantasy. They are fact. Your claims that plural = collective is fantasy. Your claims that state constitutions override the US constitution is fantasy. You claim that the 2nd amendment speaks only about the militia is fantasy.

judicial activism. only the "dumb ones" fall for it.

Really? Even if it were judicial activism (and it is not), only a fool would stand against it. Look at Roy Moore's stand against the "judicial activism" that made same sex marriage legal in all 50 states. Roy lost his job.

 

[danielpalos]

yup; for the common defense, under the common law; it really is simple and common sense.

no age limits?

no gender limits?

you don't know much about militias in those days, do you?

the right wing, never gets it.

The People are the Militia. The legislature is responsible for an Organized militia of the people.

Did Germany, have only statutory militia?

The People are the Militia.

no

only able bodied men between the ages of 16-45 were allowed in the militia

This is an actual part of a State supreme law of the land:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Our Second Amendment is about what is Necessary to the security of a free State, not the concept of individual rights.

part?

what's the rest of it?

why appeal to ignorance? it is part of a State Constitution. it is irrelevant. you simply have nothing but diversion.

 

[danielpalos]

All of them specifically enumerate the term, People, which is plural, not Individual if we have to quibble.

"The right" is singular. That is what the 2nd amendment guarantees to "the people", which is plural. It is not even limited to militia. That is why they used the word "militia" in the first clause and the word "people" in the second clause.

It is a right guaranteed to the people.

the militia and the people are plural.

Congrats. You passed 4th grade grammar.

But that has nothing to do with what I said, does it? The fact that "militia" was used in the first clause and "people" was used in the second clause shows they meant the right to keep and bear arms is for the people, not just the militia. Or they would have used "militia" in both places.

No, they wouldn't. The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary not the unorganized militia of the whole People.

The right wing is simply, reading comprehension challenged.

The people are the ones who will become the militia, as they had done for 2 years of war with England. And then the militia went back to being citizens who owned guns.

Well regulated militia are Necessary. The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State. Natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.

any other questions?

 

[WinterBorn]

YOu are quibbling. I am stating a fact that the word "people" would have to be plural since it refers to the population of citizens. The whole "it is a collective right" does not bear up if you know the history of the Bill of Right. There is also not one iota of proof that it was ever intended to be a collective right. The rest of the amendments that use the same word certainly are not collective rights.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about terminology, either.

all i need is a dictionary; not right wing, fallacy induced fantasy.

And your dictionary shows that the word "people" is plural. Your imagination shows the word "people" to mean collective.

collective requires plural. Only the right wing, never gets it.

I get that you are claiming the "people" is always plural and therefore collective. That is wrong.

look in Any dictionary.

The word is always plural. It is not always collective.

 

[WinterBorn]

Congrats. You passed 4th grade grammar.

But that has nothing to do with what I said, does it? The fact that "militia" was used in the first clause and "people" was used in the second clause shows they meant the right to keep and bear arms is for the people, not just the militia. Or they would have used "militia" in both places.

No, they wouldn't. The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary not the unorganized militia of the whole People.

The right wing is simply, reading comprehension challenged.

The militia was able bodied males, between the ages of 16-45.

until you can disprove that, WITH A LINK, you're talking out your ass.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You're still talking out your ass.

show me a link describing the actual makeup of a militia in that era.

Projecting much, right wingers? Only the clueless and the Causeless have to make excuses and appeal to ignorance.

This is Article Twelve of the New York State Constitution:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Then that passage only applies to persons in New York.

And if New York wrote something in their constitution that defied or went against the US Constitution, it was be unlawful and be removed.

 

[WinterBorn]

YOu are quibbling. I am stating a fact that the word "people" would have to be plural since it refers to the population of citizens. The whole "it is a collective right" does not bear up if you know the history of the Bill of Right. There is also not one iota of proof that it was ever intended to be a collective right. The rest of the amendments that use the same word certainly are not collective rights.

nobody takes the right wing seriously about terminology, either.

all i need is a dictionary; not right wing, fallacy induced fantasy.

And your dictionary shows that the word "people" is plural. Your imagination shows the word "people" to mean collective.

collective requires plural. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Did you even bother READING what WinterBorn told you? Let me repeat his words:

"The SCOTUS rulings are not fantasy. They are fact. Your claims that plural = collective is fantasy. Your claims that state constitutions override the US constitution is fantasy. You claim that the 2nd amendment speaks only about the militia is fantasy."

danielpalos, any time you want to pull your head out of your ass and get out of La La Land, feel free to put something better than what you've got so far onto the board. You blame your ignorance on the right, but I don't see the left jumping to your defense.

AND, BTW, what you proclaimed before - that stuff that proved you wrong... you ignored it. So, champ, tell us about your membership in a militia. Inquiring minds want to know. Were you ever in one? And if you don't answer, I am going to take that to mean you knew you were blowing smoke all the time you were arguing it.

writs of error can correct any legal fallacies.

want to try to get more serious?

A writ of error is a superior court directing a lower court to send a copy of the legal records so the superior court can review it and see if there were any errors. If there were errors, the superior court will correct them. I don't see how that applies to you being asked if you have ever been in a militia (a legitimate question), and forming an opinion based on your refusal to answer.

 

[Auld Phart]

"The right" is singular. That is what the 2nd amendment guarantees to "the people", which is plural. It is not even limited to militia. That is why they used the word "militia" in the first clause and the word "people" in the second clause.

It is a right guaranteed to the people.

the militia and the people are plural.

Congrats. You passed 4th grade grammar.

But that has nothing to do with what I said, does it? The fact that "militia" was used in the first clause and "people" was used in the second clause shows they meant the right to keep and bear arms is for the people, not just the militia. Or they would have used "militia" in both places.

No, they wouldn't. The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary not the unorganized militia of the whole People.

The right wing is simply, reading comprehension challenged.

The people are the ones who will become the militia, as they had done for 2 years of war with England. And then the militia went back to being citizens who owned guns.

Well regulated militia are Necessary. The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State. Natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.

any other questions?

The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State.

the unorganized militia, just like the regular militia, has age limits enforced, and would deny 'the people' from owning firearms.

any other questions?

do your meals consist of bird seed, or crackers?

 

[WinterBorn]

What kind of nonsense is that? What in the Hell is your point?

There is no "state supreme law of the land." In law, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, the states have ruled that YOU ARE WRONG.

So what. The people are the militia. No argument there. BFD. The people have a Right to keep and bear Arms. That Right has been ruled to be an individual Right by the highest Courts of the land, including the United States Supreme Court. When it was challenged, it did not matter what the state said, the United States Supreme Court ruled and they say YOU ARE WRONG ON ALL COUNTS.

where are you from? you seem to be clueless and Causeless as to our federal form of Government.

Back to that standard canard that serves you so well.

You don't have a single, solitary statute, case or even another liberal to rely on. That would make YOU clueless.

You have never shown anyone on this board (or any other where I've encountered you) that you have something resembling a cause... which makes YOU causeless as you call it.

Stop projecting. It's only adding to the destruction of any credibility you thought you had.

dear, natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.

Our Second Amendment has terms that are plural, not singular.

That is where you sound either gay or a woman. Men do not address other men as "dear." So, champ, back to the standard canard.

FEDERAL LAW SAYS THAT STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS. You are now arguing with the states regarding that issue. But, since you want to go to the states, let's do that and let's get the state supreme courts to give you a lesson (for at least the third time on this thread alone):

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."

Nunn v. Georgia - Wikipedia

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Cockrum v State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

The states say your are full of shit. You've discounted the Constitution. You've shown you're no Perry Mason. Singular, plural... the states have said that the Right does not come from the state. The states say the Right is an individual Right and you do not have to be in a militia in order to own a firearm. That still squares with the rulings of the United States Supreme Court.

How much longer do you want to be like a rodent on a treadmill?

natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution. why appeal to ignorance?

We are not appealing to ignorance, you are. You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land. It is not. It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.

 

[Humorme]

What kind of nonsense is that? What in the Hell is your point?

There is no "state supreme law of the land." In law, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Furthermore, the states have ruled that YOU ARE WRONG.

So what. The people are the militia. No argument there. BFD. The people have a Right to keep and bear Arms. That Right has been ruled to be an individual Right by the highest Courts of the land, including the United States Supreme Court. When it was challenged, it did not matter what the state said, the United States Supreme Court ruled and they say YOU ARE WRONG ON ALL COUNTS.

where are you from? you seem to be clueless and Causeless as to our federal form of Government.

Back to that standard canard that serves you so well.

You don't have a single, solitary statute, case or even another liberal to rely on. That would make YOU clueless.

You have never shown anyone on this board (or any other where I've encountered you) that you have something resembling a cause... which makes YOU causeless as you call it.

Stop projecting. It's only adding to the destruction of any credibility you thought you had.

dear, natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.

Our Second Amendment has terms that are plural, not singular.

That is where you sound either gay or a woman. Men do not address other men as "dear." So, champ, back to the standard canard.

FEDERAL LAW SAYS THAT STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS. You are now arguing with the states regarding that issue. But, since you want to go to the states, let's do that and let's get the state supreme courts to give you a lesson (for at least the third time on this thread alone):

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."

Nunn v. Georgia - Wikipedia

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Cockrum v State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

The states say your are full of shit. You've discounted the Constitution. You've shown you're no Perry Mason. Singular, plural... the states have said that the Right does not come from the state. The states say the Right is an individual Right and you do not have to be in a militia in order to own a firearm. That still squares with the rulings of the United States Supreme Court.

How much longer do you want to be like a rodent on a treadmill?

natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution. why appeal to ignorance?

I have no idea to appeal to you other that than to tell you that you are wrong so that other posters know not to rely on your ignorance.

 

[Humorme]

where are you from? you seem to be clueless and Causeless as to our federal form of Government.

Back to that standard canard that serves you so well.

You don't have a single, solitary statute, case or even another liberal to rely on. That would make YOU clueless.

You have never shown anyone on this board (or any other where I've encountered you) that you have something resembling a cause... which makes YOU causeless as you call it.

Stop projecting. It's only adding to the destruction of any credibility you thought you had.

dear, natural and individual rights are in State Constitutions.

Our Second Amendment has terms that are plural, not singular.

That is where you sound either gay or a woman. Men do not address other men as "dear." So, champ, back to the standard canard.

FEDERAL LAW SAYS THAT STATES DO NOT GRANT RIGHTS. You are now arguing with the states regarding that issue. But, since you want to go to the states, let's do that and let's get the state supreme courts to give you a lesson (for at least the third time on this thread alone):

"The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree..."

Nunn v. Georgia - Wikipedia

"The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power."

Cockrum v State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

The states say your are full of shit. You've discounted the Constitution. You've shown you're no Perry Mason. Singular, plural... the states have said that the Right does not come from the state. The states say the Right is an individual Right and you do not have to be in a militia in order to own a firearm. That still squares with the rulings of the United States Supreme Court.

How much longer do you want to be like a rodent on a treadmill?

natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our federal Constitution. why appeal to ignorance?

We are not appealing to ignorance, you are. You claimed that the NY state constitution is the law of the land. It is not. It is the law of NY, subject to the US Constitution.

Since daniella is always asking why appeal to ignorance, I thought it meant HER ignorance. I mean, have you ever witnessed anyone that determined to be wrong on EVERY aspect of this issue?

Even the unattributed quotes that apply still infer that a person has an individual Right to keep and bear Arms.

This stuff is more like a chore than a discussion and if I were a mod, I'd be telling daniella to either make a point or move on and discuss something else.

 

[danielpalos]

nobody takes the right wing seriously about terminology, either.

all i need is a dictionary; not right wing, fallacy induced fantasy.

And your dictionary shows that the word "people" is plural. Your imagination shows the word "people" to mean collective.

collective requires plural. Only the right wing, never gets it.

I get that you are claiming the "people" is always plural and therefore collective. That is wrong.

look in Any dictionary.

The word is always plural. It is not always collective.

should we rely on the context of the first clause?

 

[danielpalos]

No, they wouldn't. The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary not the unorganized militia of the whole People.

The right wing is simply, reading comprehension challenged.

The militia was able bodied males, between the ages of 16-45.

until you can disprove that, WITH A LINK, you're talking out your ass.

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

You're still talking out your ass.

show me a link describing the actual makeup of a militia in that era.

Projecting much, right wingers? Only the clueless and the Causeless have to make excuses and appeal to ignorance.

This is Article Twelve of the New York State Constitution:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

Then that passage only applies to persons in New York.

And if New York wrote something in their constitution that defied or went against the US Constitution, it was be unlawful and be removed.

That is the common law as debated at the Convention when debating Ratification of our Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

nobody takes the right wing seriously about terminology, either.

all i need is a dictionary; not right wing, fallacy induced fantasy.

And your dictionary shows that the word "people" is plural. Your imagination shows the word "people" to mean collective.

collective requires plural. Only the right wing, never gets it.

Did you even bother READING what WinterBorn told you? Let me repeat his words:

"The SCOTUS rulings are not fantasy. They are fact. Your claims that plural = collective is fantasy. Your claims that state constitutions override the US constitution is fantasy. You claim that the 2nd amendment speaks only about the militia is fantasy."

danielpalos, any time you want to pull your head out of your ass and get out of La La Land, feel free to put something better than what you've got so far onto the board. You blame your ignorance on the right, but I don't see the left jumping to your defense.

AND, BTW, what you proclaimed before - that stuff that proved you wrong... you ignored it. So, champ, tell us about your membership in a militia. Inquiring minds want to know. Were you ever in one? And if you don't answer, I am going to take that to mean you knew you were blowing smoke all the time you were arguing it.

writs of error can correct any legal fallacies.

want to try to get more serious?

A writ of error is a superior court directing a lower court to send a copy of the legal records so the superior court can review it and see if there were any errors. If there were errors, the superior court will correct them. I don't see how that applies to you being asked if you have ever been in a militia (a legitimate question), and forming an opinion based on your refusal to answer.

simple judicial error.

the people and the militia being plural is more correct than even, a Supreme Court (of law), can claim; Any dictionary of our language, confirms this.

 

[danielpalos]

the militia and the people are plural.

Congrats. You passed 4th grade grammar.

But that has nothing to do with what I said, does it? The fact that "militia" was used in the first clause and "people" was used in the second clause shows they meant the right to keep and bear arms is for the people, not just the militia. Or they would have used "militia" in both places.

No, they wouldn't. The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary not the unorganized militia of the whole People.

The right wing is simply, reading comprehension challenged.

The people are the ones who will become the militia, as they had done for 2 years of war with England. And then the militia went back to being citizens who owned guns.

Well regulated militia are Necessary. The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State. Natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.

any other questions?

The unorganized militia are usually Citizens of a State.

the unorganized militia, just like the regular militia, has age limits enforced, and would deny 'the people' from owning firearms.

any other questions?

do your meals consist of bird seed, or crackers?

you are merely indulging a fallacy of composition; natural and Individual rights are in State Constitutions.

 

[Auld Phart]

And your dictionary shows that the word "people" is plural. Your imagination shows the word "people" to mean collective.

collective requires plural. Only the right wing, never gets it.

I get that you are claiming the "people" is always plural and therefore collective. That is wrong.

look in Any dictionary.

The word is always plural. It is not always collective.

should we rely on the context of the first clause?

should we rely on the context of the first clause?

only idiots would only read half of an amendment, and base their arguments on that