Overpaid Union Thug
Well-Known Member
here we go again by making a sentence out of fragments to change the meaning of the second amendments.
YOU do realize there is a COMMA in between " the right of the people to keep and bear arms" , "shall not be infringed"..... RIGHT?
You, like every other gun owner in this country, make a STAND ALONE sentence to give it a meaning it doesnt have.
We have already covered this subject many times, yet, the same people put this sentence in, as if thats how it reads in the second amendment.
Lets cover it again.
The second amendment contains a PREAMBLE, or in simple terms, a SUBJECT.
The preamble ( subject) is : "A well regulated militia , "
Then, that preamble (subject) is then QUALIFIED. Each qualification that applies to the preamble is separated by a comma. This is SIMPLE ENGLISH 101.
The first qualification to the preamble is : " , being necessary for the security of the state , "
The second qualifier is: " , the right of the people to bear and keep arms , "
The last qualifier is : ", shall not be infringed."
Where you people get a STAND alone sentence that reads "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is beyond reality.
But, GUN owners, like the NRA, argue, that the comma CONNECTS the third fragment and the fourth fragment only, and the two previous commas dont have anything to do with the last two fragments.
Thats not how english works.
the subject discussed in the second amendment is A WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
Everything else applies to the militia, upto and including the militia act of 1792 in the second congress, as the second amendment was written in the first congress in 1791.
Clearly, in the militia act, the militia was WELL REGULATED and controlled by the president of the United States, and militias were NEVER allowed to control themselves.
They took orders from commanding officers who took orders from the president.
For now, you get to have your beloved weapons of death. We get it, you live in fear, you need your safety blankets.
Dont worry though, the only people who dont want stricter gun control laws, are the people who couldnt pass background checks in the first place, or gun sellers who sell guns to gang members that end up in multiple homocides.
There are no good gun owners in my book.
TOS.
The problem with your whacky theory (if one pretends it is sound) is that that would mean the amendment requires that in order for us to keep and bear arms we must join a militia. LOL! LOL! LOL! Well then Slappy......did the framers just forget to put that part in there? Does the basics of the English language dictate that if you merely mention a militia at the beginning of a sentence (that also states you have the right to keep and bear arms) then it must mean that keeping and bearing arms is only permitted if we are in a militia? Or do you really think that they would leave such a big gaping hole in the amendment? But like I said....that is only if we pretend your theory is sound. LOL!
And I've told you before that it's impossible for us to keep and bear arms if they are under lock and key on a military base, which, is exactly what the national guard bases are.
Man you are incapable of rational thought.
We have Putin doing his best to undermine/destroy NATO, North Korea supposedly popping off nukes underground, ISIS and their "refugees" spreading into our allies lands, we're being invaded by every filth and scum you can think of through our southern border, China is thumbing their nose at us while building stationary aircraft carriers in international waters, and we have an aging infrastructure here that is ripe for an EMP attack by those same players. And what is Obama and the rest of his emotional wreck of a political party doing? Literally crying about guns.
Emotional wrecks I tell ya. Liberals shouldn't be permitted to control anything. Nothing at all.