It is completely absurd to argue for or against gun rights/gun control by citing supreme court rulings. Simply because those rulings evolve as does the political landscape of the time. Not only that, but it is preposterous that you people need to be told how to interpret a single sentence that was written less than three centuries ago… 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. If you need someone to tell you how to understand a sentence as simple as this, you should probably reevaluate your understanding of the English language. It’s pretty simple to understand. A well regulated militia, (separated by a comma for a reason) is a right of the people. This had to be put in the constitution because Great Britain attempted to disband/disarm the American militia (which wasn’t a part of the British Regular Army), thus explaining being necessary to the security of a free state (which interestingly enough was worded this way to prevent federal tampering). Now you have an additional comma, stating an additional element (right) in the sentence ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms’. Throughout the entire constitution the term right is exclusively reserved for the people, and not the governing body. Simple as that. In closing, there are thousands of well regulated militias operating under the definition of the clause, and there are millions of Americans who exercise their right of the people to keep and bear Arms’. Should the governing body decide to circumvent and pervert The Constitution any further, those well regulated militias and the millions of well armed Americans will do what is required to preserve the security of a free state.
Posted on: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 18:35:02 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015