Posted by: TEEBONE ® |
Author Profile Mail author Edit
|UT: Gun control doesn’t disregard the Constitution|
Submitted by: firstname.lastname@example.org">Mark A. Taff
Every year more than 30,000 U.S. citizens die because of murder or suicide, and guns injured more than 2,000 of them. Between 2014 and 2019, the number of people killed during mass shootings was 2,083.
The Second Amendment states: “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.” It seems like guaranteeing the individual rights to bear guns was not the intention of the Second Amendment. If this interpretation is accurate, establishing higher requisites to own a pistol or limit its access is not against the law.
|Comment by: MarkHamTownsend (2/18/2021)|
|ANOTHER incorrect interpretation of the 2A. It was established in the HELLER case it IS an individual right. Is ignorance contagious?|
Sadly I think it probably is.
It's just one sentence, with a meaning that SHOULD be very easy to discern.
|Comment by: PHORTO (2/18/2021)|
|Wilson flunks English Grammar and Usage 101.|
"Well-regulated" modifies the noun, "militia", not the noun "right." They aren't even in the same clause. It is the militia that is assumed as well-regulated, Q.E.D.
The subordinate (dependent) clause announces the reason the guarantee IS BEING ENUMERATED IN WRITING.
It does not create the right, nor does it place any limits or conditions upon it.
The main (independent) clause declares the right as belonging to the people, assumes it as preexisting, and stipulates that it is unalienable.
"Because of THAT, we are guaranteeing THIS."
THAT ≠ THIS
It's no more complicated than that.
LIBERTY HAS NO EXPIRATION DATE