A “well regulated militia” is reasoning. It’s a dependent clause. The independent clause, the right itself, is as follows “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”
It’s bizarre that you’d openly admit that while trying to pretend that you’re not twisting their words and intentions to suit you.
They gave their reasoning for the right to bear arms. A single, clear justification.
You didn’t even bother to claim that gun owners meet the given justification for that right. Instead, you’ve argued “oh they just added that bit for no reason”.
Should we selectively edit the other amendments too, stripping them of their conditions? Third amendment, soldiers are no longer allowed to live in houses. Fourth amendment, no warrants shall be issued. Fifth amendment, no person shall be held to answer for a crime.
The constitution is littered with conditions and caveats but the only one they didn’t mean just happens to be the one that would require you to be fit for military service.
A “well regulated militia” is reasoning. It’s a dependent clause. The independent clause, the right itself, is as follows “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”
It’s bizarre that you’d openly admit that while trying to pretend that you’re not twisting their words and intentions to suit you.
They gave their reasoning for the right to bear arms. A single, clear justification.
You didn’t even bother to claim that gun owners meet the given justification for that right. Instead, you’ve argued “oh they just added that bit for no reason”.
Should we selectively edit the other amendments too, stripping them of their conditions? Third amendment, soldiers are no longer allowed to live in houses. Fourth amendment, no warrants shall be issued. Fifth amendment, no person shall be held to answer for a crime.
The constitution is littered with conditions and caveats but the only one they didn’t mean just happens to be the one that would require you to be fit for military service.