The SCOTUS already ruled that the well regulated militia language was a preparatory statement, meaning that it states the purpose, aim or justification for what follows. It is not part of any requirement nor is it pertinent to the interpretation of the body of the act.
By finding the language preparatory, the 2A functionally reads "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". [DC vs. Heller]
Justification for what follows....we all know what's following this fraudulent government...therefore we shall be well regulated...and equipped so we can fight fire with fire.
The SCOTUS already ruled that the well regulated militia language was a preparatory statement, meaning that it states the purpose, aim or justification for what follows. It is not part of any requirement nor is it pertinent to the interpretation of the body of the act. By finding the language preparatory, the 2A functionally reads "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". [DC vs. Heller]
Justification for what follows....we all know what's following this fraudulent government...therefore we shall be well regulated...and equipped so we can fight fire with fire.