No other Amendment did they imagine a reason to have to JUSTIFY. Not one.
No one has ever rationally explained what would be lost or how the 2A would be weakened if it were just the final 14 words that describe the right of the people. And it's easy to see why.
Those scumbag founding fathers just had to include the "militia" clause so gun grabbers could obfuscate the issue and claim the modern-day militia is actually the police or National Guard
The tragedy is that the extra wording in fact says very clearly--in the parliance of the time--that the reason for the amendment is to make sure the citizenry can constitute effective scratch infantry (well-regulated refers to drill and discipline in the fighting style of the day). It's saying specifically that citizens should be able to oppose a professional fighting force. AFAIC that means the 2A itself specifies we should be able to own anything. I should have an MG3 and RPG in my closet, you know, in case of trouble.
Most idiots also don't realize that fully-automatic fire has a very specific place on the battlefield; it's not some implicit lethality multiplier. But given the 10 moving boxes clipazine shoulder-thing-that-goes-up understanding we observe among politicians (as well as their nefarious, duplicitous intent), it's no surprise we are in the situation we're in.
It kinda does mean that, but the 2A does not grant the militia the right to bear arms, it grants the people the right to bear arms, because the government must have a militia/military.
"As long as the government has shooty boys, the people should have guns too."
The first half of the 2A is merely establishing the reason the actual clause exists. And it's absolute bullshit that anyone ever tried (let alone succeeded) to claim otherwise.
The people themselves were the militia. Every able-bodied person in a community is supposed to be equipped and fit for fighting, at all times. That's why the first half of the amendment is so important.
FUN FACT—DID YOU KNOW???
The 2nd Amendment could be edited down to just its FINAL 14 WORDS—and would work even BETTER than it currently does!
The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Simple. Direct. Concise. To the point.
On target.
Yes. The added clause was to give a reason for it - "bring necessary to the security of a free state".
No other Amendment did they imagine a reason to have to JUSTIFY. Not one.
No one has ever rationally explained what would be lost or how the 2A would be weakened if it were just the final 14 words that describe the right of the people. And it's easy to see why.
Because it would be strengthened, that's why.
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE...SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
Those scumbag founding fathers just had to include the "militia" clause so gun grabbers could obfuscate the issue and claim the modern-day militia is actually the police or National Guard
The tragedy is that the extra wording in fact says very clearly--in the parliance of the time--that the reason for the amendment is to make sure the citizenry can constitute effective scratch infantry (well-regulated refers to drill and discipline in the fighting style of the day). It's saying specifically that citizens should be able to oppose a professional fighting force. AFAIC that means the 2A itself specifies we should be able to own anything. I should have an MG3 and RPG in my closet, you know, in case of trouble.
Most idiots also don't realize that fully-automatic fire has a very specific place on the battlefield; it's not some implicit lethality multiplier. But given the 10 moving boxes clipazine shoulder-thing-that-goes-up understanding we observe among politicians (as well as their nefarious, duplicitous intent), it's no surprise we are in the situation we're in.
It kinda does mean that, but the 2A does not grant the militia the right to bear arms, it grants the people the right to bear arms, because the government must have a militia/military.
"As long as the government has shooty boys, the people should have guns too."
The first half of the 2A is merely establishing the reason the actual clause exists. And it's absolute bullshit that anyone ever tried (let alone succeeded) to claim otherwise.
Respect
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary for healthy living, the right of the people to keep and prepare foods, shall not be infringed.
It's plain English; it's just that morons don't understand plain English.
The people themselves were the militia. Every able-bodied person in a community is supposed to be equipped and fit for fighting, at all times. That's why the first half of the amendment is so important.
It's not just a right, it's a necessity.