No one is ignoring the beginning of the sentence. We just don't really have a need for militia anymore. Just like the third Amendment is pretty useless these days. But something describing a militia doesn't describe something else just because it's in the same sentence, that would just be silly. If this was a statute and you brought your argument in front of a judge you'd be laughed out of the courtroom.
Here at the DCC, we even redefine the constitution. You won't find that kinda content anywhere else.
2016 DCC LOTY Fantasy Football Champion
The first part is the reasoning for it, the second part is the black letter law.
It simply can't be otherwise. If you broke it into two sentences, the second part stands alone. The first part does not. There's no directive there. It's actually pretty clear and it's only been called into question by people who have a political agenda.
If congress wants to eliminate guns, there's an amendment process. It's that simple.
This might be a separate topic, but does the regulation of legal assault rifles/weapons have a bearing on preventing mass shootings?
If more handgun owners could prevent/limit damage of mass shootings, that's assuming you're carrying a handgun in public. Even if you owned assault rifles, you wouldn't be carrying them in public (or is this part of the argument)?
Hand guns are semi automatic. I imagine you could do just as much damage with a few of those as an assault rifle.
Again unrelated but what in the hell is the point of a gun free zone if you aren't actually going to make sure people don't have guns? It's one of the dumbest concepts.
Last edited by Cowboysrock55; 06-17-2016 at 02:16 PM.
My question is how does the 1st part fit in and why is it never discussed when 2nd amendment issues are being discussed.
I truly had not ever seen the amendment in it's entirety until yesterday.
How can you make one part of a sentence black letter law and ignore the rest of it?
Last edited by Jiggyfly; 06-17-2016 at 03:48 PM.
Why is gun bans being brought up here?
I am not advocating that and it is not part of the question I asked.
Why take it to that extreme?