Jiggyfly
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 9,220
Wait what?Because the need for a militia and the need for the citizens to be able to bare arms both had to do with the ability of the people to defend their country and property.
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.
I never said the militia is describing something else, you are making up an argument I am not promoting.
But the supreme ourt has already ruled guns are subject to regulation what part of the amendment was used for that ruling?