|
Gun rights proponents and the Supremes' apparent pre-judgment on the matter simply baffles me.
If "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is a completely meaningless phrase, why is it there? How can it just be ignored, while "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is somehow not to be ignored???
And if you accept the common sense that we cannot simply ignore one part of a single sentence, and fail to ignore the other part of that same sentence, just how do you explain the admonition about a militia? If it's not to have anything to do with the right to bear arms, why is it there in the sentence about the right to bear arms?
It's not further down in a paragraph, it's not a sub-clause. It's right there, the beginning of the sentence. I suppose if Sesame Street had been around in the 18th Century, they could have written the sentence more for 2-year olds. But it's in common English nonetheless ... the right to bear arms by individuals is predicated on the security of a free state relying on a well-regulated militia.
Sheesh.
I love how it takes the Supreme Court to unravel this mystery of the common English language, and how they will conveniently bow to how the majority of modern Americans wish the 2nd Amendment would read instead of how it actually reads.
Gotta love that mob democracy. Much better than the representative government set up by the Constitution. Why not reinterpret all of it by modern mob standards? What fun!
|