Replies

This is crap. Complete crap. Like I said yesterday... who did our fore fathers have in mind when creating the second amendment? The government? How does one revolt against a country and not allow the individual the right to keep and bear arms???? If they think the second amendment does not apply to the individual, then which groups does it apply to? Their non-ruling sets up challenges to every single amendment being about a collective group- not the individual. God Lord, this is socialism!

The SCOTUS are extremely dense and lacking common sense. Instead of sitting on their appointed thrones, they need to come back down to earth and realize that yes, they too, are Americans just like everyone else.

Bastards.

This is how I explain the nd to people who aren't familiar with it.

The ORIGINAL writing of the 2nd Amendment has three commas.

"A well regulated Militia(1), being necessary to the security of a free State(2), the right of the people to keep and bear arms(3), shall not be infringed." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)

I'm not a scholar in English, but I seem to recall my teacher of many years ago saying that words between commas in a sentence should not change the meaning of the original sentence, only explain it better to a reader.

#1 is the basic intent of the sentence. All black letters.

#1 A well regulated Militia, shall not be infringed."

In #2 I retracted, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". Now the original meaning of the sentence is explained a little better than the original.

#2 A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."

In #3 I retracted, "being necessary to the security of a free State". Now the original meaning of the sentence still is explained a little better than the original.

#3 A well regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

When "being necessary to the security of a free State" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is included into the basic sentence, now we see the FULL meaning the Founders had when they wrote the complete sentence.

This is the gun control peoples writing of the 2nd. Note the ONE comma.

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state(1), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

They are insinuating that the the original sentence is "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" and that "the security of a free state" should be controlled by "A well-regulated militia. "

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is not infringed because only the Militia should have these arms, not the common citizen.

I know scholars have much deeper and clearer explanations than I do, but my explanation seems to help people understand the Founders intentions without having to read numerous pages.

"who did our fore fathers have in mind when creating the second amendment?"

According to Judge Robert H. Bork and other authoritarians, the founders intended the 2nd Amendment to cover a States right to bear arms. According to the plain English of the various Founders and that found in the Bill of Rights itself, the Amendment was written to cover individual rights.

Their non-ruling simply means that less than 4 judges thought the matter important enough to hear the case. IOWs they're satisfied with the status quo.