I hear people say that, but if that is true, then of what purpose is the preliminary clause?
This from me, a guy who thinks we can have crew served weapons because of the Letters of Marque and Reprisal paragraph. If we can’t have crew served weapons, then from where do the folks get the armed ships to act as privateers?
Constitutionally we can have crew served weapons. For the first hundred years and more there was artillery in private hands with no government interference. It fell out of fashion because of the expense and the fact that the Indian Wars were winding down and the possibility of invasion of the country was receding to insignificance. Liberals are horrified at the implication of the 2nd Amendment. They see everybody and his brother owning F-22s and 105 mm howitzers and blasting away at each other in road rage disputes. Liberals have no God and therefore no morals and no inner controls. To them all extremes are not only thinkable but inevitable if there is not a strong government to keep the people tightly controlled. The first clause, as I have explained many times, merely gives the reasoning for the second clause. It assumes the militia because the militia is all able-bodied men and asserts that for the militia to be effective, which it also assumes to be vital, the RKBA is not to be infringed. It is a stronger prohibition than any of the others because the others all say “Congress shall make no law...” which allows that a state or a city or a Water Control District could make a law. The second says “...shall not be infringed” which allows of no infringement by anybody. If the sheriff says you can’t have a gun he is infringing. He does not get an exemption from infringing. Nor does Mayor Daley or Rudy Giuliani.