Appparently the defintion of “well-regulated” is not so simple, since you didn’t define it.
I am not surprised, I don’t actually think you even understand the question I posed. You just have a conclusion so everything else is “obvious” to you. Maybe you can try again.
"-- It is not like the 2nd amendment is an exercise in verbosity. It has a well thought out place and meaning. --"
"-- A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. --"
Eini; -- if only "well regulated" members of the militia are able to bear arms, are they any different from the army that has no opposition from an unarmed populace? --- Can you answer this question?
Your concern about the wording 'well regulated' is misplaced. -- In context - as was noted; "-- a well regulated militia is one that is trained well. --"
Why should the term imply anything beyond its obvious and "-- well thought out -- meaning"? [ Your words.]
-- Better yet, do you ~want~ it to imply something more?
-- its obvious and well thought out meaning?
Sorry, I must be a bit thick. Maybe you can explain its obvious and well-thought out meaning to me. If it is that simple, it shouldn't take long
The 2nds obvious and well thought out meaning protects our right to own and carry arms from ~any~ infringements.
Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Appparently the defintion of "well-regulated' is not so simple, since you didn't define it.
Not so, it's been defined; - in context - as was noted: "-- a well regulated militia is one that is trained well. --"
I am not surprised, I don't actually think you even understand the question I posed.
Everyone here is well aware of why you are "posing" these questions. -- And why you can't/won't answer ours.
You just have a conclusion so everything else is 'obvious' to you. Maybe you can try again.
Yep, the 2nd, as you admit, "-- has a well thought out place and meaning. --" It shall not be infringed. -- What more need be said?