[robertpaulsen]

I answered that question in my post #48. "The second amendment preamble is NOT a restriction on who may keep and bear arms. It's merely a clarification of when those arms are protected.

I further explained it in my post #174.

"The right is not protected for all persons. It's not even protected for all citizens. It's a right protected for a certain group of individuals for a certain purpose. Hence, the preamble -- which doesn't limit the right, merely explains it."

Why can't you read like everyone else? Why do I have to personalize all my responses to you?

[ctdonath2]

What defines “the people” in the operative clause to include none other than active militia members?

We keep asking you to clarify because your answers don’t make sense.

[ctdonath2]

Could you seriously look George Washington in the eye and tell him that the 2nd Amendment does not include Martha? and expect him to say “why yes, you’re right”?

[El Gato]

"The second amendment preamble is NOT a restriction on who may keep and bear arms. It's merely a clarification of when those arms are protected.
...
"The right is not protected for all persons. It's not even protected for all citizens. It's a right protected for a certain group of individuals for a certain purpose. Hence, the preamble -- which doesn't limit the right, merely explains it."

You really don't see a conflict between "The right is not protected for all persons. It's not even protected for all citizens." and "NOT a restriction on who may keep and bear arms"?

If so, you're farther gone than I thought.