[boris]

"Ahem . . . um . . . actually, the Second Amendment contains three commas, not one comma."

You are simply wrong, as you would know if you were not too lazy to do a little research:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

--Boris

[RichT]

The 2nd Amendment has 3 commas.

[RichT]

BTW... John Bloodgood is responsible for the text provided in your "Link 3".

[dead]

Emory Law's website has three commas in the second amendment:

http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst/amend.html#art-2

[stayout]

You are simply wrong, as you would know if you were not too lazy to do a little research . . .

Too lazy? Wow. Your own "Link 1" admits the correctness of my position:

By September 25, the Congress had resolved all differences pertaining to the proposed amendments to the Constitution. On that day, a Clerk of the House, William Lambert, put what is now known as the Bill of Rights to parchment. Three days later, it was signed by the Speaker of the House, Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, and the President of the Senate, Vice President John Adams. This parchment copy is held by the National Archives and Records Administration, and shows the following version of the fourth article:

Article the Fourth. 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.

As anyone can see, 3 commas not 1. In fact, in my post to you I linked to a picture of the "official" Bill of Rights itself so anyone can verify for themselves that fact. That picture clearly shows 3 commas, not 1. Just for you, here is the link again: Picture of the Bill of Rights in the National Archives.

Answer me this, Boris: when an issue revolves around what the Bill of Rights says, what better source is there than the Bill of Rights itself?

Jeez, and you call me lazy.