That's what the Amendment says.
If the FF had intended to create an Amendment that simply safeguarded our rights to own firearms, they would have just writen "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
But they did not, instead, they created the only Amendment with a preamble.
"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."
the Amendment preambles itself with the fact that in order to safeguard our nation, a well-armed militia is needed, and for that reason, our right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
"The right of the people". Individual people luis..
That's what the Amendment says. If the FF had intended to create an Amendment that simply safeguarded our rights to own firearms, they would have just writen "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."
They did. The rationalizing phrase in front does not alter or modify "the right of the people".
But they did not, instead, they created the only Amendment with a preamble.
Odd word choice, 'preamble'. It implies a conditional preface.
"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."
Yes, -- I can see it now. -- -- The Luis Gonzalez 2nd, as amended.....
"The right to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, as long as a well-regulated Militia is decreed necessary to the security of a free State.
Why Luis? -- Why do you advocate modifying our RKBA's?
How does this agenda advance liberty in a free republic?
The APA and MLA writing styles are relatively new kids on the linguistic bloc. If you will bother yourself to read some of the diverse writing styles employed during the colonial period, you will notice that comma usage varies from writer to writer, as does their spelling and verbiage. This is not an indication that the founders were illiterate, so much as the fact that linguistic differences existed, and further evolved, between the populated areas of the colonies, and subsequently the states .
You can see some comparisons of constitutional wording at: The Commonplace Second Amendment
I grew up in North Carolina under the tutilage of ear-twisting biddies who seemed old enough to have fought in the Revolution, and who thought we should likewise be enamoured with the history and documents of the era. There was no question then (early 1960's) that the main theme of the second amendment was, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," irrespective of the commas.
It is a sad statement of our societal condition, that today, the eloquence of the writing and oratory delivered by those early patriots, those who sacrificed so much to build this country, has been trampled into the mud beneath the insolent heels of sophistry and treachery.
The APA writing style, currently favored among leftist indoctrinists, demands ambiguity, most simply by outlawing the use of commas where a verbal pause would, and should, occur, were their documents fit to be read aloud.
I like your writing, Luis. It would lose much of its meaning if you were to strictly follow current formal style. Two hundred years from now, I believe someone could read your stories and understand most of what you are trying to convey. Would you be more happy knowing that they might be more obsessed with dissecting your sentences and criticizing your usage of commas, than understanding the theme of the stories?
The founding fathers had style, and in variety. Yet the ideas they discussed were of paramount importance, and they put together a plan that has lasted two hundred years. Are we going to trade that for a comma, or a space?