It’s not what one plays, it’s what gives the grabbers an arguable issue, (the legal definition of arguable, not the lay one) and that damned, unnecessary preamble gives them that arguable issue.
from the article:
Their broader challenge is to the fundamental meaning of the Second Amendment. Here, commas, clauses and history all matter.
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.
From the 2nd amendment:
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.
Notice the subtle difference...even after stressing punctuation?
The second enumerates two rights.....the collective and the individual...not either or...
Right #1
Collective: the right of a state to raise a well regulated militia
Right #2
Individual: the right of the people to keep and bear arms
Shall not be infringed.
Reason:
BOTH are necessary to the security of a FREE state...
In other words...the Dick act violates the second amendment on it’s face...(pun intended) by federalizing and supplanting state militias with federally charted troops(national gaurd)...which are under the sole control of the executive in times of duress...
BTW..OHIO is one of four states to have it’s own navy....serious...
Clearly...the bill of rights enumerates many individual rights....but it also enumerates several collective ones as well...
It really blows anti-gunner minds when I lay them back on the ropes...
The correct premis for the argument isnt collective vs individual...the correct premis is the the 2nd amendment enumerates both...
By not accepting the flawed premis as a basis for arguement...they have to frame their arguement on the correct terms....and that arguement holds no logic...
If the 2nd amendment wasnt collective...there would be no need for the dick act...
If it wasnt individual...it wouldnt contain the phrase “the people”...
The constitution was written so a person who passed the 5th grade could understand it (the common highest grade in the day)...
People forget that the norms of syntax use in our language has deformed over the years...
No one says “four score and seven years”....we say 47...
And people rarely if ever break simple connecting statements down into proper english...
Someone only need read the tenth to understand that half the crap the feds do is unconstitional...and the other half is “extra’ constitutional.....IE:...made up on the spot and justified later...enumerated no where...yet enforced with law...
The best part if to get a pro gunner and an anti gunner together and shut them both up with one arguement...
Of corse the light goes on over the progunner...and the anti-gunner walks off in disgust...but that is to be expected...
The same people that claim a private letter written by jefferson is the basis for the “separation of church and state”..are the same people who ignore the entire bulk of the federalist papers...
Ignorant is...as ignorant does...
try this one on them...
“A well balanced check book, being necessary to the security of a household, the right of the parents to write and cash checks, shall not be infringed’
Write it down...
Now tell me the house has a right to your checkbook and you dont...or that your household could function well for long without it..
*grin*
Be well..
I don't think it's the Constitution that deserves to be damned.