Quote:
Originally posted by cool_chick
Except hun, you only posted 1/2 a sentence. Can't base a whole argument on only 1/2 a sentence, which, of course, the other half of the sentence is this: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"
What you're referring to in your quote is part of one sentence, and your "quoted part"("The....) isn't even supposed to be capitalized, it's the second part of the sentence.
AGAIN, for clarity, I support my individual right to bear arms, it's (1) more selfish than anything, as well as (2) the belief that if we don't, tyranny pervades, but I'm just pointing out (1) the clause is vague and (2) either interpretation could be mete with such a vague clause.
|
Miss, did you read the grammatical breakdown at the link pat posted?
It seems you did not.
The second amendment enumerates numerous rights, hence it's duality.
"A well regulated militia, being neccesary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It says A) the Framers recognize a STATES right to a well regulated militia, and B) the PEOPLES right to keep and bear arms.
What's more, the militia act CLEARLY states that any and all individuals mustering for service in the unorganized militia must show up with "appropriate military arms for the day, supplied by themselves."
Therefore in reality US law REQUIRES you to be armed should you ever be called up for service in the unorganized militia.
"Shall" is legalese for MUST. So "shall not be infringed" means MUST NOT be infringed. "The people" means the whole body of the people in every instance in which it is used in the US constitution/BoR.
Even in court, where it's john doe vs the people, it is only the state that represents the people, the term the people still means EXACTLY the same thing- the whole body of the people.
There is no grey area.