I think you are replying to MY commentary, not Joe or Phil’s.

Besides that, it has been shown time and again that guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives, while strict gun control laws increase the rate of violent crime. Murders and most other forms of violent crime have gone up dramatically in states, cities, and countries (like Britain and Australia) immediately following the passage of severe gun control laws (in the States it has come down somewhat in recent years as part of an overall trend of violent crime but most places still have more crime than they did before the gun control laws were in place. In states that have made it easy to get a concealed carry permit crime has immediately gone down more so than the national trend.

ok there’s yer morning dose of optimism, hehe :)

agreed on the “we the people” part, though a cursory study of language usage at that time reveals that the term “well regulated” in this context simply meant “well trained”, not “government controlled” as it is commonly understood today.

a.) “A well regulated Militia,”:
=This means “any embodiment of people, “regulated Militia”, by government and that is the only regulating body, or Representatives of such. “Regulated Militia” Means Government Only, thus regulated.
b.) “being necessary to the security of a free State,”:
=A body of Government Militia necessary to the security of the free states.
c.) “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms,”
=”The right of the people to keep and bear Arms”, under a regulated militia, thus meaning Government only.
d.)”shall not be infringed.”:
=That is “we the people”, civilians, and not a militia, cause we are not regulated, therefore we shall not be infringed upon for the sake and might of the government “regulated militia.”

“Of the people who are members of the government militia, their right to bear arms shall not be infringed.”

What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Well, obviously with such a reading, the amendment reserves the right of the government to bear arms. (As government is only administered by agents in its employ).

And what the hell is THAT supposed to mean?
Are we to believe the founding fathers went through all that trouble to draft up a full (the 2nd) amendment to the Constitution, just to say that the government guarantees itself the right to bear arms?

Such a reading is silly, stupid, redundant, and nonsensical.
Nobody every questioned whether the government had the right to bear arms – it is a given that it does, as do all governments ultimately.

It is obvious that the second amendment to the Constitution, that is the second of the Bill of Rights, refers to the individual, and his right to carry and use arms for lawful purpose.

We should probably go on from there to ask, if not the police, then who IS the militia? And the well-documented answer is that the militia is, essentially, everyone. “You ask who is the militia? Why, sir, it is the whole of the people.” Like it or not, YOU are part of the militia.
(I know, the thought makes me shudder too, but probably for different reasons.)

And finally, let us not forget that the prefatory clause which you are brandishing with such ill-informed fury is neither a condition nor a limitation, but rather a brief statement of reason, upon which the body of the amendment is not in the least dependent.

The sad part is that if you’d actually read the ruling, you’d already know all of this.

Yet today, people are so ready to cast aside their rights to feel safe. What a croc!

28 <~~~~ likes the cut of Bob’s jib..