Explain, how is an individual right necessary by implication to achieve that purpose, when the actual language describing regimented, uniformed state militia or guard, adequately achieves the purpose by itself?
You are describing a standing army, not a militia. The Second Amendment does not mention a standing army.
You said yourself the prefatory clause deliniates the subsequent clauses. Yet you read “the people” as being “every person” and not "the people [who are securing the state as militia regulars].
“Regulars” are members of a standing army. Members of a militia would never be described as “regulars”.
Even more curious again because the text says what right the militamen have: to keep and bear arms. You have to go to pretty recent writings to find examples of the words “bear arms” used to refer to a right of all individuals to have whatever guns they want.
Wow, buddy. Are you even trying? Let’s reread the text of the Second 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.”
Whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Ah yes, as it says in the actual amendment, it is the right of the people whose right shall not be infringed. Not the right of members of the militia.
I would concede that there is a general right of a militia age persons to keep arms. As they were then, serialized, registered, after training, not habitually openly carried, not stockpiled machine guns with thousands of rounds. You know, regimented like, with muskets.
Please cite your sources. Guns were usually owned by individuals and not serialized in the late 18th century. And please, the whole “it only applies to weapons available at the time” fallacy is ridiculous because that would mean that the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to electronic communication systems.
I would even concede [unlike originalists and textualists] that the right of such persons to keep guns refers to common weapons of self defense such as shot guns and semi auto pistols with maybe a six round capacity; as the Breuen court speaks of this right to traditional weapons of personal defense.
Judge Roger Benitez has repeatedly explained that the reason police officers use weapons with larger magazine capacities is the same reason why everyone should be able to use guns with larger magazine capacities. It’s irrelevant anyway, because the Second Amendment doesn’t give any leeway to such infringements.
Every gun law has to be unconstitutional. Every weapon has to be available. Any restriction is an infringement.
The only three sentences you’ve said that have any truth and logic to them. I’ll agree with you on those three sentences.
All gun control laws are unconstitutional and illegal and should be repealed.
You really need to study history some more.
You are describing a standing army, not a militia. The Second Amendment does not mention a standing army.
“Regulars” are members of a standing army. Members of a militia would never be described as “regulars”.
Wow, buddy. Are you even trying? Let’s reread the text of the Second 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.”
Whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed? Ah yes, as it says in the actual amendment, it is the right of the people whose right shall not be infringed. Not the right of members of the militia.
Please cite your sources. Guns were usually owned by individuals and not serialized in the late 18th century. And please, the whole “it only applies to weapons available at the time” fallacy is ridiculous because that would mean that the 1st Amendment doesn’t apply to electronic communication systems.
Judge Roger Benitez has repeatedly explained that the reason police officers use weapons with larger magazine capacities is the same reason why everyone should be able to use guns with larger magazine capacities. It’s irrelevant anyway, because the Second Amendment doesn’t give any leeway to such infringements.
The only three sentences you’ve said that have any truth and logic to them. I’ll agree with you on those three sentences.
All gun control laws are unconstitutional and illegal and should be repealed.
Removed by mod