09-14-2023, 07:18 PM
(09-14-2023, 06:49 PM)GreenDragon Wrote: Are any of them part of a well regulated militia?
"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"
Indeed they are, all of them. You are part of one too.
But since you're playing the predictable anti-gun card let me further explain.
The 2A states a well regulated (meaning in good working order given the definition of that term when the 2A was written) militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Because this is important "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Does the 2A state that being part of a militia is necessary to bear arms? No, it clearly does not. It states that such a militia is important, hence the people owning arms shall not be infringed. This is not a qualifier for anyone who actually understands the English language, but a justification.
Let's put it this way, using the 1A as an example. The ability of a citizen to publicly disagree with their government, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to free speech shall not be infringed.
Now kindly tell me, is criticizing the government the only reason for being able to exercise the right to free speech, or an important justification for why free speech shall not be infringed? You'll need better arguments than tired talking points on this issue.
Lastly, do you agree with the New Mexico governor's actions?
