[danf_fl]

A comma used in a sentence can be used to indicate several things. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm

"Amendment II

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."
Is the way it was penned by our forefathers.

Yes, there are commas, and their usage could be considered improper.

When I read the Second Amendment to our Bill of Rights, this is how I read it:
"A well regulated Militia (being necessary to the security of a free State) and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

My interpretation shows one specific flaw that we have allowed to slide without our doing any action.
We have allowed the "security of a free State" to go without keeping a well regulated militia. And any attempt to organize a "well regulated Militia" has been put down by our own government. The same people who swear an oath "To protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic" upon taking office.

While some believe that the Second Amendment pertains only to a "well regulated militia", the same people refuse to join such a militia.


An interesting article:
http://www.naturalnews.com/038375_Bill_of_Rights_liberties_Republic.html

[fmj]

Originally Posted by danf_fl

A comma used in a sentence can be used to indicate several things. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm

"Amendment II

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."
Is the way it was penned by our forefathers.

Yes, there are commas, and their usage could be considered improper.

When I read the Second Amendment to our Bill of Rights, this is how I read it:
"A well regulated Militia (being necessary to the security of a free State) and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

My interpretation shows one specific flaw that we have allowed to slide without our doing any action.
We have allowed the "security of a free State" to go without keeping a well regulated militia. And any attempt to organize a "well regulated Militia" has been put down by our own government. The same people who swear an oath "To protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic" upon taking office.

While some believe that the Second Amendment pertains only to a "well regulated militia", the same people refuse to join such a militia.


An interesting article:
http://www.naturalnews.com/038375_Bill_of_Rights_liberties_Republic.html

Dont you know militias are domestic terror groups???

[FullautoUSA]

Originally Posted by CA357

"Shall NOT be infringed" needs NO clarification. Screw the gun grabbing bastards, we shouldn't have to explain a damn thing. We don't have a gun problem, we have a crime problem.

What happened was a tragedy but it was not gun violence, it was scumbag violence, gun violence would be 2 handguns having a boxing match.

[cjbubbadoc]

Just wanted to say thanks to all for pondering the dilemma or what could happen. Think I may have been spending too much time at the Huffington Post arguing with Libs and defending my position. Had to come back here for reassurance there still exists fight in this country.

[Shade]

http://jenkuznicki.com/2013/01/a-treasury-of-quotes-about-our-2nd-amendment/

[Shade]

Originally Posted by danf_fl

A comma used in a sentence can be used to indicate several things. http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/commas.htm

"Amendment II

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."
Is the way it was penned by our forefathers.

Yes, there are commas, and their usage could be considered improper.

When I read the Second Amendment to our Bill of Rights, this is how I read it:
"A well regulated Militia (being necessary to the security of a free State) and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

My interpretation shows one specific flaw that we have allowed to slide without our doing any action.
We have allowed the "security of a free State" to go without keeping a well regulated militia. And any attempt to organize a "well regulated Militia" has been put down by our own government. The same people who swear an oath "To protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic" upon taking office.

While some believe that the Second Amendment pertains only to a "well regulated militia", the same people refuse to join such a militia.


An interesting article:
http://www.naturalnews.com/038375_Bill_of_Rights_liberties_Republic.html

Actually at the time the Constitution was written it was common to state
a preamble or purpose in legal writing. Also it was considered wise and
educated to be efficient in your use of words. Unlike today’s legalize that
is so verbose as to add confusion. So the preamble of the Second Amend-
ment is, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free
State,” states the purpose of the Amendment. To secure the State a Militia
is required, a standing army was considered a threat to freedom at the time
the Constitution was written, we will have to see if they were correct or not.
The core of the Amendment is, “the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed." “Of the People” was at the time of the writing
was clearly meant as an individual right. The works to keep and bear was to
define the right of all citizens to own Arms of any kind, firearms, and swords
etc., all arms inclusive. Bear means to carry or present, meaning that the
Citizen shall be able to carry with him or her, their arms at all times as they
see fit. “Shall not be infringed,” is simple and clear, and needs no other
comment.