Turning the words around changes the meaning, as well as the intent. At the time of the writing, the United States of America did not have a "Standing Military." We had a Militia, civilian soldiers who could be called upon to defend the nation.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."
This being the basis of the Second Amendment, we must provide for that Militia: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
In other words:
“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.”
You posted above that the Second Amendment reads:
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, for a well regulated Militia, which is necessary to the security of a free State, shall not be infringed."
That is at poor rewrite, b.
Flame » in reply to The Second Amendment
No . . .
The whole thread (28 posts)
- The Second Amendment
- Your argumentdoesn't hold water.
- Hence forth and ever more, let it be known across the land . . .
- You've been asking for a timely discussion about guns. How do you expect that when you start with insults. n/t
- No . . .
- Regardless of the reason, and whether we like it or not,