The War on Guns

[Bone]

@Czarcasm

So the answer to my question is…? I don’t want any misunderstanding or accusations of misinterpretation here.

Just to point out we’ve had this discussion with **Bob **in another thread. My response then is the same as now:

@Bone

I’m a pretty staunch gun rights advocate. ** Bob Blaylock** - please don’t be on my side - you make us look bad.

@ElvisL1ves

So the first half has no real effect at all? Gee, why would the FF’s have even bothered writing it at all, in your opinion? Pretty silly of them to waste that ink, don’tcha think?

Try again.

Have you read Heller vs. DC? Held from the opinion:

 (a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28.

Try again yourself.