-
I always thought based on the original wording it was actually the other way around;
-"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."
That's really what I think is nuts about using the 2nd Amendment to validate gun ownership. To go up against State military forces you need fully automatic wepons, RPGs, maybe some surface to air misiles, and miscellaneous explosives. If you're arguing for anything less then you shouldn't be allowed to evoke the 2nd Amendment in your argument.
@MrDrem That's a clever way to approach it. The packaging is almost as important as the regulation. Maybe enact a "flag lover law" with a load of hidden onerous regulations.
hugo7-
That's not the second amendment - although it's better English.
"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."
Those fucking commas.
My point was simply it's not simple and the best we can do as people who don't live in the US is accept that it's madness, but it's a particularly potent clusterfuck of madness.
The 2nd amendment says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in addition to the militia clause (if it is a separate clause).