I am pro-gun rights, and I would SUPPORT this.
I am pro-gun rights, and I would be AGAINST this.
I am anti-gun rights, and I would SUPPORT this.
I am anti-gun rights, and I would be AGAINST this.
Matthew 10:34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
- The 2nd Amendment does not "specify" the right to keep and bear arms, it acknowledges the right's natural existence and declares it inviolate.
- The 2nd Amendment justifies said declaration by pointing out the necessity of an armed population for the "security of a free State." The virtue of armed citizens is thus clearly not just protecting the nation from foreign foes, but protecting the nation's liberty as well. Self defense is the ultimate expression of personal liberty.
And you don't get to call the militia clause the operative, functional part of the Amendment just to get what YOU want.
2001-2008: Dissent is the highest form of patriotism.
2009-2016: Dissent is the highest form of racism.
2017-? (Probably): Dissent is the highest form of misogyny.
The first part of the sentence is neither independent or subordinate clause. The particple "being necessary to the security of a free State" is either descriptive of "A well regulated militia" or "the right (of the people)...."
If the latter, it merely justifies the importance of the right to bear arms and explicates why is must not be infringed upon by government.
If the former, then the noun phrase "a well regulated Militia" is positioned as synonymous with and equivalent to "the people"--which again explicates the importance of not infringing upon the right.
In all cases, the independent clause stands on its own: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
(I am now absolutely convinced that schools need to bring back diagramming sentences to instruction in the English language )