You have no facts, Only right wing propaganda and rhetoric. Why appeal to authority instead of Reason?
okay it's clear that you cannot debate like an adult.
To people who actually are adults and interested in learning, I'll post something I posted in another forum on the subject, to people actually interested in educating themselves.
The historical context directly supports my view. The use of prefatory clauses in the exact same sort of way is quite visible in other laws and constitutions of the time. The prefatory clause is doing exactly what it does - giving an example of a reason for the importance of the objective clause. Not defining the only use of the objective clause. It announces one purpose (of many) of the operative clause - it does not limit the operative clause as that is not its function.
Certainly, (a well regulated militia was) one, of the many, reasons for it being written, the prefatory clause recognized and stated one of the reasons for the recognition of the right of the PEOPLE (again, not the militia) to keep and bear arms.
But indeed, it was far more than just the militia. For example here was from the Pennsylvania ratifying convention, the anti-federalist dissenters in what was the start of the recognition of a need for a Bill of Rights to be enshrined after the constitution was ratified:
"
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own State, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to and be governed by the civil power." - Address and Reasons of Dissent of the Minority of the Convention of the State of Pennsylvania to their Constituents" (Dec. 18, 1787)
---
---
But lets break the amendment down better since you seem to not quite grasp the function of the prefatory clause.
Let's say this amendment was placed into the constitution: "
A well educated Electorate, being necessary to self-governance in a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
Now, would you break that down, and come forward claiming that the above means that only those who are part of a well educated electorate (presumably with the government or yourself deciding who is well-educated) has the right to keep and read books? Of course not. It says very clearly it is the right of the people, not just those that happen to be considered "well educated" and who can vote as part of the electorate.
Starting to get it? It's certainly different looking when you look at another right through the same lens, no matter how hypothetical, isn't it.
=
=
Let's look at the phrasing slightly different. Let's say the constitution said "
The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty."
Now, would you look at that and tell us that it is indicating that only people who are considered to be part of the press have the right to publish their sentiments on any subject? Normal people who aren't part of the press don't have that right? Of course not - it very clearly recognizes the right of any person, not just the press mentioned in the prefatory clause, to publish their sentiments on any subject. But the former is what we would say if we use your logic there that you use on the second amendment and its prefatory clause.
Think that one is farfetched? Well it's not - it's literally word for word in the first constitution of Rhode Island.
That's the way language was used at this time, when prefatory clauses like that were much more common in laws. They did not limit the right detailed in the objective clause, only provided a reason or explanation for the importance of that right to be enshrined and recognized. Rhode Island didn't limit the right to publish only to members of the press, nor did the Bill of Rights limit the right to bear arms only to members of the/a militia. They enshrined the right of the people, and gave those prefatory examples as just that - examples.
