The problem is that when we do as you ask and read the English language of - "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" - what it actually says is that the right to bear arms is a prerequisite of ensuring a well-regulated militia; not that the militia us a requirement for the right to bear arms.BaggyTrousers wrote:There you go using the short version twice, no word of how these armed men shall form a well-regulated militia for the defence of the state then?BR wrote:To be fair, Baggy. They pretty much say the same thing.BaggyTrousers wrote: I've always struggled to understand how lawmakers find it so difficult to make a cogent argument with the wording and every arsehole's "precis version", to-wit, "the right to bear arms",
"the right to bear arms""the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
When you only use a small part of the 2nd amendment you sing the song of the NRA, they only want to listen to the part about the right to bear arms.
The need for a militia is the reason the right exists not vice versa. The Constitution is not impacted by the phrase about militia, only the phrase about not infringing the right.
Now it would be better if the forefathers had said 'the right to keep and bear arms as part of a well regulated militia shall not be infringed,' but that isn't what they wrote. So while I imagine there are members of the NRA who struggle with their ability to read English*, they and the Supreme Court seem to have managed it perfectly well on this occasion. Shame - but there you have it.
* I also know several gun owning Mericans who speak our language better than most locyals.