• transigence@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Let me try to explain:
    The 2nd Amendment has two clauses, a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The operative clause is the one that secures the right, and the prefatory clause informs it. However, not being the operative clause, it’s ultimately not anything from which rights are derived, nor restricted. The bill of rights wasn’t written to restrict the rights of the people.
    The prefatory clause is, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…,” which informs the reader as to why the latter exists. So, you can argue until you’re blue in the face about how “well regulated militia” was intended, but ultimately, its immaterial as it’s not part of the operative clause.
    “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This is the operative clause and the only one you really need to be concerned about. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. That is very easy to understand. It’s hard to like if you are a violent criminal and prefer that your violence and violations of the rights of others go uncontested and unprevented, and you don’t want to get shot. For everybody else, this is not only perfectly acceptable and necessary, it’s intuitive.

    • blazera@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Its still not empty words, it is intent, which we supposedly have a history of using when interpreting the constitution for modern cases.

      and you don’t want to get shot.

      I dont think America is the place to be if you dont want to get shot. Did you write this thinking we have a good track record or something?