What the United States Supreme Court Says

[John56{vg}]

I was not referring to the Militia part. It is the "well-regulated" part. THAT is the part that people like the NRA and, in this case, the Supreme Court, failed to look at. Gun ownership needs to be "well-regulated/" Not just being able to walk in off the street and buy.

You cannot just eliminate part of the amendment. "A WELL_REGULATED militia . . ." The amendment was created to allow for TRAINED citizens to keep firearms in order to keep themselves and their neighbors safe.

It is part and parcel of the amendment. Therefore it was forgotten and not taken into account.

So I stand by my original posting.

[Virulent]

You cannot just eliminate part of the amendment.

I agree completely. You also can't change the order of the words in it.

A militia must be well-regulated to ensure the freedom of the state.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Same topic, two different statements. It never says that the people should be well-regulated. In case it isn't clear; that's the point I'm trying to make. No regulation of citizen ownership is implied or required in the 2nd Amendment.

[Warbaby1943]

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Same topic, two different statements. It never says that the people should be well-regulated. In case it isn't clear; that's the point I'm trying to make. No regulation of citizen ownership is implied or required in the 2nd Amendment.

Thanks for pointing that out. I thought such was the case.