• nac82@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Setting apart non-restrixtive relative clauses seems a simple solution to what yall don’t get.

    The grouping of an amendment already implies the components are related, as each amendment is supposed to represent a single right.

    If you are not a part of a well regulated militia, you have no right to bear arms.

    See how I used a comma to form a single thought chaining multiple requirements?

    • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Each amendment doesn’t represent a single right. The 1st covers freedom of religion, freedom of speech, & freedom of the press.

      The “if” placed the conditional requirement not the comma.

      • nac82@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        The linguistics at the time didn’t use the coding logic of if then as often outside of scientific scenarios.

        There is a clear declaration of the need for regulation of gun ownership. What separate right are you proposing the same sentence is declaring?

        • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          There is a clear declaration of the need for regulation of gun ownership.

          No that isn’t clear at all.

          It was originally thought it was a right given to the states and not the people. It has not become a right of the people.

          It some states it was mandatory that you owned a gun and ammo in case you were called up.

          The 2nd amendment was written to allow the states to build militias. In return the federal government was supposed to a small or zero standing army. That isn’t how it all worked out.