2 ms·

The first part explains the reason for the second part. It's not prescriptive or actionable. Its like saying "When it is hot out, food spoils quickly, in our ho

The first part explains the reason for the second part. It's not prescriptive or actionable. Its like saying "When it is hot out, food spoils quickly, in our house we keep the milk in the fridge.", that doesn't mean it's ok to leave the milk out in the winter. The constitution is designed to be understood by the citizens who are subject to it. If you start to engage in word play you are almost certainly on the wrong track. Same goes for "charging a item with a crime and not a person", justifications for mass surveillance or limitations on press freedom or speech.

lovich 4y ago
That is not the interpretation I or many others over literal hundreds hundreds of years of documented history believe. This is all besides the point though, I’m not here to argue about the specifics of the 2nd amendment and interpretations of each clause. The original poster asked how the US got in the situation with missiles not being in civilian hands based on what they currently knew of the US. The historical reasons behind that are the same whether or not they were made incorrectly > The constitution is designed to be understood by the citizens who are subject to it. Even if I were to accept this as truth, that went out the window when the slaves were freed and I do not accept this as true as you needed to be a white land owning male[1] in the original founding to even vote. There was zero expectation by the founders that everyone subject to the Constitution would be capable of interpreting it correctly. I would need to see some historical evidence before I could have my mind changed on that point [1] Some exceptions, they were all changed to remove the women’s vote at some point up until women’s suffrage was passed