No it is not. Militia is not defined. If it is a right for individuals or if it is a temporary provision for frontier life? What role if any does the state have? Does arms include any arms or only what a reasonable person would expect a local temporary militia to have?
As for the comma there are a few ways to look at the constitution. One is that each sentence feagment stands on its own another way is that the sentence fragment only stands in context. The rest of the expression mentions a well regulated militia which clearly isn’t there by accident. Under fragment school it is. So fix the comma. Make it one sentence so that it is clear that the purpose of this is for militias.
I’m actually laughing so hard at the down vote.
You might be better off discussing the matter with James Madison
Fix the comma and define militia in the 2nd amendment to be more specific.
Laughs in the 18 century
I will give you medicine for your “fits”
Deal.
Its plenty specific, just tyrants intentionally misinterpret it. Also what comma?
No it is not. Militia is not defined. If it is a right for individuals or if it is a temporary provision for frontier life? What role if any does the state have? Does arms include any arms or only what a reasonable person would expect a local temporary militia to have?
As for the comma there are a few ways to look at the constitution. One is that each sentence feagment stands on its own another way is that the sentence fragment only stands in context. The rest of the expression mentions a well regulated militia which clearly isn’t there by accident. Under fragment school it is. So fix the comma. Make it one sentence so that it is clear that the purpose of this is for militias.
Its reasoning, it specifically says “right of the people”
It specifically says “well regulated militia”. Stop pretending those words aren’t there.
This is exactly what I am talking about. The text isn’t clear. Oh and I am a liberal gun owner. A badly written rule is still a badly written rule.