Yes. That's why they wrote it plainly to not be misconstrued.... Which both yourself and courts try to do. When the courts ruled in your favor (unconstitutional gun regulation) you say it was a sound choice of the court, but when you disagree with the court's ultimate decision you blame "gun lobbyists". Bad argument, bad take, can't take you seriously at all.

>Also, if you really read it, the 2nd allows for a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms. Says nothing about your every day dipshit being able to walk around with an AR strapped to his back. You did say that. >And the context does not reasonably conclude that it means a fucking free for all. They wrote their intent explicitly and in plain English. What context are you going on about after reading what I quoted from the amendment?

You need to brush up on reading comprehension of the English language. Tell me how you could possibly gain from that sentence in the constitution that to bear arms, it is required to have a well regulated militia. The amendment guarantees both without infringement. You're right the founders got it right the first time, because they added "shall not be infringed".

Quit spouting misinformation about the militia wording. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It states both of these shall not be infringed. Nowhere does it say one is required for the other. Do some research before you regurgitate same falsities designed to change our constitution.

Yeah good luck with that.

Another culture problem.

You just gobble up the narrative without even thinking about things yourself huh? It's like you've been programmed.