LogFAQs > #965277617

Antifar posted...

That's a neat parlor trick for debate club but in practice, at the moment, the only interpretation of the second amendment that matters is the one held by the unelected judges of the supreme court.

They can only persist with it because of the ignorance of the people. Ultimately it is up to them, but lack of public education on what it actually means allows them to continue their misinterpretation.

CryoForceOmelet posted...

How do you get the idea that the existence of the first clause makes the third and fourth clause invalid?

Huh, the 2nd amendment is one sentence with a right, a dependent clause, and a modifier :
"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."

Right: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms
Modifier for the Right: shall not be infringed (But only important if the Right exists)
Dependent Clause: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Because we do not need a well regulated militia there exists no right to unfettered keeping and bearing of arms.