[click image]


Since 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. seems beyond the powers of many to understand, the Supremes have found it politic to stay out of it for now.

But, seriously, there is only one sense in which the grammar and punctuation there constitute proper English, and that is in the sense that since we gotta have security enforcers, the people have to be able to keep it from infringing on them. The other reading, that the people have to have an unimpeded right to keep and bear arms so they can constitute a militia for security's sake, is a vaguely-plausible one, but the English isn't as correct for that one.

In either case, there should not be ANY laws regulating our right to keep and bear arms, since regulation is infringement, and a well-regulated militia, obviously, is infringed upon not to do what we don't want them to and to do what we want them to, and that has to be enforceable by us. So, yeah, I do mean to imply that the second possible reading is horse shit, but nonetheless clear about non-fringement of this right.

It is a fact that some fuckers wish to muddy this further by insisting that blot between Arms and shall is a comma, which would distance this sentence even further from scrutablity by objective readers, but if you study the document, instead of defying your grade school English teacher, you will see it is not, and never was, a comma.

Mindfuckers will stop at nothing to tie your brain in knots.

This country is pathetic.


I guess, since I'm on the subject of our founding documents, I should remind you that the word "unalienable" means unable to be taken from, or given away by, the possessor. So you might see how some of us could be damn grumpy about unalienable rights being aliened by people who should be, by constitutional fiat, shot for it.

always and any time....