Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Gun Control Reform Activism

YoungDemCA

(5,714 posts) Sun Apr 24, 2016, 01:16 PM Apr 2016

Is this a logical interpretation of the Second Amendment? [View all]

My interpretation:

"Since a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State, it is of utmost importance that the right of the People to keep and bear arms is not infringed by the federal government - and by extension, state and local governments."

I base this on the historical and social context of Colonial, Revolutionary, and post-Revolutionary America.

Thoughts?

10 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is this a logical interpretation of the Second Amendment? [View all] YoungDemCA Apr 2016 OP

Yep Mike__M Apr 2016 #1

Doesn't that just lead to the conclusion TeddyR Apr 2016 #2

Adding a word that billh58 Apr 2016 #3

THREE Commas. lastlib Apr 2016 #5

Improper use of punctuation can drastically alter meaning, indeed. Electric Monk Apr 2016 #6

Not really - otherwise I wonder what the hell this sentence means, then? jmg257 Apr 2016 #8

The 2nd is a right of the states Buzz cook Apr 2016 #4

2ndA historical context? jimmy the one Apr 2016 #7

I'm not sure about "and by extension". States could not infringe any more the then the feds could. jmg257 Apr 2016 #9

Gun Nuts just can't help themselves billh58 Apr 2016 #10