[removed]

You are incorrect. I will explain.

The whole sentence only makes sense if you read it in it's entirety (you know like a sentence is supposed to be read). If they were separate things as right-wing activists argue then they wouldn't be in the same sentence.

As for the rest of it if you aren't familiar with what surplusage is (how they said the entirety of the first part of the sentence is irrelevant) and how that flies smack dab into the face of the Constitution as it has been read since at the latest 1803 in Marbury v Madison then...

To show what I mean

[[A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..., shall not be infringed.]]

See now people owning arms for personal use argument doesn't work for you. You just interpret it your way because you like the right-wing activists ruling. This reading doesn't make any less sense. You don't get to just cut up a sentence to suit your views which is exactly what the right wing activists did.

It's not because if we act like they're separate things then the first part says nothing, does nothing.

[[A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,]]

If they were separate things this is all the first part says. It says nothing. It's surplusage. That flies in the face of the way the law (all law [except for right-wing activists who read what they want]) has been read since 1803 in Marbury v Madison.

If you read the amendment in a non-right-wing activist fashion as it was in Miller (the way it had been read in the US up until right-wing activists in 2008) it's a collective right not an individual one. Which would mean the Guard is largely what the 2nd it talking about and the Feds can't stop states from having their own militia and arming/training it.

Grammatically two separate non-linked ideas should not be contained in the same sentence without semicolons or coordinating conjunctions.

That chocolate is going to get sticky all over your hands.

There is no misinterpretation of the 2nd amendment. It is the right to bear arms. We have that right not for hunting or just personal protection. It’s there incase our government is corrupt and takes too much power. We can use guns for hunting etc which is also within our rights, but it’s not a right wing narrative. It’s just the constitution and those who appreciate the rights given. It’s not a right or left things. That’s partisan politics and party line drawing. I know democrats with guns and republicans.

[removed]

[removed]

I'm ok with the military having guns.

Hits different for me, in the USA with 39 mass shootings in 24 days.

It's only a "fundamental right" because right wing extremists employ purposeful misinterpretation of the second amendment.

An originalist reading of 2A by a court that isn't compromised politically in no way guarantees private individual ownership.

Ukraine probably disagrees with your logic.

Removing all guns or removing easy access? It’s a fundamental right in America to be able to bear arms. That said some mentally unhealthy individuals have the means to access weapons. Most cases of masa shooting the guns were purchased legally, but most actual criminals with guns don’t acquire theirs in that same way. Criminals will always get guns, and so will the police etc. law abiding citizens shouldn’t lose guns because the system allows for mentally unwell people to purchase weapons. A lot of mass shooters have been warned about before. A lot even have been tipped off the the FBI. When mentally ill people get weapons and the “good guys” don’t act to prevent violence then bad things happen. If you take guns, mentally ill people will still find ways to get attention and hurt others. Only difference would be law abiding citizens would have their rights and guns taken needlessly. Again. It’s a mental health issue. Not a gun issue.

[removed]

The root issue is easy access to guns.

And yes blaming guns doesn't solve the issue, removing them would.

Gun owners are “harping” in what way? What do you mean by that? If you mean by discussing guns? I’d say both gun owners and those who don’t want firearms, discuss guns with similar energy. Just differing viewpoints. This art implies guns seem to be the root cause of the issue. Robbing children of their innocence. I say the root issue is people. The mental health of America. Good people doing the right things with guns is great for America. Bad people doing hurtful things with guns is bad for America. Blaming guns doesn’t solve the problem.

I love this comment haha

No, guns absolutely are the issue, because solving a wide spread behavioral cultural negative is far more difficult than removing physical objects.

It's the gun owners who are harping.

Well said. So this art piece is useless. It’s about the gun. Guns aren’t the issue. People are.

Correct. Which means until we address those issues, harping about guns is pointless.

[removed]

[removed]

Well takes more than just good people with guns. Takes action. Leadership. Courage. That which is lacking.

I was just about to ask what the chocolate meant..

I absolutely love this!!It's so beautiful!!

[removed]

Th Al you so much, I really appreciate it!