I’m focusing on language here.
We both know what the 2nd amendment says. My argument was trying to focus on the fact that the anti-gun crowd has always claimed that the right to bear arms is only contingent upon a militia.
The “right” of the people, under our Constitution, can keep and bear arms in order to create a militia inorder to maintain security. Tell me where I’m wrong?
The only place you’re wrong is that the Constitution does not “grant” the right, it “protects” the right.
Repealing the Second Amendment, as many bed-wetters wish to do, would not remove that right.
A more appropriate name for the “Bill of Rights” would be “Bill of Government Restrictions”.