[bunkerhill7]

BULLSHT

The Second Amendment is written in blood and saltpeter, not ink.

My family has had firearms above the mantel since 1644 and in the longhouses since 1621.

The Constitutional ink is a re-affirmation of the 400 year old written right [1609,1621-1775] to have guns, the practice of that right, and the unfettered usage of guns by the people and the Mohawks [sic] under the Dutch , Abenaki under the French, and English colonial laws and treaties, resp., which said Constitutional rights were never changed until illegally in 1922 [against machine guns], 1934, 1946 and 1968 against all types of weapons. My gggrandfather had a 12 pounder cannon and a blunderbuss besides his muskets.

Look behind the ink for the blood of the people- that`s where the smell of powder tells you what is the truth, not some language expert, because my family has lived the precendential rights found in the Second Amendment since 1621 [N.A. treaty] and 1644.

[MeatshieldActual]

If you read the article, you would see that the English expert is confirming the original intent of the second amendment. He is saying that the right to keep and bear arms is an absolute right of the people, and that the “well-regulated militia” phrase is not a prerequisite to enjoy those rights.

[HammerT]

If you go ahead and read the article the expert on the language affirms that the Preexisting Commonsense Civil Right .