stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments

[Vellatri]

Originally Posted by Lyra [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Secondly, in reading it, it in itself is another conditional statement:

Minor but important correction: this is not a conditional statement. It's a prefatory clause.

Originally Posted by Lyra [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The second part of the statement cannot stand without the first

Actually, it can, because the first is only a preface and not operational. They included it, as you said, simply to state the "why" of 2A. It places no restriction on the "what."

Originally Posted by Lyra [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

the first does not state, in order to ensure personal safety, in order to hunt or in order to shoot 20 defenseless first graders.

Agreed. It's there in order to keep government in check. (To secure a free state.) That's why I've said in the past that even if guns unquestionably increased crime across the land, there would still be justificaiton for keeping them.

Liked your pics at the end, Lyra. Some reasons why this gun nut can't stand the NRA or the GOP. The black resistance to gun control in the 60s makes for some great reading.