• jimbolauski@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    You missed the comma between the militia and bear arms statements. Below are common instances when a comma should be used. None of the uses of a comma make the 2nd phrase conditional on the 1st.

    • Separating items in a list of three or more
    • Connecting two independent clauses with a coordinating conjunction
    • Setting apart non-restrictive relative clauses
    • nac82@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Setting apart non-restrixtive relative clauses seems a simple solution to what yall don’t get.

      The grouping of an amendment already implies the components are related, as each amendment is supposed to represent a single right.

      If you are not a part of a well regulated militia, you have no right to bear arms.

      See how I used a comma to form a single thought chaining multiple requirements?

      • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Each amendment doesn’t represent a single right. The 1st covers freedom of religion, freedom of speech, & freedom of the press.

        The “if” placed the conditional requirement not the comma.

        • nac82@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          8 months ago

          The linguistics at the time didn’t use the coding logic of if then as often outside of scientific scenarios.

          There is a clear declaration of the need for regulation of gun ownership. What separate right are you proposing the same sentence is declaring?

          • Neuromancer@lemm.eeOPM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            6
            ·
            8 months ago

            There is a clear declaration of the need for regulation of gun ownership.

            No that isn’t clear at all.

            It was originally thought it was a right given to the states and not the people. It has not become a right of the people.

            It some states it was mandatory that you owned a gun and ammo in case you were called up.

            The 2nd amendment was written to allow the states to build militias. In return the federal government was supposed to a small or zero standing army. That isn’t how it all worked out.