Bro, don't mess with my right to eat cereal, instead of waffles......
I saw this in another forum and it lays out the wording of the second amendment perfectly
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary for a healthy lifestyle, the right of the people to eat waffles shall not be infringed.
Whose right is it to eat waffles? The well balanced breakfast (well regulated militia)? That makes no sense.
Does this mean that people can only eat waffles for breakfast? In no way does the sentence state that, and claiming that it does is a stretch by the cereal crowd trying to eliminate the competition of waffles.
The sentence means, very simply when translated to modern vernacular: people have the right to eat waffles whenever they want, and a well balanced breakfast is one reason for this right. Not the only reason.
Getting back into the second, the bit about the well regulated militia is an Interjection, it is providing an example. This can be demonstrated by omitting it from the sentence: when omitted, the sentence both continues to make sense and the meaning hasn't changed.
A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Omit free state:
A well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This doesn't make a lot of sense.
Omit right of the people:
A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, shall not be infringed. This makes no sense.
Omit shall not be infringed:
A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Again, makes no sense.
Being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This still makes sense and the meaning hasn't changed.
Omit militia and free state:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. This still makes sense and the meaning hasn't changed.
What about the commas? In colonial times, it was common to separate the subject and predicate by a comma. The river behind my horse, flows north. This would be an accepted sentence in those times.
So let's break it down some more. All proper sentences have a subject (actor) and a predicate (action). "I ran. " is a proper sentence, where I is the subject and ran is the predicate. Sentences also contain various other modifiers, clarifiers, and qualifiers. In the second, the subject is the right, specifically the right to keep and bear arms by the people. The predicate is shall nor be infringed. The bits about a well regulated militia and free state are an independent clause providing an example, not a qualifier. It can be omitted without affecting the meaning of the sentence, and can be written on its own.
If you take in other contemporary writings, it is clear what the intent was.
I don't recall the exact reference, but when asked about putting cannons on ships to combat pirates, a founder responded that the second amendment covered that. Contemporary siege engines were allowed to be owned by the people.
There was also writing about how a native American tribe was more successful in battle because they were "better regulated".
The meanings of words change over time, so you cannot always place modern usage on contemporary writing. Look at the word gay. It used to mean happy, but in modern times it is taken to mean homosexual. If we applied this to the song deck the halls: don we now our gay apparel has a completely different meaning from when it was written.
The argument that there were only muskets back then falls flat as well. Cannons with grape shot, repeating rifles, and the like were all in existence back then, although not necessarily common. So enjoy your waffles for your healthy lifestyle because it's your RIGHT.
Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk