Originally Posted by
NE_Pilot
It does not say People of the Militia, that is your mental gymnastics inserting words that do not exist. Otherwise, according to you it would say “The people of the Militia being necessary...”
The Militia and the People are two distinct and separate things. The term “the People” is used in multiple places throughout the Constitution, and all in the same way.
You are more than welcome to disagree with the Amendment, but don’t make stuff up to try to get it to say something it does not. When you do that, your reasoning is no better than the judges in the Dred Scott case who claimed the Constitution never intended for black citizens, despite it not being mentioned anywhere.
Edit: Speaking of Dred Scott, part of the decision was based on the 2nd Amendment:
Notice how they are trying to justify why black citizens can’t exist, just as you are trying to justify why the 2nd Amendment doesn’t apply to individuals.
It's amazing how you have now proven the very point you were disagreeing with.
I don't disagree with the right to own weapons, but again, reading that sentence in plain language, I have to assume the context is the people of the militia, not all the people. Again, otherwise, militia would have been left out of the sentence. There's no reason to use it otherwise. Being at the beginning, it sets the context. But hey, that's just using the language it was written in...and you are telling us that it needs no interpretation. You are the one using mental gymnastics to tell us it needs no interpretation.