spotted-nutcracker-gv.jpg

De l'aigle | Le Ville` | Shakti | L'égalité | Céu eterno | Sembilan | Malaikat | Infinita | Du al'Agneau | B'ak'tun | Lorentz | Őrn Seadus

'Analytical' 

Subjective: I go further (Alexander Hamilton), and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various ”exceptions to power” which are not (of need) granted: and on this very account, would "afford a colorable pretext to claim" more than (that which) were granted. For why declare that “things shall not be done” which (whenthere’s no (opposed) power to do?

Statement: “A well-regulated Militia [comma], being necessary to the security of a free State [comma], the right of the people to keep and bear Arms [comma], shall not be infringed”. . .

There're hyphens, commas; or brackets used in the course of creative writing which allows for the reader to understand what action's intended by the author. . .

i.e. “the rights of the people shall not be infringed” as it’s difficult to observe how any power might be observed between a militia of "States & Government" when the driving force intended is the betterment of a free and Universal citizenry. . ! ?

Question: Is it right to place "armed insurrection" in the Second Amendment when clearly the founding fathers (as Hamilton’s contention) sought to place trust in the ordered and orderly liberty of a free thinking and Universal citizenry?

saucer.jpg