A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

@MistyCee The more likely scenario is the author has better reading and writing skills than you

@HoraceGreenley how so? There is a comma after the first part makes it a predicate of the last part. The context of the right to bear arms is based on a “well regulated militia”. Yet, the Supreme Court interpreted it as an “and” that that both stand alone.

@DailyFlash Agreed. There are two separate entities here. The conjunction "and" is not necessary given that the verb "being" refers to the noun "militia."

This is a pretty common writing style for contracts.

My point is that only someone with unsophisticated reading skills would conclude that miltia and people are not two separate entities.

@RogueLoner shooting someone for something they wrote? 🤔
How would that person defend themselves from such a threat? 🤔. Oh yea with a Gun. 😄

@HoraceGreenley this phrase “being necessary to the security of a free State” makes the last statement dependent on the first not in addition to.

@DailyFlash Only if you can't read well.

@DailyFlash You're wrong. The being necessary...clause tefers to the militia obviously. Then the sentence moves on to the the right of the people.

Day whatever you want dude. The Supreme court and other courts have upheld this 1791.

Just because you wish it were not true does make it so.