Where do you stand on banning guns?

[SoutherDem]

37. So why include the stuff about the militia?

I get your example, but still don't understand why include it.

Why not simply say. The Peoples rights to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed? Wouldn't that have made things much easier? Why was it needed?

You seem to have a good grasp of the law, much better than mine. Just wondering. Since the SCOTUS interprets the Constitution, or at least that is what I have always been told. And, since it is often stated it is settled law by the SCOTUS that the 2nd Amendment could be read without the first part. Could a future SCOTUS for whatever reason unsettle the law? Could a future SCOTUS state the purpose clause is needed for the right to exist?

I will say this, since we, with DU3, get to see how people voted. We are very close on how we feel about his issue, I could have voted that way with one small exception, I have even considered changing my vote. So I don't want you to feel I am being argumentative. I am seeking clarification. For me the sad part of this argument is people too often will be on the same side of the fight, but argue on a minor detail. I don't mean to be doing this. I really want to try and understand.