Karl Duckworth (on April 26) has some argument as to the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress regarding the amendments to the Constitution, and I cannot argue with him to that fact. I do not claim to be an authority on lawmaking. There are some who think that income taxes are unconstitutional.
My question is, when someone wants to use the Second Amendment for “gun rights” they usually quote the Second Amendment and use “only” the part that makes their position rational.
In his argument Duckworth refers to the words “infringed” and “arms.” What about the first four words, “A well regulated militia,” or the next seven words, “ being necessary for the security of a free state”? Without these parts, I would think the amendment would not have reason or purpose.
Duckworth, as a chemical engineer, I think would agree that to get a true and proper conclusion one must use the “entire” equation. One cannot pick and choose the part of the solution and be true to the purpose of the act or amendment.