NOYB
1. “according to the supreme court in DC vs. heller, the militia clause has no bearing on the keep and bear arms clause.”
well they (ie 5 ) of the justices got it wrong Its not like they have some kabal ish mipi ish.. Heller was a landmark decision as it was the first time the Supreme court interpreted it that way. See for eg US v Miller (1939):
“In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a “shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length” at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
2. “a nutritious breakfast being necessary to the start of a healthy day; the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed”
Absolute best argument I ever heard. thank you.
I dont see how a reasonable person can use your amendment as a right to eat lunch or junk food.
The introductory clause was intentionally written. Its not like they found a scrap of paper that already said some stuff about militia so they figured lets just stick this in.
Much like your amendment preemptively defines what it is discussing a. nutritious not junk food and b. breakfast not lunch.
So to the second amendment it discusses a. well regulated (we can quible what that means, I would argue background checks and registering of guns would keep things ” well regulated” and b. militia.
This is the introductiry clause abotu which it says “the right of the people…”
3. “…a militia is by definition a loosely organized group of private citizens.”
Yes, so we keep track who is in the milita and they can keep guns its not some hefker wild west. See “well regulated”
“the founding fathers also knew technology would advance,”
where they neviim?