The Supreme Court on Wednesday will hear a challenge to a federal ban on gun "bump stocks" in a case that could affect thousands of gun-owning Americans.
  • nac82@lemm.ee
    1·
    1 year ago

    Setting apart non-restrixtive relative clauses seems a simple solution to what yall don’t get.

    The grouping of an amendment already implies the components are related, as each amendment is supposed to represent a single right.

    If you are not a part of a well regulated militia, you have no right to bear arms.

    See how I used a comma to form a single thought chaining multiple requirements?

    • jimbolauski@lemm.ee
      12·
      1 year ago

      Each amendment doesn’t represent a single right. The 1st covers freedom of religion, freedom of speech, & freedom of the press.

      The “if” placed the conditional requirement not the comma.

      • nac82@lemm.ee
        2·
        1 year ago

        The linguistics at the time didn’t use the coding logic of if then as often outside of scientific scenarios.

        There is a clear declaration of the need for regulation of gun ownership. What separate right are you proposing the same sentence is declaring?