In article ,
clifto wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
Amendment II

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.


That's right, the right of THE PEOPLE (not the militia) to keep arms shall
not
be infringed.

But the need for a well-regulated militia is what is stated first and
succinctly. You conveniently ignore that.

What you're ignoring is that the entire first part of that is commentary.
The actual meat of the amendment says simply and eloquently, "the right
of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Nope. The first part of the amendment is a well regulated militia. It
is mentioned first, not as an add on, not as an afterthought, but as the
introductory clause of the piece. It sets out HOW and WHY it must not be
infringed. The context of when infringement takes place. It sets limits.
If you want to include the last part, you can't pretend that the first
doesn't exist.


The grammatical construction of the first part sounds stilted in today's
world, but translating it into modernese, it says "Because a well-regulated
militia is necessary to the security of a free State..."