Bless your support of the US, but please read up on some history of the Second Amendment and the language of the time. First of all, the original version of the second Amendment sent to the states for ratification did not have the last comma. Secondly, the grammatical construct used in the three-comma version was not uncommon for the time.
See, for example, http://www.guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html.
its the first couple words that really make it odd. look at the period interpretations of the words to make sense of it.
“well regulated militia” should be read as “properly equipped and trained citizens”
Of course, with an armed populace, "WE" would have to watch our step. That's because with an armed populace, we are not speaking of sportsmen potting the odd duck. We are talking about free men potting the odd government official.
We have the Bill of Rights, and the 2d amendment (note placement) is the part that keeps the Bill of Rights intact. Number 1 is the right to shoot your mouth off. Number 2 is the right to shoot anyone who tries to shoot you for shooting your mouth off.
"It being a very rainy day, and John not having one, John took his raincoat from the closet.
Nothing in the first two clauses modifies the fact that John took his raincoat from the closet.
But if you really require an in-depth grammatical analysis of the 2nd you can find it here.
Hope it helps.
Regards,
L
"Since a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms as part of that Militia shall not be infringed by the federal government".
With this interpretation there is no need to "draw the line" on "arms". Whatever arms the state believes necessary to form a well regulated Militia are protected from federal infringement.
What about those not in a Militia? What about their arms? What about self defense and hunting? What about concealed carry? Those individual rights are defined and protected by each state constitution. Which is where that kind of protection belongs.
Clean. Crisp. Simple.
If the citizens of DC want handguns, let them elect a City Council who will vote that way. If the citizens of DC are content with the existing law, who are we to tell them how they will live in their city? What? We know better? It's for their own good?
Such arrogance! I thought liberals engaged in this crap, not conservatives.
Absolute phrases, like the dependent clause in the Second Amendment are quite common in Latin. This is not a grammatical structure that would be a mystery to our Founders, many of whom were highly educated in the classics.
Such absolute phrases represent a very weak way to tie two ideas together.
The Founders could have said, "BECAUSE a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state,..." but that ties the two clauses together more definitely than the authors wished.
The Founders could have said, "BECAUSE, AMONG OTHER REASONS, a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state,...". That would reduce the connection.
The absolute clause is the way to simply let the reader draw his own conclusions about the connection and eliminates the nature of the connection from consideration.
Here's an example: "The sun having risen above the clouds on the eastern horizon , Odysseus broke his fast."
Did the sun CAUSE him to break his fast. If the sun had not appeared, would Odysseus NOT have broken his fast. The sentence only communicates the temporal relationship between the two events.
The sentence could have been written as two independent sentences, but that would reduce the connection to only the temporal connection. The connection is stronger than that, and has to do with the fact that, prior to the appearance of the sun, Odysseus was probably asleep. But whether he was or wasn't, it isn't relevant to the independent clause. We know that Odysseus broke his fast.
Actually, there has been substantial discussion about the grammar of the 2nd Amendment which includes this excellent chronology here on Free Republic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39388c210c1b.htm
Unfortunately, the Kakistocrats among us, even those who file amicus briefs with the Supreme Court refuse to do the research.
Best regards,