[Betty Jane]

And I told you it was not the same structure and I told you why. Therefore, I will not answer it. Re-phrase it to comply with the same structure and you won't need to ask my opinion -- it will be obvious. Which, I'm sure, is why you refuse to do so.

A well-regulated militia being necessary to the secutity of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

A well-educated citizenry being necessary to the advancement of a modern society, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed

My sentence structure exactly matches the sentence structure of the second ammendment.

So please answer my question. In my rewording of the second ammendment, who can read and keep books? Please do not go off on tangents about regulating book buying and well stocked libraries. In your understanding of the English language, who can read books in the above sentence?

[ctdonath2]

In his reasoning, only those with library cards may read, and the library may decide which books that particular cardholder may read, and where and how. Bookstores could be prohibited from selling to anyone but libraries, or sell only under the library's terms. Particular categories of books could be banned outright.

And no, he doesn't have a problem with that.

[robertpaulsen]

"My sentence structure exactly matches the sentence structure of the second ammendment."

For the last time, no it doesn't. The second amendment doesn't say "an armed citizenry being necessary to the security ...".

It's very specific. It says not only "Militia", but a "well regulated Militia". The U.S. Constitution itself says that officers of those Militias are to be appointed by the state and that arms will be provided by the federal government. In 1792, Congress wrote the Militia Act specifying exactly the organization of that Militia.

Now you come along and tell me that the second amendment is simply referring to a bunch of people arming themselves? Wrong.