I found an old paper back book on the Bill of Rights written by some imminent judge about thirty years ago. I thought it would clear up any doubts about the Second Amendment because the shtick was all about "The Most Important Document for Freedom," etc.
This judge mocked rifle associations and firearms enthusiasts and made the claim that the amendment is there to protect the militia.
I don't see how anybody can read the thing and interpret it that way.
As I've said before, you can dissect the sentence into two parts.
1) A well-regulated militia [is = being] necessary for the security of a free state, and;
2) The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Taken separately, neither clause loses meaning and could stand alone. Taken together, they mean the same thing that they do separately.
Suppose somebody said "A well-regulated kitchen being necessary for the enjoyment of a fine dinner, the right of the people to eat at McDonalds shall not be infringed."
What would that mean? Separately and together, they mean the same thing. Just like the Second Amendment.
Only people with an agenda can interpret otherwise. The Supreme Court is just too gutless to take it on for the very reason that you cite.
>Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
IS
–verb
1. 3rd pers. sing. pres. indic. of BE.
—Idiom
2. as is. as1 (def. 25).
[Origin: bef. 900; ME, OE; c. D is, ON es, er, G, Goth ist, L est, Gk estí, OCS jesti, Skt asti]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006. |
