>>1 - Not the active clause of the statement. Its not something that modifies, limits, or negates the active clause. It would be similar to having a first amendment that said "the need for debate before elections being important, the right of the people to free speech and a free press, shall not be infringed". If the 1st amendment said that the right would not be limited to only political debate before elections.
2 - A justification for the active clause.
3 - The militia IS individual people to a very great extent. The amendment is not "the states have a right to have military organizations", the militia was then, and had long been, ordinary people with their own weapons.
Also by current US law most adult males, and some women are also members of the militia.<<
Tim -
If it doesn't modify, limit, or negate the active clause, what is it there for?
How does it not "modify" the active clause?
And if the militia IS individual people, in what sense are they, as a militia, well regulated?
As for the First Amendment, the fact is that it doesn't say that. The Framers did not seem to feel the need to add an ablative clause to the First Amendment, but they did add one to the Second Amendment.
I don't think you've explained why. And I submit that you haven't because you don't fully understand why yourself. And that's the whole problem with the Second Amendment. It's not clear.
- Allen |
