View Single Post
Old 08-30-2019, 11:21 PM
Little Nemo is online now
Charter Member
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Western New York
Posts: 82,856
Originally Posted by puddleglum View Post
It is not an odd interpretation of grammar. It was a relatively common way of expressing an idea when the constitution was written.
For example: The Constitution of Massachusetts, written in 1784 "The freedom of deliberation, speech, and debate, in either house of the legislature, is so essential to the rights of the people, that it cannot be the foundation of any accusation or prosecution, action or complaint, in any other court or place whatsoever"
In the second amendment the first clause gives the reason and the second gives the rule. Well regulated obviously refers to the militia and not the weapons themselves.

Today it would be written, Because a properly functioning militia is necessary for a free country, the right to keep and bear weapons shall not be infringed.

Who does it apply to? This was answered explicitly by George Mason: "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
I'm still not sure I'm getting your point. Are you saying that the necessity of having a properly functioning militia is the justification for having a right to keep and bear arms?