LiberNovusAmericae wrote:Bombadil wrote:Here's my genuine question..
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As I understood it the interpretation rests in the commas, but my question is..
..if 'a well regulated militia' is essentially redundant then why include it at all? If the amendment meant to give the right to everyone regardless then why have those words in it at all. Seems clear to me that the inclusion means it has significance, that the purpose was to allow guns as part of a well regulated militia, not just willy-nilly for everyone.
Why is about commas?
I interpret it as the common people making up the militia, and the government is able to regulate it to a degree, but not completely ban it.Richard Henry Lee wrote:A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary.
Sure, but 'well-regulated', or from your example, 'when properly formed', which indicate there needs to be at least some form of structure to any group as opposed to just any individual regardless. If you want it to be for anyone then..
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Clear.
A militia are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary.
Clear.