The Second Amendment---Broken down
I have a question. It is in regard to the second amendment, the rights of the people vs. the State and all that hoopla. Belercous has brought forth some good points and some compelling arguements regarding the 2nd. I almost addressed it in the ACLU thread, but reconsidered after realizing I would dilute the topic at hand.
Now....the 2nd Amendment in it's brief and powerful entirety:
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.
I don't understand. IMO, the State is really mentioned in passing and really isn't necessary in the body to define the amendment. I read the amendment to say two things by the placement of commas in the sentence.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed AND
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
To me, the 2nd amendment is really a two-fer.
I just don't see the court's decision to give the nod to the State rather than the People ITO the right to bear arms.
Now I realize that I am anything but an expert in law, but it seems pretty straight forward to me.........
Life is a State of Mind.
Last edited by PharmrJohn; 10-27-2009 at 12:18 AM..
Reason: Horribly incomplete.......