Wolfgang Wiebach's Light Musings on Heavy Subjects

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. It appears incomprehensible that this simple statement has caused as much controversy as it did. It is clearly a list, comprised of two items: 1. a well regulated militia 2. the right of the people to keep and bear arms where the first item has a justification added. At the end of the list it says what the listed items have in common: they shall not be infringed. As usual in a list, the listed items are separated by a comma; the last item of the list could also be written with an additional "and": A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It does not make any sense to believe that the listed items are not similar (both shall not be infringed), but opposite or unrelated, such that the first item shall not be infringed but the second one shall be or may be infringed. To express such an interpretation clearly, the sentence would have to be augmented not with an "and" but with a double negative: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, but not the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. In this way, the statement sounds like complete gobbledygook.

Our current gun opponents often postulate that the Amendment is not a list of two items, but deals with only one subject - the well-regulated Militia, and that the second statement elaborates on the first one. To express this intent clearly, something similar to the following would have to be added: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the members of said Militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. This would be a reminder that a Militia needs to be armed. If their members wouldn't have the right to keep and bear arms, it wouldn't be much of a Militia, wouldn't it. Did the founding fathers assume future generations of Americans to be so dumb to require such a reminder? And did they then express this reminder only by a delicate hint in order not to insult their intelligence too much - a slight nudge in the ribs: you know, them Militia must be permitted to bear arms? Really funny.

But furthermore, the second statement of the 2nd Amendment does not say       the right of the members, but      the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the people is everyone. Why search desperately for a hidden meaning when the straightforward meaning is perfectly clear? As an aside: whatever happened to the right to actually bear arms? Gun legislation in every State of the Union either prohibits this outright or is extremely restrictive. So the whole United States is nowadays being run in disregard of its constitution. The gun opponents have done quite well already.