Rick
Then why did they insert the clause at all?
“Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict “the right of the people to keep and read Books” only to “a well-educated electorate” — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]”
“[Copperud:] Your “scientific control” sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.”
Well, he didn’t do himself any favors with that, now did he? Your sentence is constructed to include a stronger causal connection between the right and its operation on the subject of the first clause (the electorate), presumably so you can use your man to show it’s not important. Nice try.
Note that the amendment does not say “A well-ARMED militia, being essential…”, it says “a well REGULATED militia” – so your example with books is actually not as similar as you think. I’m astounded that your learned friend didn’t notice that – it’s slightly important to the meaning of your sentence, because it implies a stronger causal relationship than one in the amendment. If it’s not important, then why not just leave it alone? What if your example said:
“A well-REGULATED electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”
Does that not imply the ability of the government to regulate the electorate? If not, why mention it?
If the purpose of ensuring that the right to bear arms is not infringed is to ensure a militia (which has nothing at all to do with a professional army, which is inherently GIVEN that right by the conditions of their employment – otherwise it would be a pretty useless army – so, again, why mention it at all unless the framers meant the citizen soldier), then the right to regulate that militia is also ensured by that amendment (it’s essential to a free state, right?).
So the way I see it, if you own a gun then the government should have the right to call you up for military service. Otherwise you’re not part of a well-regulated militia at all.
See, the problem you have is in thinking the first clause restricts the second clause. I don’t think it doesn’t. But it SHOULD given the government the power to regulate the people who exercise the second clause, given the essential nature of the right they’re exercising. You can keep and bear arms all you like. But if you do, you are part of a militia, so you should be well-regulated.
In any case, you don’t interpret the second amendment by the letter anyway. Nobody does. Can I buy and keep heavy artillery? Mortars? Guided munitions with high explosive warheads? They are all arms. Some of them didn’t exist when the amendment was written – but that’s just tough, if you want to apply the law to its letter.
