It doesn’t help that the sentence makes no sense. The second clause requires that the first be the subject of the sentence, but then the third clause starts with a new subject, and lastly there’s that weird “German” comma after “Arms.”
There’s more than one way to interpret the meaning, but strictly speaking the only syntactically accurate rendering comes out roughly as:
[The right to] a well regulated Militia shall not be infringed, as it’s necessary to the security of a free State (security meaning the right of the people to keep and bear arms).
…which is also meaningless.
It’s a stupid amendment for lots of reasons, but the big one is that it’s just shitty English.
It makes more sense in the context of the time - Colonial politics was complex, but some envisioned state militia instead of a central military. I believe the original intent was that Congress could commandeer state militias in times of war - the civil war I think highlights the… unrealisticness of that.
James Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment. And most of the constitution. And the Federalist papers. We have a whole body of work demonstrating his prowess with the pen. Criticism of his writing as “shitty English” says more about the critic than the writing.
The second clause requires that the first be the subject of the sentence, but then the third clause starts with a new subject,
Does the third clause actually have a new subject? Or, does it use a synonym to refer to substantially the same subject as the first clause?
A well-educated populace, being essential to human progress, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed.
It doesn’t help that the sentence makes no sense. The second clause requires that the first be the subject of the sentence, but then the third clause starts with a new subject, and lastly there’s that weird “German” comma after “Arms.”
There’s more than one way to interpret the meaning, but strictly speaking the only syntactically accurate rendering comes out roughly as:
[The right to] a well regulated Militia shall not be infringed, as it’s necessary to the security of a free State (security meaning the right of the people to keep and bear arms).
…which is also meaningless.
It’s a stupid amendment for lots of reasons, but the big one is that it’s just shitty English.
It makes more sense in the context of the time - Colonial politics was complex, but some envisioned state militia instead of a central military. I believe the original intent was that Congress could commandeer state militias in times of war - the civil war I think highlights the… unrealisticness of that.
James Madison wrote the 2nd Amendment. And most of the constitution. And the Federalist papers. We have a whole body of work demonstrating his prowess with the pen. Criticism of his writing as “shitty English” says more about the critic than the writing.
Does the third clause actually have a new subject? Or, does it use a synonym to refer to substantially the same subject as the first clause?