Why did they choose to express the keeping and bearing of Arms part using the word "right"? Why not, among other possible expressions, for example, say "the keeping and bearing of Arms.."? Although emphasizing the keeping and bearing of Arms as a right may look like a sufficient answer, there seems to be a more compelling answer. The word "right" here provides a continuity connection between the "the right of the people.." part and the preceding part ("A well regulated militia, being necessary.."). Had they said something that goes directly to the intended actions (keeping and bearing of Arms), like the example I mentioned above, the door would have not been as shut to an interpretation suggesting that the "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" part intended to apply forever even if the preceding part, with the word "being", has stopped. But when they put the word "right" to link the part before it with the part after it then the continuity of allowing the capability to keep and bear Arms will depend on the keeping and bearing of Arms being a right which in turn depends on the continuity of a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State.
No comments:
Post a Comment