Thursday, May 25, 2017

+133 (second amendment interpretation 97)

continuing from the preceding post
The first comma transferred the focus from the well regulated militia itself, through the status of its existence, to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms". So what confusing thing the poor speakers here had done to make their intention more difficult to understand than in, for example, saying Jim, being a doctor, you should see him for your headache in that it is the headache (or the dealing with it) that is the focus not Jim himself?
I put the reference to the right of the people to keep and bear Arms in quotation marks above in order to denote speaking only at the parsing level to the sentence there and avoid the implication that right has independent existence from the necessity of the militia to the security of a free state.

No comments: