re some more about gun control in article apr synapse bms com hambidge bms com writes actually the words a well regulated milita being necessary to the security of a free state is a present participle used as an adjective to modify militia which is followed by the main clause of the sentence the subject being the right the verb shall it asserts that the right to keep and bear arms is essential for maintaining a milita a free state yes i agree the first half of the amendment does modify the noun militia but the difinition of modify that applies to how well regulated modifies militia is to qualify or limit the meaning of for example wet modifes day in the phrase a wet day the amendment is similiar to the statement a wet day being annoying the right of the people to keep and wear boots shall not be infringed so how does a dry day pertain the right to use boots similiar what does the unorganized militia have to due with the right to own guns the sentence in the second amendment doesn t restrict the right or state or imply possession of the right by anyone or anything other than the people all it does is make a positive statement regarding a right of the people the people as in you and me as in the first fourth ninth tenth as well as the second amendment the existence of this right is assumed it is not granted by the amendment there is no stated or implied condition relating the right to bear arms to the necessity of a well regulated militia to the security of in other words the entire sentence says that the right to keep and bear arms is unconditional no not unconditional but shall not be infringed infringed is defined as to break or ignore the terms of or obligations an oath an agreement law or the like to disreguard violate to go beyond the boundaries or limits tresspass encroach this definition implies the following of some form of existing agreement laws and agreements are made in advance boundaries or limits of behavior are set by society as a whole the word unconditional implies no agreements or all previous agreements are off which is the opposite the words used in the first amendment are much stronger i e congress shall make no law are much stronger they clearly imply unconditional if the writers of the amendment wanted unconditional whay didn t they says congress shall make no laws pertaining the the right of the people to keep and bear arms the second amendment implies a sort contract between the people the people and the state the bigger part of the contract is the people have the right to overthrew the government and its laws at any time to guarantee this right the laws cannot stopped the people from forming a well regutaled militia the duties of a well regulated militia to the government are descussed in federalist no and the limits of of the governmental control of the militia are descussed in article i section article ii section and the second amendment of the constitution if only it were a modern document with a john lawrence rutledge smart index and hyper links stretching all research assistant through the world data net it was terribly frustrating to flip back and forth between interactive media group the pages and crude flat illustrations that computer science department never even moved nor were there animated umass lowell arrows or zoom ins it completely lacked a university ave for sound lowell ma most baffling of all was the problem of new words in normal text you d only have to touch an unfamiliar word and the definition jrutledg cs ulowell edu would pop up just below from david brin s earth
