re some more about gun control in article c l n ll ulowell ulowell edu jrutledg cs ulowell edu john lawrence rutledge writes so the phrase the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed must either qualify or explain the phrase a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state stuff deleted since the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed does not describe modify or make less harsh anything and it has nothing to do with grammar or some sort of position or task by process of elimination it must fall into definition and since deals with legal power the same thing the constitution does it must be the correct definition in this case therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms gives legal power to the well regualated militia and this legal power shall not be infringed ah clarification by obfuscation 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 the sentence 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 a free state in other words the entire sentence says that the right to keep and bear arms is unconditional so in effort not to force my views and not to destory our liberties and rights i state that nothing i have written or will write in the matter of liberties and rights is the final word for i am only one person among many and the final word on liberties and rights cleary and irrevocably belongs to the many the final word on liberties and rights should not belong to the many that is why we have a constitution otherwise a tyrrany of the majority can ensue from popular opinion a concept which you should be familiar with from the federalist papers al standard disclaimer
