Watched a splash of Colbert yesterday afternoon. Colbert was not being “Colbert;” he was interviewing Bill O’Reilly. In the course of the interview, he quoted the 1st clause of the 2nd Amendment… you know (or should) … the one that comes before “shall not be infringed.”
As a refresher, here’s the whole text:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The ambiguity has been much discussed.
Does that mean:
‘Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to form such a militia and, in the context of that, maintain weapons and exercise the skill set that makes the use of such weapons effective?’
Or is it:
‘The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.’ (Both; separately.)
For the framers, who lived and died before there was such a thing as a “fully automatic,” or “semi automatic” weapon, long rifles fired maybe three bullets per minute. Surely many militiamen still kept and bore muskets. These weapons fired ‘balls’ one at a time, with time between to load a charge, insert a ball, and tamp it down. Take aim. Fire. Haven’t most of us seen these antique weapons at reenactments? Stately. Time consuming; slow motion even by our standards.
Never mind. Had they had accurate, automatic weapons they would have used them. Humans are most adept at killing. As a species, our restraint has never caught up with our destructiveness.
Restraint. The period. The comma. The semicolon. Independent clauses.
The roll call of the dead.
The moment of silence.
The prayers.
The argument…
How about:
‘A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’
The two clauses are still juxtaposed. To what end?
We will argue. We’ll keep shooting each other up. Guaranteed.
A bear eats, shoots, and leaves.