I find it odd too. Normally liberals interpret laws to fit our changing society, but they argue that the orginal 2nd amendment should be interpreted exactly as written, which basically is for forming militias and whatnot. idk, you cant really go into pages of detail about gun rights
"Exactly as written" is part of the problem.
"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."
That is as passed by Congress.
However as ratified by the States and signed by Thos. Jefferson when he was Secretary of State, the more modern form was used, without the weird commas.
"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of the state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
A "well-regulated" militia is not one that has many laws in place, but in the parlance of the 18th century it meant "able to hit at what it aimed".
To me it's clear that the well-regulated militia clause was NOT a condition, but a reason.
What has been controversial through over a century of Supreme Court scrutiny is whether "the people" are collective, as in states, militias, what have you ... or the individual citizens.
To me it's "duh" obvious that it refers to individuals, or else why even bother to write it out? However ... get enough lawyers into one place, and the laws of physics themselves begin to distort.
It's a lively and rich topic. You just have to do some real honest library research, not google newspapers.
![Wink ;) ;)](/styles/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
cn