NRA version of 2nd Amendment lacks common sense

[flamin lib]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/opinion/ct-sta-mcgrath-gun-rights-st-0607-20150605-story.html

Ask any high school English teacher to parse the Second Amendment, and they will say that it does not prohibit common-sense restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns, in spite of the National Rifle Association's claim to the contrary. The proof lies in the amendment's exact language — "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."

Literally, it means that the American people will retain the right to carry weapons as members of a state militia in order to safeguard their freedom.
====
To prove that this is the only interpretation that makes sense, try using the exact language and sentence structure from the Second Amendment applied to another subject — A democratically elected Congress being necessary for a secure and free State, the right of the People to enact legislation shall not be infringed.

If the introductory phrase is ignored in the same erroneous way it was with the Second Amendment, the above law would mean that every individual, and not Congress, was entitled to make and follow his own laws and to hell with everyone else.

Or this — The Air Force's arsenal of nuclear weapons being necessary to ensure the defense of the United States, the right of the People to build weapons of mass destruction shall not be infringed.

Until the Supreme Court, the one that ruled that corporations are people and money is speech, changes in structure such obvious arguments are relegated to opinion columns and not the law of the land.