Over at the Language Log, Mark Liberman’s simultaneously pedantic and fascinating analysis (here) of how the promiscuous use of commas affects interpretations of the Second Amendment (“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”).
{ 1 comment }
If the authors had intended the Second Amendment to have a collective rights meaning, then (liguistically speaking) they could have done it much more easily than they did:
“Congress shall make no law infringing upon the raising or arming of state militias.”
The fact that they didn’t is fairly conclusive, in my (admittedly libertarian) opinion.
Comments on this entry are closed.