[MRM]

So how do you well regulate a milita without restricting its right to keep and bear arms?

The sentence is almost nonsensical when you break it down using rules of gramar. The basic comon law rule of statutory interpretation is that words are to be given their ordinary meaning and you use standard rules of gramar to devine the meaning of the statute. Or amendment to the constitution in this case.

What does a well regulated militia have to do with the right to bear arms? The 2nd amendment doesn't really say. Is it a split infinitive that is just sloppy drafting? Or is it a guide that we are to use in measuring whether the right to keep and bear arms is being restricted. Or....is the well regulated militia the thing that is being mandated, and the right to bear arms is just how the founding fathers thought you regulated the militia?

If we agree that the militia is the group of free men of a certain age who can be called upon to defend the country and their communities, then who regulates them? Is it permissible to regulate them by restricting the use of their arms?

A final rule of stautory interpretation is to read the statute (yes I know this is part of the constitution, the rules are the same) to avoid absurd results. Do you think the founding fathers really meant that there could be no restriction at all on the right to bear arms? Does that mean no restrictions on owning them or is it permissible to put reasonable time, place and manner restrictions on where you can carry them? Do you think the founding fathers meant "no restrictions" literally, in which case fully automatic 50 cals are as protected as a hunting rifle? That 12 year olds can carry Mac 10s? I mean outside the hood.

I think the founding fathers meant for us to debate these issues. I think they wanted push back from the masses, attempts at regulation from the elites, and a healthy debate in the process.