LETTER: More on the Second Amendment
Even though the Second Amendment is only one sentence, I don’t want to get into a discussion about which half of it is more significant. I do, however, want to take exception to letter writer Richard Emery’s point in the April 24 Review-Journal. He wrote that columnist Nicholas Marquart’s description of the first half of the amendment is “possibly the most inane description of the militia clause I’ve ever come across.”
Mr. Emery is referring to Mr. Marquart’s paraphrase of the first half of the amendment as “a group of gun owners who own firearms must be well-managed.”
I have a bit of a background in the English language. I would say that the word “managed” is a reasonable synonym for the phrase “well-regulated.” I don’t think it would be a stretch to call a “militia” a “group of gun owners who own firearms.” I also think the phrase “must be” can substitute for “being necessary.”
So if you make these three substitutions in the first six words of the amendment, you get my interpretation as: “A managed group of gun owners who own firearms, must be …”
Personally, I think Mr. Marquart’s interpretation is pretty close to the mark. I’m curious as to why Mr. Emery sees this as inane.
