[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the framers only wished to list one of the most important rationales, instead of attempting to provide an exhaustive list (providing a completely exhaustive list might have proved an impossible task; hence they chose only to list the foremost rationale).


[/ QUOTE ]

I'll ask a question I've asked before in threads about the second amendment. If we took an eraser to the constitution and deleted the first clause of the second amendment would anything be different (i.e. would you interpret the clause in a different way?) Would the clause have greater reach, less reach, or exactly the same?

If your answers are, as I suspect, that nothing would change --- could you show me other completely superfluous clauses in the Constitution?

[/ QUOTE ]

Indeed I do believe nothing would change, and that the plain English meaning of the central clause would remain unaffected either way.

As for any supposed superfluity: I do not believe an explanatory effort is entirely superfluous. The authors of the Declaration of Independence saw fit to provide an explanation as to the causes that impelled them to the separation, but had they not so seen fit, nothing would have changed in the remainder of the document's meaning. Similarly, without the explanatory clause in the 2nd Amendment, nothing would change in the Amendment's meaning, excepting that a principal rationale would go unmentioned.

The second part of the Amendment would be very clear even on its own, and to me it does not make sense (or seem proper interpretation of the English language) to assign a fully pivotal importance to the subservient clause, for to do so would in effect elevate the subservient clause in importance over the central clause.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something *might* change. In 1790 a "well regulated company" meant a company that was REQUIRED to admit any person that was willing to join. The word regulated did not mean the same thing 200 years ago as it meant today. If you watch that documentary the founding fathers were not only concerned with the individuals right to arms but the individuals right to train in formations. The founding fathers were very afraid of state controlled full-time standing armies. They were very adamant that everyone must be apart of the militia and not just "bought and paid for troops". There is a lot of history here. Again people who focus on the first clause need to read more history and not focus on word games.