As a few Herald editorials have pointed out (with solid logic), none of these controls would infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. I’ve come to the conclusion that most NRA advocates need a course in remedial English to enable them to interpret the Second Amendment in terms of its grammar and syntax. “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” is not a stand-alone, independent clause. Syntactically it is modified by this introductory clause: “A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state …” Clearly, unless you are an NRA illiterate, the Second Amendment is asserting that the people have a right to keep and bear arms as members of a regularly trained militia. I certainly do not see the NRA as a well-regulated militia seeing to the security of our free state. Do you?

Tom Wright

Aztec