Here is the second amendment in toto:
"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."
This is syntax hell. Apart from the extra commas (which were actually deleted when this Amendment was passed by the states) it is a sentence that would be rejected by any middle school English teacher.
It's a run-on sentence with a dangling participle. The first part has nothing to do with the second part. Is it dependent on the first part? Not clear. Do we have a right to bear arms if there is no well-regulated militia? Unclear.
Another question: IS a militia necessary to the security of a free state? Doesn't seem to be; we haven't had "militias" since the war of 1812; the closest we come today is probably paramilitary white supremacist groups that march in forests, like doofuses.
I think we should repeal the second amendment on grammatical grounds.



