LogFAQs > #965294135

red sox 777 posted...

That's not what it says. What is says is:

The part about the militia explains the purpose of the amendment, rather than limiting the scope of its command. There's some ambiguity of course but don't act like there isn't when the literal reading of it does not limit the right to militias. It's very similar in structure to the Second Commandment (citing KJV since that's the translation the framers would have used):

So taken literally, this means that all art depicting things that exist in reality is prohibited. But it also has an explanation of purpose that would appear to limit its scope to things which may compete with God for worship. But it does not literally say that, and hence we have widely differing interpretations from different religions/churches.

I'd say that's actually the opposite structure. The 2nd amendment states the purpose of the amendment (to have a well regulated militia to secure freedom) then gives the details.

That 2nd commandment translation gives the details then gives the purpose.

And since you brought up the bible as an example of how we should interpret the constitution, Jesus teaches in the new testament that the commandments were being understood and enforced incorrectly because the Pharisees were to focused on the specific wording and not on the spirit of the laws.