I would say it means that in order to have a well regulated militia (aka laws about the militia and it's use are constitutional) you need an armed population, and therefore the right of the individual to own and carry arms shall be in no way limited.
While the first section is indeed dependent on the second, the reverse is not true. Does that make sense? On Jan 10, 2013 4:11 PM, "GMoney" <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 1:32 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It is a multiclause sentence, as you know. Brokwn into two related but > not > > dependent sections. > > > > I'm a little confused by this. How could the phrases not be dependent when > one begins with the word "being" ? > > I mean...."being" at the beginning of a clause requires dependency: > > "My house, being too small, needs to be expanded." > > The house needs to be expanded, BECAUSE it's too small. > > The rights of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, BECAUSE a > well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. > > If for whatever reason a well regulated militia were NOT necessary for a > free state (or if your house was NOT too small), the right to bear arms > could be infringed (the house would not have to be enlarged). > > How do you see the two as not being dependent, when one references the > other via the word "being"?? > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:359962 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
