The Second Amendment is less relevant without militia
To the editor:
Another murder/suicide tragedy has occurred and the controversy over the right to bear arms has been rekindled. Much has been said about both sides of the issue, but the protagonists in the debates over gun control have overlooked one important point: The relevance of the Second Amendment.
The amendment states: "A well-regulated militia necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If we analyze those words grammatically, we may be able to look at controversy more objectively. The main clause in the document is the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed, but it is placed in subordination by the phrase a well-regulated being necessary to the security of a free State. In other words, the right to keep and bear arms is contingent upon the maintenance of a well-regulated militia.
The United States no longer has a militia, so the topic in that main clause refers to a nonexistent entity and is no longer relevant.