I didn't see much "interpretation" about the first part "A well regulated militia".
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Double Naught - the Congress has the power...Considering the forethought we attribute to the Founding Fathers and respect we give to them for not mincing words, then I don't see how we can just discount the first part as not being relevant to the last part.
Considering the forethought we attribute to the Founding Fathers and respect we give to them for not mincing words, then I don't see how we can just discount the first part as not being relevant to the last part.
Bear in mind that I am not commenting on the amendment itself, but the inconsistency in which we seem to address its various parts.
Ahhhh, and that's what it takes to make the Constitution so difficult to understand. And causes so much angst here and elsewhere.unless you do extreme logical contortions
C'mon, this has been addressed ad nauseum. It means that in order for a militia to operate correctly, the people have to have their own arms. What is the inconsistency? A well-fed public, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to grow and eat food shall not be infringed? See, it works together. Doesn't say that you have to eat, just that you can if you choose. The militia is contingent on the right, not the other way around. There is really no other logical way to read it, especially in the context of the bill of rights, unless you do extreme logical contortions.