Nope, I didn't mean that considerations of semantics would be considered political. I just wanted to say that I've brought up the Second Amendment strictly as a study in sentence structure.

"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. "


Let's pull out:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

...and take a good look at it. The comma doesn't belong there. Period. That is if right is the subject and infringed is functioning as the verb in agreement with right.

You can argue that the comma separates the subject and verb here so the reader can take a breath, but it's still a comma splice by modern standards. I don't know 18th century standards for placement of commas--maybe they were more generous with commas back then. But today, you'd get a mark off for placing the comma there.

Take the comma out of there, the meaning is crystal clear and beyond debate.

On the other board, the members on the music board are arguing whether the militia is the point or not. I don't think so. I think the point in the sentence, comma splice or not, is the right to keep and bear arms with one of the reasons--and not necessarily the exclusive reason--being the ability to form a militia.