> Hi! Tony,
> 
> On 16 Oct 17 15:42, TIM RICHARDSON wrote to you:
> 
>  TL>> And that is the situation the Second Amendment is there for, but
>  TL>> isn't it supposed to be in the context of an organised militia of
>  TL>> the people?
> 
>  TR> No. `A Millitia' in that amendment is quite apart from `The Right Of
>  TR> The People!
> 
> To my way of thinking there is a very important word missing in that
amendment.
>  A single word: notwithstanding.  That is to say the writers intended
to say,
> and I have to paraphrase here as I don't have the actual wording, that they
> wanted to provide for a time when there may have to be a second revolution,
> and, I think they intended: '(notwithstanding) the requirement for an armed
> militia, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed'.
> 
> The distinction is best contained in a couple of EwwToob (YT) videos I've
> donwloaded.  I have them as:
> 
> * Penn & Teller on Gun Control [Published on Feb 11, 2013]
> * Is Gun Ownership a Right in the USofA [PragerU on Feb 27, 2017]
> 
> That's the filenames they have on their respective MP4s here.  Seek
them out. 
> After viewing them, would you say that I'm mistaken about the amendment?

Probably.

"A well educated electorate being necessary for the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be
infringed."

Does the forgoing restrict the ownership of books only to those who vote?

Probably thirty years ago a well known grammaticist named Copperud
analyzed the grammar of the Second Amendment and he concluded that the
first clause ("A well-regulated militia...") does not place any
restriction on the following clause (.. "The right of the people...").
FYI, in a move that surprised me, several years ago the political stooges
on the US Supreme Court ruled that the right to bear arms is an
*individual* right, not a collective right.