Active Users:728 Time:23/12/2024 06:47:51 AM
Lear to read, and I won't have to HyogaRott Send a noteboard - 27/12/2012 04:28:59 PM
The Second Amendment itself states its entire justification as "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." So there is every constitutional basis for regulating the HELL out of arms; they could even be made conditional on militia membership. Banning or confiscating guns would be totally unconstitutional, obviously, but regulating them is perfectly valid. Machine guns, for example, have been illegal without federal registration and permits for about 80 years, and no ones constitutional rights were violated.


learn the grammatical difference between dependant and independent clauses.

Just because the courts are allowing/endorsing it does not mean that it is right/correct/proper.

If I said, "you keep bringing this up, so clearly do not grasp the logic," the first (grammatically dependent) clause would not be irrelevant to the second (grammatically independent) one. Learn what "because" means; it is basic causality: The right of the people to keep and bear arms is CAUSED by the need for a well regulated militia. According to the Second Amendments plain text, the right to keep and bear arms is baseless without the need for a well regulated militia.


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.

The word becasue does not appear in there. NOW... grammar lesson...
Dependant vs independant clauses (beginner's edition).
If you remove a dependant clause (often an introductory clause, or 12D in the Harbrace), it can not stand on its own: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is not a complete sentence, thus it is a clause. It is NOT the base meaning of the sentence. It simply sets the stage for the ACTUAL statement. There are 4 clauses (separated by commas in the 2nd amendment. Play mix-N-match with them and see which forms a complete sentence.
- 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

There is ONLY 1 combination that makes a complete sentence "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” THAT is the meat of the amendment. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is the rational, and in all reality is completely irrelevant. This is not accidental. The people who wrote our Constitution were NOT a bunch of illiterate fools. They knew (extremely well, probably better than most of us) the grammar rules of the English language, and they used it well.

"Purple skin, being quite fetching, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" has the exact same meaning as "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."

We can have a nice debate/discussion about what the founders thought a "well regulated militia" was in their time, and what would constitute one today, but it is not really relevant to the actual grammar of the statement, or what it is stating.

Reply to message
When guns are a big national issue, how do reporters & pundits not know facts about them? - 21/12/2012 05:33:14 PM 1554 Views
You don't hunt by walking into a classroom and shooting 20 deer - 21/12/2012 05:56:16 PM 1003 Views
You're actually not right on that one - 21/12/2012 07:49:53 PM 931 Views
That wasn't the point I was making - 21/12/2012 09:49:40 PM 875 Views
You should probably clarify it then - 21/12/2012 10:47:26 PM 1030 Views
His post was perfectly clear. Yours seemed like a response to an entirely different post. - 21/12/2012 10:53:39 PM 1185 Views
Explain that remark, it is not obvious to me *NM* - 21/12/2012 11:00:10 PM 535 Views
I think - 21/12/2012 11:13:34 PM 864 Views
Thats' easy, there is simply no such thing as a 'hunting rifle' - 21/12/2012 11:17:41 PM 870 Views
I'd say the expert gunsmith - 21/12/2012 11:28:02 PM 916 Views
I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 10:57:35 PM 883 Views
Re: I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 11:25:04 PM 934 Views
Oh I wasn't commenting on the standard of people here - 21/12/2012 11:29:36 PM 851 Views
you're largely correct, which is why we need stronger laws on ownership not guns per se - 21/12/2012 09:39:14 PM 842 Views
I can't think of a better reason than self defense - 21/12/2012 10:33:26 PM 906 Views
He is right about Australia - 21/12/2012 10:46:27 PM 879 Views
No kidding - 21/12/2012 10:59:28 PM 865 Views
If you knew all that - 21/12/2012 11:02:38 PM 892 Views
I think you are on the right track, but to the wrong destination; "lethal weapon" is redundant. - 21/12/2012 11:05:29 PM 872 Views
My read is that the 2nd Amendment not only allows, but mandates, cop-killer bullets. - 22/12/2012 12:45:04 AM 918 Views
Does the Second Amendment protect the rights of felons and the mentally incompetent to have guns? - 22/12/2012 02:35:16 AM 1083 Views
Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 03:02:18 AM 807 Views
Re: Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 04:12:30 AM 864 Views
umm... - 22/12/2012 12:41:31 PM 776 Views
1997 North Hollywood Shootout - 22/12/2012 04:07:39 AM 945 Views
Laws against murder failed to prevent that, too; clearly they are ineffective and should be repealed - 22/12/2012 06:02:24 AM 997 Views
Such laws were never intended for prevention, they define actions that will be punished. *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:57:57 PM 566 Views
So do laws against getting a gun without screening, training and certification. - 23/12/2012 02:01:32 PM 818 Views
Then CHANGE the Constitution, don't ignore it. *NM* - 26/12/2012 03:12:11 PM 499 Views
I am not suggesting either changing or ignoring the Constitution. - 26/12/2012 04:01:02 PM 927 Views
Yes you are. - 26/12/2012 08:06:01 PM 730 Views
Learn logic, and stop needlessly trying to teach me grammar. - 26/12/2012 08:55:25 PM 893 Views
Lear to read, and I won't have to - 27/12/2012 04:28:59 PM 950 Views
You are wrong. - 22/12/2012 12:14:40 PM 897 Views
That explains much; I read somewhere Brits are averse to it. - 22/12/2012 01:17:15 PM 830 Views
We're also averse to being wrong. - 22/12/2012 02:53:49 PM 899 Views
So you say... - 22/12/2012 03:32:16 PM 821 Views
guns r stpid *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:39:30 AM 583 Views
What bemuses me about this thing with Adam Lanza, is that his mother had 5 registered guns - 23/12/2012 07:10:26 AM 914 Views
She was asleep with him in the house. - 23/12/2012 02:24:47 PM 890 Views
LOOK, look, there is another one... - 26/12/2012 03:13:45 PM 830 Views
I find the absolutist ant/pro-gun positions equally dangerous and absurd. - 26/12/2012 04:20:37 PM 809 Views
So we should just *kinda* ignore the Constitution *this* time... But what about NEXT time... - 26/12/2012 08:08:12 PM 791 Views
No, we should enact gun regulation the Constitution explicitly empowers. - 26/12/2012 09:02:12 PM 811 Views
Which would be... NONE. *NM* - 27/12/2012 04:31:53 PM 505 Views
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...." - 28/12/2012 05:14:49 PM 805 Views
*see previous grammar lesson* *NM* - 28/12/2012 10:31:43 PM 492 Views
The instant it becomes relevant, I shall. - 28/12/2012 11:45:01 PM 1001 Views
Your point being? - 27/12/2012 10:47:29 AM 790 Views
Facts are irrelevant when FUD is the order of the day. - 24/12/2012 04:34:18 PM 800 Views
It irritates me too. *NM* - 01/01/2013 01:55:05 PM 508 Views

Reply to Message