Active Users:410 Time:04/04/2025 11:58:05 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 1640 Views
You don't hunt by walking into a classroom and shooting 20 deer - 21/12/2012 05:56:16 PM 1064 Views
You're actually not right on that one - 21/12/2012 07:49:53 PM 997 Views
That wasn't the point I was making - 21/12/2012 09:49:40 PM 933 Views
You should probably clarify it then - 21/12/2012 10:47:26 PM 1093 Views
His post was perfectly clear. Yours seemed like a response to an entirely different post. - 21/12/2012 10:53:39 PM 1255 Views
Explain that remark, it is not obvious to me *NM* - 21/12/2012 11:00:10 PM 559 Views
I think - 21/12/2012 11:13:34 PM 929 Views
Thats' easy, there is simply no such thing as a 'hunting rifle' - 21/12/2012 11:17:41 PM 932 Views
I'd say the expert gunsmith - 21/12/2012 11:28:02 PM 994 Views
I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 10:57:35 PM 955 Views
Re: I thought I was being perfectly clear. - 21/12/2012 11:25:04 PM 1002 Views
Oh I wasn't commenting on the standard of people here - 21/12/2012 11:29:36 PM 925 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 910 Views
I can't think of a better reason than self defense - 21/12/2012 10:33:26 PM 976 Views
He is right about Australia - 21/12/2012 10:46:27 PM 940 Views
No kidding - 21/12/2012 10:59:28 PM 928 Views
If you knew all that - 21/12/2012 11:02:38 PM 976 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 932 Views
My read is that the 2nd Amendment not only allows, but mandates, cop-killer bullets. - 22/12/2012 12:45:04 AM 988 Views
Does the Second Amendment protect the rights of felons and the mentally incompetent to have guns? - 22/12/2012 02:35:16 AM 1160 Views
Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 03:02:18 AM 867 Views
Re: Yes the media is using terms incorrectly but the point still stands. - 22/12/2012 04:12:30 AM 929 Views
umm... - 22/12/2012 12:41:31 PM 833 Views
1997 North Hollywood Shootout - 22/12/2012 04:07:39 AM 1016 Views
Laws against murder failed to prevent that, too; clearly they are ineffective and should be repealed - 22/12/2012 06:02:24 AM 1064 Views
Such laws were never intended for prevention, they define actions that will be punished. *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:57:57 PM 596 Views
So do laws against getting a gun without screening, training and certification. - 23/12/2012 02:01:32 PM 884 Views
Then CHANGE the Constitution, don't ignore it. *NM* - 26/12/2012 03:12:11 PM 513 Views
I am not suggesting either changing or ignoring the Constitution. - 26/12/2012 04:01:02 PM 994 Views
Yes you are. - 26/12/2012 08:06:01 PM 805 Views
Learn logic, and stop needlessly trying to teach me grammar. - 26/12/2012 08:55:25 PM 959 Views
Lear to read, and I won't have to - 27/12/2012 04:28:59 PM 1007 Views
You are wrong. - 22/12/2012 12:14:40 PM 965 Views
That explains much; I read somewhere Brits are averse to it. - 22/12/2012 01:17:15 PM 903 Views
We're also averse to being wrong. - 22/12/2012 02:53:49 PM 965 Views
So you say... - 22/12/2012 03:32:16 PM 884 Views
guns r stpid *NM* - 23/12/2012 12:39:30 AM 615 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 963 Views
She was asleep with him in the house. - 23/12/2012 02:24:47 PM 976 Views
LOOK, look, there is another one... - 26/12/2012 03:13:45 PM 895 Views
I find the absolutist ant/pro-gun positions equally dangerous and absurd. - 26/12/2012 04:20:37 PM 893 Views
So we should just *kinda* ignore the Constitution *this* time... But what about NEXT time... - 26/12/2012 08:08:12 PM 867 Views
No, we should enact gun regulation the Constitution explicitly empowers. - 26/12/2012 09:02:12 PM 874 Views
Which would be... NONE. *NM* - 27/12/2012 04:31:53 PM 555 Views
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...." - 28/12/2012 05:14:49 PM 869 Views
*see previous grammar lesson* *NM* - 28/12/2012 10:31:43 PM 519 Views
The instant it becomes relevant, I shall. - 28/12/2012 11:45:01 PM 1073 Views
Your point being? - 27/12/2012 10:47:29 AM 856 Views
Facts are irrelevant when FUD is the order of the day. - 24/12/2012 04:34:18 PM 865 Views
It irritates me too. *NM* - 01/01/2013 01:55:05 PM 537 Views

Reply to Message