From My Cold Dead Hands …
"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.”
This is a grammatical mess. Too bad I wasn’t there to proof-read. It SHOULD have read, “SINCE A well regulated militia IS necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed” if they wanted the militia link.
or even better
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The way it’s written actually means
“A well regulated militia shall not be infringed.”
This, people, is why knowing grammer (usuage, punctuation, etc) matters.
Those are a nonrestrictive participial phrase and an adjective clause. They add explanation (as the Skipper points out), BUT are NOT essential to the meaning of the sentence--except they are.
The problem really is that the grammar rules of 1789 were more fluid than they are now. The way that amendment is written, “militiar” is the subject--but that doesn’t make sense.
Posted by goddessoftheclassroom
12/11/2006 at 06:58 AM
How ‘bout Grumpy Old Farts Using Guns; The GOFUGs - instead, heh, heh?
Posted by emdfl
12/11/2006 at 09:25 AM
Goddess and I are on the same page (grammar and spelling are bugaboos of mine) but Skipper - from the comma after militia - being necessary to the security of the a FREE state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, is the key of this amendment. What our ‘living constitution’ morons are ignoring - is the era it was written in (and it is what is confounding the tech/media industry and all their problems) - our founding fathers had no concept what was in the future, some phrases are in their era context.
Waiting periods, licenses, background checks - limited restrictions (such as a felony conviction nor serious mental illness [with medical verification] are not infringements. Taking away, not allowing, and making it almost impossible to purchase, own or keep possesion of guns are infringement. There are laws on the books, get the heck out of the way and let them be enforced. But of course. . .
These are such sick twisted bastards - since Kitty Genovese, Miranda and the Boston Strangler - they have been bending over backward to give criminals more than a fair trial, breaks, and passes. Then when the corresponding crime rate goes outer limits - their solution is to take away protection and a CONSTITUTIONAL right from the law abiding. DUH
With my local situation (9 victims fighting back with lethal force, this year) the point I believe is turning back the other way. You neuter the people (making gun possession nigh on impossible) and then neuter the police - what protection is there? And people start fighting back to keep the thugs, punks, criminals and evil people at bay.
Add to that, we will probably experience another terrorist attack or worse the outbreak of WWIII - due to all the pc appeasing going on in DC and it will be getting ugly very soon - but those of us who have guns and know how to use them are going to be a head of the game.
How many points for a dnc pc gun control whinner?
Hey, these clowns think the amendment is no longer needed, then they should try to repeal it! Let them try that route and see how far they get! Then thier armed guards and walled private community compounds might really be needed.
"Hey, these clowns think the amendment is no longer needed, then they should try to repeal it! Let them try that route and see how far they get!”
They already know exactly how far that would go—nowhere. That’s why they are going the “back door” route, by using insane arguments like that in courts stacked with their sympathizers who pronounce that black is white and that up is down. Or, that “...shall not be infringed.” means something other than “...shall not be infringed.”
Posted by gb_in_ga
12/11/2006 at 12:08 PM
In my view, those who see gun ownership as a collective right connected to militias are OK with the kind of sectarian religious militias we see among the members of the “Religion of Peace”.
Is that what these morons want? Perhaps what they really want is the Government to have a monopoly of force, as was demonstrated in NAZI Germany? How would their cohorts of ACLU lawyers stand up to a Waffen SS/Gestapo or a religious militia?
I suppose what these asshats want is a completely disarmed society at the mercy of a Leftish Government that has only our best interests in mind. OK for them as long as this benevolent Leftocracy remains Lefty. What happens when the all-powerful benevolent government turns less than benevolent and less agreeable to their Lefty philosophy? I’m sure the militias and the Death Squads will kneel before their ACLU lawyers.
From my cold, dead hands.......
Posted by MAJ Mike
12/11/2006 at 01:45 PM
Anonymous #8 - what do you mean?
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
The tenth is another 18th century use of commas and expressions that makes for hard reading today, but is fairly easy to understand once you’ve thought about it: if the Constitution doesn’t give some certain power to the federal government, AND if it doesn’t specifically deny the states that power, then that power goes to either the states or to the people. My reading of it is that ALL powers not specifically given to the feds belongs to the states or the people, and its up to each state to decide if they get it or the people get it. Thus, for example, the federal department of education is unconstitutional.
I’ve always understood that “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”, the “pre-amble” part of the 2nd, was just an example of why the “post-amble"(is that a word?) part was there. It is not the one and only reason. I think the pre-amble was added because folks at that time were very itchy about standing armies, which had a history of either getting out of control and having a coup, or being used against the people cuz the king was angry.
Same goes for the 3rd; room and board of redcoats had been forced on many colonists and people really didn’t like that. But while having provision against standing armies was good, some means of defense had to be written in, so they came up with this.
Somewhere down the line (Militia Acts of 1792 and 1903) the militia was defined as all able bodied men between 18 and 45. All of them. That’s the citizenry. That same definition specifically REQUIRES them to provide their own weapon, knapsack, and ammo. 20 rounds I think. That definition is still valid* ... so if you don’t own a gun and know how to shoot it, keep a box of ammo and some camping supplies on hand, then you aren’t fullfilling your obligations as a citizen. In this day and age you’ll never be called up, but I can make a better legal argument that everyone has a duty to own guns, than DC can argue that the people have no right to them.
* - these days you and I are part of what is called the “unorganized militia”. There was another Act in 1916 that organized the state militias along federal lines and created the National Guard. But the unorganized part still exists, though within our lifetimes it has only been called up via the draft.
A guide to the Founders thinking can be found in the 1790 Federal Census, whose main purpose was to ascertain the whereabouts and headcount of those available for military service. The categories are few and are listed is:
free white males of 16 years & upwards....
free white males under 16 years
free white females…
all other free persons
slavesThat first category is the militia; since women acquired the franchise and slavery was abolished, all of a majority age are the militia. Not the National Guard, not the Aryan Nation, not the Black Panthers, but We, The People are the militia.
The most recent US Army TV ads refer to being “an army of one”, so in that spirit, I heretofore declare myself as “a militia of one”.
There was a good post by neverdem on Free Republic the other day: The Unabridged Second Amendment by J. Neil Schulman. It is a long, but good article that I found here: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:mvKaeE2mRb8J:www.gunweek.com/1120issue/unabridged1120.html+The+Unabridged+Second+Amendment&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=6 (It’s a google cache.)
Posted by utahminuteman
12/11/2006 at 05:01 PM
The majority of Constitutional scholars are in agreement that the 2nd is an INDIVIDUAL right, regardless of the extra crap on militias. It is declared as “the right of the people, which in all other clauses of the Constitution is viewed by even leftista’s as a right granted to each law abiding citizen of the States. only the 2nd gets subjected to this far reaching legal nonsense.
If they EVER get this to the SCOTUS, it will be a miricle - the justices just don’t want to hear it, leaving more and more people in legal nightmare territory over “gun violations”. Spineless cowards.
Posted by walkercolt
12/11/2006 at 05:08 PM
Re: #12 by Rat Patrol
Patton said, “...An Army is a team. It eats, sleeps and fight as a team. The bilious bastards who write about individuality for the ‘Saturday Evening Post’ know as much about real fighting as they know about fornicating!!”
The Army dropped the “Army of One” nonsense in favor of “Army Strong”.
I like the “Army Strong” concept better and it makes more sense.
Posted by MAJ Mike
12/11/2006 at 05:16 PM
Drew great post and yes to way tooooooo many Americans these days, there are no requirements
(obligations) for being a ‘citizen’ only rights. Doesn’t work that way and if people don’t get their proverbial heads out of their proverbial ‘a****’ America’s gonna be in a world of hurt. The good news is, that all these unfulfilling obligations citizens are going to be among the first to die.Rat - the Army’s new ad is much better - finally getting away from that touchy, feely, pc trash - Army Strong.
Maj Mike - the Left Behind (I know, religious and Rapture and all that jazz) had a really scary senario in regards to ‘weapons confiscation’ - our anti-Christ bad guy under the UN confiscated all weapons from the World while secretely hiding a lot of them claiming to keep only 10% (for what, if no one had weapons?). And then started using them when people would not take the ‘oath’ of alligence.
Given the crappola going on in today’s world, this is less far-fetched theory than the UN’s recent declaration that cows are the primary instrument of distruction of our environment.
I suppose what these asshats want is a completely disarmed society at the mercy of a Leftish Government that has only our best interests in mind. OK for them as long as this benevolent Leftocracy remains Lefty.
Major Mike you mean like in Britain where gun crime has gone ballistic since they took away handguns from legitimate gun owners!
That and an uncontrolled border with Europe which has allowed the gangsters to bring in truck loads of guns.Skipper can I be an honourary member?
Re: #17 by Lyndon
Exactly. Ultimately an armed citizenry is the last defense against an abusive government.
Again, do the asshats, who fear gun owners so much, want a government with a monopoly of violence that is only limited by lawyers?
Posted by MAJ Mike
12/12/2006 at 11:59 AM
"Again, do the asshats, who fear gun owners so much, want a government with a monopoly of violence that is only limited by lawyers?”
I actually think that they do, since their ultimate aim is for that government to be beholding to and consisting largely of those like themselves. What they don’t want is for there to be an armed dissenting minority standing in the way of them enacting the more radical portions of their platform.
One way to think of it is the old line about how democracy is 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for lunch. They want to be the wolves. Balance is maintained when that sheep is armed and can dissent from a position of strength, otherwise he’s lunch.
Posted by gb_in_ga
12/12/2006 at 01:02 PM
As you can probably tell, I’mnot much into TV watching… 57 channels and (absolutely) nothing is on.
Back when I was a proud member of the US Army, in 1969-1972, the idea of “an Army of one” was anathema. As the DIs in Basic Combat Training often told us “There is no I in Army”. The USMC took this philosophy one step further, a trainee was never to refer to himself in the first person, only in the third, as in referring to one’s self as “the private” and definitely not “I”. That infringement would have earned “I” a severe (and memorable) verbal volley and “the private” would be doing a whole lot of push-ups.
Regardless of all that, I’m a still “militia of one” and “militia strong” as far as the gungrabber commie wanker MoFos are concerned…
The “grammatical mess” in reference to “well regulated militia” is more of a result of 18th century English language usage and style rather than bad grammar. Think of it as 230 year old Legalese. “well regulated” meant well trained, and experienced (marksmen).
The interesting thing about the Second Amendment is that it’s the only part of the Bill of Rights that has the reason for its existance written into it. The militia argument is a dangerous one. If the court rules against the entire militia concept, the Second Amendment could be trashed as well.
That said, I believe that there are 2 other, more important arguments to be considered.
The first is the meaning of “well regulated”. While we think of regulating in terms of control, 200 years ago the meaning had more to do with well prepared, adjusted or trained. If the concept of the 2nd Amendment is to have a prepared citizenry that CAN ably serve in the militia, whether or not the militia exists is a moot point.
Secondarily, if you want to know the meaning of phrase, I recommend analyzing it within the context of the surrounding document. The use of commas and other 18th century anachronisms troubled me as much as anyone, but I looked also for the use of capital letters when referring to people as individuals and “the people” collectively. I found the answer to my own satisfaction butI suggest that everyone do their own research to their own satisfaction.
...and oh yes, I believe that it is an individual right beyond question.
The Supremes will never take this case. Which is pretty chickenshit of them IMO. Have some balls blackrobes ... but y’all had better do the right thing. Hell, even Congress put out some long winded document a year or two back that says its an individual right. I’d ask “how can any sane person question this?” but the argument is being put forth by lawyers, so my question is moot. Lawyers don’t respect the law, it’s just a tool for them.
Excellent point, Anonymous! The whole thing has become twisted 180 degrees. The Constitution explicitly states only “the powers granted or refused” to the government by the people - NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.
We all need to keep that in mind. Modern-day revisionists keep trying to make it out to be the other way around. This single concept is the reason why the US Consitution was then and is now radically different from all other government charters or constitutions.
Re: #24 by Anonymous
Great point. We forget that. I try to teach that to my students—rights are God-given, NOT granted by the government. Only an illegal government can restrict those rights.
When they do, we have a right to revolution!!!
Posted by MAJ Mike
12/13/2006 at 04:45 PM
12/12/2006 at 06:06 AM
