Just thought I'd share this moronic point of view

[Picknlittle]

Earlier this week in out local paper an anti wrote the following letter to the editor. After reading this, you can read my tempered response.

Gun rights not guaranteed in U.S. law

When deciding what a sentence means, readers must consider all of the words in that sentence. The Second Amendment has only one 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."

The first part of the sentence (13 words) establishes a context for the second part (14 words). The meaning of the whole sentence, then, comes from a reading of all the words, which bestow no individual right to bear arms outside the context of a well regulated militia. The men who wrote the Second Amendment knew what their words meant.


That meaning has not changed. It makes no sense to decide what a sentence means by considering only half the words in the sentence.

In a 1991 interview, a former chief justice of the Supreme Court, Warren Burger, described the individual rights view of the Second Amendment as "one of the greatest pieces of fraud — I repeat the word 'fraud' — on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime," reiterating his conclusion that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to individual ownership of firearms at all.

Those who claim that the Second Amendment gives them the right individually to own and bear weapons of all kinds have not paid sufficient attention to the words of that amendment. So say opinions of most of those courts which have stated a firm position on the issue.

Today I replied with the following; to be printed in the next few days:

(Name withheld to protect the stupid) Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, in his english lesson titled "Gun rights not guaranteed in U.S. law", tells us to consider all of the words in a sentence when deciding what that sentence means.

I'll agree, but he fails to consider the punctuation used in the sentence also known as the Second Amendment.

Second Amendment: "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 are three commas used in this sentence. A comma is used to separate elements in a series, connect two or more independent clauses, and as a conjunction in place of and, but, for, nor, yet, or, so.

Now let's look at this very important sentence in proper context as written. "A well regulated Militia,(connecting independent clause) being necessary to the security of a free State, (conjunction "AND") the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, (connecting and completing independent clauses) shall not be infringed.

It seems that one fundamental problem we have in this nation with regard to laws, rights and the interpretation thereof, lies within our educational system. Readers learn to read words but fail to understand how punctuation and common sense affects understanding that which was read. Now I understand why we are a nation in peril!


If Mr. Xxxxxx reads a road map as he reads the Constitution, without considering all the signs along the way, could easily head for the east coast and wind up in Toronto. After all he does steer left!

Okay,....soap box mode off. Rant off,....stay calm,.....:banghead:

 

[Sage of Seattle]

I like your letter, though personally I'd expand the idea out a bit more by fixing his statement: "When deciding what an amendment means, readers must consider all of the amendments in the Constitution."

In other words, parsing the sentence isn't very helpful when the context in which this sentence is written isn't also taken into consideration.

 

[mdao]

Whether or not the Second Amendment guarantees individual rights does not rest on punctuation. Comma usage has always been fuzzy and is often subject to stylistic concerns.

If we're trying to interpreting the text, why dick around with a Warren Burger interview over two hundred years after the fact? Hell, just go back the founding fathers. I'm sure they'd love to hear Warren Burger's butchering of their words.

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

 

[Zen21Tao]

Nice response. Another problem with people like Mr. Xxxxx is that they want to try to analyze a 250 year old statement based on todays rules of English grammar. in fact this is a ploy by the far left to try and circumvent the original intent of a law for what the feel should be a "living and breathing" interpretation.

On the other side of legal theory are the Strict Constructionists and Originalists that believe laws must be interpreted based on the written context at the time of the author. When it comes to the 2nd Amendment, this is particularly troublesome for antis because the Federalist Papers spell out exactly what the founders meant by their use of words in the 2nd Amendment.

 

[rickomatic]

Just as important as sentence structure is, and possibly more so, are the intentions of the founding fathers. Thankfully they wrote considerably on all aspects of the formation of our country. It is clear to anyone who has the will and the honesty to study it, that what the founders intended was indeed the RIGHT of the individual to bear arms. Take a look at the below listed thread from another form, which goes into great detail about this. It clearly explains the colloquial meaning of "well regulated" as meaning well tuned, as in a fine timepiece. It does not relate to the modern interpretation of well "controlled".
There is also a great discussion about how the founding fathers actually voted AGAINST the words "in common defence" which would be construed as a collective right, in lieu of wording that at that time in history, clearly meant an idividual right.

http://www.topix.net/forum/philly/TLOV305HI4U7B2VLF/p2

 

[Ben Shepherd]

Also, most people fail to realize that regulated was used with the more common defiinitions of the time: trained or disciplined.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Or, as Humpty Dumpty would say . . .

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

Humpty Dumpty is the patron saint of trial lawyers.

 

[Husker1911]

The ten amendments of the Bill of Rights recognize rights belonging to The People. None of them limit The People's rights, but rather serve to guarantee the government not exceed its powers. The Bill of Rights are The People's rights.

"Steers left." LOL!

 

[Tommygunn]

It makes no sense to decide what a sentence means by considering only half the words in the sentence.

Not only is this NOT true, but it also makes no sense to try to change what a sentence means by trying to alter it's meaning based on a concept contained outside the main or central clause of the sentence.
"...the right of the people...." defines the object, and it's possessor. It very clearly states the right "of the people." What right is that? The right to keep and bear arms.
The first part of the 2nd amendment, so often misconstrued by antigun zealots to try to prove the amendment does not protect an individual right, is in fact a present participle, and does not at all alter any meaning found elsewhere in the sentence.
What the antigunners fail to explain is, even if it did limit the RTKBA, why anyone's individual rights would be effected by this interpretation, since the founders clearly defined the "well-regulated militia" as consisting of both the organized, and unorganized, militia, ie., the people, ordinary citizens of the United States. This they defined into law via The Uniform Militia Act of 1791.

 

[psyopspec]

Rick, thanks for the link. That's the best and most succinct form in which I've seen the grammer and intent arguments laid out.

 

[Zen21Tao]

http://www.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm

Some other commentaries on the 2nd Amendment


The Militia Act of 1972

"Be it enacted . . . That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia . . . . That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock..."

The "Militia" is hardly the National Guard as some libs want to think.


William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765):


"The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute . . . and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression."


St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803)

“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty . . . . The right of self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, is under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.”

 

[Carl N. Brown]

The phrase "right of the people" occurs in the First, Second
and Fourth Amendments. Since the ten amendments of the
Bill of Rights were written and debated at the same time,
it is had to see how the first and fourth amendments are
about individual rights, but the second is not. The confusion
is due to the opening phrase giving a reason why the
right should not be infringed.

According the the two judges of the DC District Court in the
Parker decision, in the 18th and 19th century it was common
to give an example of the government's interest in passing a
law. The government's interest in maintaining a well-regulated
militia requires a citizenry familiar with arms. But it is not
a limiting phrase or clause: it is an example. That mode of
writing laws went out of favor in the 20th century, and obviously
was not used consistently in the 18th or 19th century, so
everyone gets a little confused by the wording of the
Second Amendment.

Look at the phrasing ( or re-phrasing) of the right to bear arms
in the various state constitutions.

Tennessee Constitution (1870)

Section 26. That the citizens of this state have a right to
keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the
Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate
the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.

Washington State constitution:

The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense
of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired.

The Constitution of the State of Oregon:

Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power.
The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of
themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict
subordination to the civil power.

Louisiana State Constitution.

Article 1 - Section 11 - Right to Keep and Bear Arms
The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of
laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the
person.

Maine Constitution

Article 1, Section 16. To keep and bear arms.
Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right
shall never be questioned.

A judge ruled that a woman I know who defended herself with
a handgun, had an "absolute right" to have a handgun at her
home for self defense under Article I Section 26. Tennessee
court rulings and attorney general opinions all affirm the
right of Tennesseans to keep and use guns for all lawful
purposes, not just as state militia as called up by the governor
or as posse comitatus deputized by the sheriff. And
regulation "with a view to prevent crime" cannot prevent
the honest citizen from possession for the common use of
guns for self defense, hunting, protection of livestock, etc.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Even though the Second Amendment is not limited to
militia service, the National Guard is not state militia.
The National Guard is a federal military reserve force.
That is why New York state has both National Guard
and state militia.

 

[joab]

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

You must include the rest of the quote or you will be picked apart by the antis
"Within his own lands and tenaments"

 

[mdao]

You must include the rest of the quote or you will be picked apart by the antis
"Within his own lands and tenaments"

Since we're just keeping to who has the right to keep and bear arms, the rest of the quote is unnecessary in this example. The rest of the quote only deals with whether or not a man can be barred the use of arms when on someone else's property, which really is another topic altogether.

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Sentence Diagrams

Remember sentence diagrams?

It's still done. There's a place where sentences from the Constitution are diagrammed.

One such sentence is the Second Amendment:

Another such diagram can be found here:

​

And there's a quite readable explanation here that breaks it down. Try not to get too hung up on the MOFOTEC DEER KILLUH 3000 depicted there.

Enjoy.

 

[Picknlittle]

Good stuff!

 

[lamazza]

Good stuff-I'd like to hear if your letter really does get printed.

 

[joab]

, the rest of the quote is unnecessary in this example. .

Not using the rest of the quote impacts your credibility

The man said

"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)."

It makes no provisions for making examples

Since we're just keeping to who has the right to keep and bear arms, the rest of the quote is unnecessary in this example.

You cannot clip a statement to suit the argument you are trying to make

The rest of the quote only deals with whether or not a man can be barred the use of arms when on someone else's property,

No it doesn't it deals specifically with a freeman's own lands and tenements.
It makes no mention of other peoples land

 

[Axman]

One more quote for good measure!

"The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records.
They are written, as with a sun beam in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of
the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power."--Alexander Hamilton, 1775

As Alex Hamilton tells us, it is not just a right that is written on paper, it is a God given right!!!

 

[eric229]

I like to throw the Indiana Constitution in their face. Article 1, section 32:


Arms - Right to Bear
Section 32. The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.


Seems less ambiguous. Also makes them blow a gasket

 

[skinnyguy]

Another thing to consider, did any of the Founding Fathers of this country document somewhere exactly what a "militia" consists of?

I believe they did, as stated in THIS document, The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, written in Feb. 1982, which refers to documentation written in 1792.

The particular statement reads

In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined "militia of the United States" to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment.

Milita as defined in dictionary.com which cites as it sources here

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Ci
mi·li·tia /mɪˈlɪʃə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mi-lish-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Ladies and gentlemen, the above means WE THE PEOPLE! We are the militia, and we are also "the people" who have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[rangerruck]

Here then, is the most simple of Modern English lessons; for a sentence to actually be a sentence, it must convey a complete thought.

Find the complete thought in the second amendment.

Therefore the rest of the sentence conveys what could be done or accomplished, with the complete thought.

By the way, how many of you are part of a militia, and of course you train all the time with all kinds of props , fake weapons, fake explosives, and the like, and your unit is okay; suddenly with the addition of guns magically handed out to you, you were now not just a militia,
but have mysteriously transformed, one and all, into a well regulated one?
Boy! Theys' are sum majic wepuns ewe got there, uh-heauh!

 

[ryan in maine]

original quote from writer: Those who claim that the Second Amendment gives them the right individually to own and bear weapons of all kinds have not paid sufficient attention to the words of that amendment.

me fixing it for them: Those who claim that the Second Amendment does not give them the right individually to own and bear weapons of all kinds have not paid sufficient attention to the words of the Founding Fathers outside of that amendment.

 

[CajunBass]

Remember sentence diagrams?

I was wondering if anyone else remembered how to do that.