My Position on the 2nd Amendment

[andyfox]

“Perhaps when you were in school you took classes on English. You know....the class where you talked about nouns, verbs, adverbs, and conjunctions. Perhaps if your teacher was particularly sadistic, you had to parse sentences. Anyway perhaps you remember the day they discussed: DEPENDENT CLAUSES and INDEPENDENT CLAUSES.

I took English classes, not classes on English. But I know what classes you’re referring to. I don’t remember “the day” they discussed DEPENDENT AND INDEPENDENT CLAUSES because it wasn’t just one day. Perhaps it was in your school?

”The independent clause contains the primary message of the sentence and the dependent does not. This is important because the verbage of the 2nd amendment contains an independent clause and a dependent clause.“

What’s “verbage”? Perhaps you meant “verbiage?” Perhaps when you were in school, in your classes “on English,” there was a day they discussed spelling? Or the meaning of words? There is neither “verbage” nor “verbiage” in the 2nd amendment. It’s the terseness of the language that has caused problems.

”Here are the words of the 2nd 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.“

Perhaps you can explain why the dependent clause is there. Why doesn’t the amendment simply state, “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed?" And why, if the amendment were written in today’s language, it wouldn’t say, “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?"

In the discussion at the Constitutional Convention, James Madison said:

”The primary object is to secure an effectual discipline of the Militia. This will no more be done if left to the States separately than the requisitions have been hitherto paid by them. The States neglect their Militia now, and the more they are consolidated in to one nation the less each will rely on its own interior provisions for its safety & the less prepare its Militia for that purpose; in like manner as the militia of a State would have been still more neglected than it has been if each County had been independently charged with the care of its Militia. The discipline of the Militia is evidently a National concern, and ought to be provided for in the National Constitution.”

He was concerned about the militia. There is no discussion at the Constitutional Convention of an individual’s right to keep and bear arms outside of the state militia. None.

“Here is some light reading from an anti-gunner who honest about the meaning of the 2nd amendment. I Believe he wrote a book called, "The Embarassing [sic] 2nd Amendment".
http://polyticks.com/polyticks/beararms/emb2nda2.htm “

I already cited this article in the other thread.

BTW, I would be in favor of repealing the 2nd amendment if it said what you interpret it as saying. But, as you correctly point out, there’s a dependent clause in the amendment, which must be considered in reading it. Otherwise, you’d just be reading part of it.

But you know that. After all, you took classes on English.

[FishHooks]

Ha, nice post.

[renodoc]

Hey there Mr. Fox in Sox,

Who do you think makes (or made) up the Militia?

[John Cole]

"Dependent Clause:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

Just to let you know, this is not a dependent clause; in fact, it's not even a clause. It's a participial phrase. You need a subject and predicate in a clause. Also, in order to have either a dependent phrase, you need a dependent word, such as "because" or "after" to head the string. Here's an example of a sentence with a dependent and independent clause: "Because you failed to recognize the correct sentence form, you get an F."

Oh, by the way, I was a "C" student in high school.

[Felix_Nietsche]

A well educated society, being necessary to a free state, the people's right to keep and read books shall not be infringed. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

So your saying if the above sentence was a constitutional amendment then keeping and reading books would not be an individual right? And are you arguing only the well educated have the right to keep and read books. LOL [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[MMMMMM]

Andy, you wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
And why, if the amendment were written in today’s language, it wouldn’t say, “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?"

[/ QUOTE ]

We'll presume you meant "wouldn't it say";-)

OK, let's take a look at that. Your rephrased example, according to my interpretation, is still saying that the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It also happens to provide a rationale for that right.

If it were meant only to protect the rights of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms, wouldn't it have been much more sensibly stated that way?

For example, "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" or perhaps "...the right of militia-members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" or even simply in whole "Members of militias shall not have their right to keep and bear arms infringed."

The second amendment doesn't say those things, though. It specifies the right of the PEOPLE...not the right of militias or militia-members.

So, here is question #1:

If the point of the amendment was to safeguard only the rights of the militia or militia-members, why would it not simply say so, without bothering to reference "the people" at all? When stating rights, why does it reference "the people" (instead of "the militia" or "militia-members")?

OK, on to the second point. I think you are also mistaking in assigning more weight to the "participial phrase" (thank you John Cole) than you are assigning to the central phrase or central clause of the amendment (hopefully John will provide us with a more accurate term than "central phrase" or "central clause", as now I'm curious, grammatically speaking;-)).

Additionally, just because one rationale is given, does not imply that there aren't also other valid reasons for protecting the rights of the people from infringement. The authors may have simply listed the most obvious or important rationale, rather than providing an exhaustive list of reasons why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It is impossible to rightly claim, from the text as written, that their intention was to list the ONLY reason.

Let's look now at a contrived example regarding free speech, which shall bring us to Question #2.

Let's suppose that there exists an Amendment stating the following:

"The voices of diverse Political Parties, being essential to the fair workings of a Democratic Republic, the right of the People to freedom of expression shall not be infringed."

Would you hold that the above protects only the right of Political Parties to free speech, or would you hold that it also protects the right of individuals to practice free speech? I would hold the latter, but it seems that according to your line of reasoning, you would hold the former. What's your take on that?

[andyfox]

I'm saying that if what you composed was a constitutional amendment, then the federal government would not have the right to stop people from keeping and reading books that would make for a well educated society. I am not saying it would have the right to keep them from keeping and reading other books. The right to determine that issue is retained by the people and is to be determined by them through their state legislatures and other aspects of the political process.

I'm having terrible troubles with my keyboard, and I'll be in deep cardiac arrest watching the Yankees/Red Sox this weekend, so if I'm absent from the fora for a while, please don't assume I was shot. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[andyfox]

No, "it wouldn't say." Read that sentence again, as well as the prior one.

Keyboard troubles. I'll respond anon.

[Indiana]

Im a republican and I hate guns. Nobody needs one.

Period.

Indy

[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
Im a republican and I hate guns. Nobody needs one.

Period.

Indy

[/ QUOTE ]

And you logic here would be....

<ul type="square"> [*]I won't get robbed\maimed\raped\murdered [*]If I am in the process of being robbed\maimed\raped\murdered the police will come and save me [*]I'm rich. I can afford personal security\Security System\marry a LOE so I don't have to worry about being robbed\maimed\raped\murdered. [*]The people who want to rob\maim\rape\murder me are just misunderstood and as long as we can talk about it we can work something out and I might be able to help them. [/list]
Any of this logic is weak and childish at best. Did hurricane Katrina not open your eyes to how dangerous the world is?

-Gryph