Posted on 11/10/2007 11:25:50 AM PST by theothercheek
This is how lawyers make a living - parsing, deconstructing. If Bill Clinton - a lawyer - can dispute the meaning of the word “is” then this comma thing will go on forever.
I've always liked this example.
The right to own and read books, being necessary for the maintenance of a well-educated electorate, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed.
Read that to a gun-grabber and ask if they think that would mean that only registered voters had the right to own books. They'll tell you that it's not the same thing, but you'll have made them struggle to think.
Parsing and deconstruction is fine, if it leads to the truth. The 'toon, Giuliannie, other politicians and a great number of others use parsing and deconstruction for the purposes of hiding the truth and lying. It's part of a con. The Bill of Rights are in plain English, so at least those who are concerned about and value the truth own't be conned.
Pretty sorry stuff, eh?
That depends on where you live in America. Massachusetts or Texas? (IE Red State or Blue) Where does your money go after it’s taxed away from you?
“When should this “hail of bullets” begin? What good are bullets without the collective bal... gonads... to use them?”
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&q=homeowner+shot+intruder&btnG=Search
The NRA and local law enforcement can help you figure out when you’re allowed to defend yourself. Otherwise, you might have to settle for Janet Reno’s style of protecting you.
I guess you're right, though I'm struggling to get a grip on this.
I read the subject as "the right of the people to keep and bear arms;" and the predicate as "shall not be infringed." The first part: "A well regulated...,"is the justification of the right. It does not limit or constrain the predicate.
The revisionists don't see it that way, and don't believe that dismissing the latter part abrogates the first. They would say that there are still rights, but that they don't include keeping arms--unless you're in the National Guard.
Amen to that. Any idiot with any sense of history and a grain of common sense know what the founders meant and what the second amendment means.
Unresponsive.
That’s a legal term, meaning you didn’t answer the questions.
Undeniable logic. Perfect. The founders could have just as easily said, "Because injuns might attack at any time," instead of "A well regulated militia being necessary", and it STILL would not change the thrust of the Second Amendment that the citizens' right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I bet if the founders could hear the arguments from the left today they would forget about including that "throat clearing" militia part at all.
Taking it a step further, the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, was itself only an afterthought exclamation point to the main text of the Constitution. The rights listed in the Bill of Rights were ALREADY THERE - - the founders just decided to emphasize what the Constitution already said by listing a bunch of glaring examples of rights that the federal government BETTER NOT screw around with.
Turns out it was a good idea. I wish they had added about a hundred more.
“Reliance on called-up-militias is clear evidence that military force was intended to be used only to protect American soil from outside invasion or internal insurrection, and clear evidence that the Framers did not want America intervening in the affairs of other nations nor sending troops abroad.”
Here’s where your argument breaks down -
They all did.
They kept a standing army. The same guys you said never intended to - they did. The institution still exists now.
“
I don’t know how anyone can support the 2nd Amendment and support the war in Iraq. That war is clearly a violation of the Constitution’s intent.”
No - you misunderstand the intent.
Sister Mary Groinkick would have us diagram the sentence. Try it...you'll like it.
I'm not sure who the rest of your post is addressed to, but certainly not me. A participle is a word, not a phrase. I am an English expert. "A Well-Regulated militia, being necessary..." is not a participle. Kindly correct your corrections to address those to whom you mean to address.
The english expert didn’t just say a participle — but a present participle. As this Copperund fellow is an expert in the english usage and, probably, the english usage back in those days — I’m going to stick with him, sir.
The present participle of a verb is the -ing form of the verb. The other participle is called the past participle and is often the -ed form of a verb except with irregular verb.
I have a masters in English, and 90 hours toward a doctorate in English. I'll keep my own council in matters of usage.
A group of words is a phrase. A group of words with a subject and verb is clause. at best it could be a participle phrase, but it most certainly is not a present participle.
http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/verbs.htm#participles Participle: a verb form acting as an adjective. The running dog chased the fluttering moth. A present participle (like running or fluttering) describes a present condition; a past participle describes something that has happened: "The completely rotted tooth finally fell out of his mouth." The distinction can be important to the meaning of a sentence; there is a huge difference between a confusing student and a confused student. See the section on Adjectives for further help on this issue. "Being" is a present participle.
The militia was defined in contemporary English dictionaries as "The army, in its entirety" and not the many meanings which have been applied since.
'Control of the army being necessary to the security of a free state (preventing Junta), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' makes perfect contextual sense, and is greatly in agreement with the opinions expressed in Federalist 46 and elsewhere.
The right is an individual right, and was intended to be protected as such.
Legal terms kill unborn children. Legal terms murdered Jesus Christ.
Aside from bringing down economic empires, lawyers kill the human mind, body, and soul when they put law into a mess of words that only they can decode for the common man. When the Jacobins took France into a legal reign of terror, they themselves were not spared the devilry they inflicted for their lust for power.
Take guns away from the common citizen, and then those left with guns will have the power.
“Tell that to gun control advocates.”
Maybe, that is why, Jackie Mason said, “Anyone in favor of gun control is a F*******G MORON”
I never heard of a two comma version until someone pointed out that the Parker ruling at the Circuit court had two different versions, one of which had two commas, the other three. The version that appears in the United States Statutes at Large contains only one. A little additional research reveals that I'm wrong and there were one,two and three comma versions. But since whatever the original had, more could have been added, or some left out, in the process of hand copying the document for sending to the states for ratification, this is not very suprising. The same probably happened to the rest of the BoR, but no one particularly wants to ignore them or at least change their basic meaning..
In the final analysis, they hang on our willingness to use them. Hopefully only in a deterrent mode, but should deterrence fail.... see tag line.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.