Posted on 11/10/2007 11:25:50 AM PST by theothercheek
Washington, D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty made good on his vow to contest the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruling that the city’s 1976 handgun ban is unconstitutional, because the Second Amendment applies to individuals as well as to militias - and the Supreme Court is now considering whether to take up the issue of what the Founding Fathers meant by these words: "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."
Should the high court decide to grant review, Legal Times reports that its ruling may not hinge on the actual words comprising the Second Amendment, but to the commas that separate those words into clauses:
Another suddenly intense debate is enveloping the case - this one over what all those commas in the Second Amendment meant in late 18th-century America.
It may sound way beyond trivial, but it's not: The grammar war is under way.
You can blame the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for igniting this esoteric debate. It ruled on March 9 that because of the Second Amendment's second comma, the first half of the amendment - the militia half - is basically a throat-clearing preface that does not qualify the individual right to bear arms that the second half protects.
Judge Laurence Silberman, who wrote the 2-1 decision, went on to conclude that the district's handgun ban violates that individual right.
Some grammarians believe that commas were often used to signal a breath pause for orators – which means there would be more of them than would be used today, and that they may not necessarily mean anything. Others argue that the commas divide the sentence into dependent and independent clauses – the trouble is there is sharp disagreement over which clause is dependent and which is independent.
Complicating matters even further the Second Amendment is a comma chameleon: The version that Congress approved in 1789 had three commas, while several states ratified a two-comma version.
The Stiletto shudders to think that her Second Amendment rights are dependent on the placement of a comma – especially considering what’s going on in Venezuela these days.
Note: The Stiletto writes about politics and other stuff at The Stiletto Blog.
In Nebraska, it's,
...the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof
Yet the Courts have not seen to overturn a single "gun control" law since the people of the state added that RKBA provision in 1986. I guess they think the people weren't serious about that "shall not be denied *or infringed*" part. In fact they've ruled as if the "or infringed" wasn't even there.
kind of like "being" ?
I'm kind of hoping the same thing. After the Kelo decision, I have no faith in the court to uphold the Constitution.
Post 5 by: Stepan12 [The term a well regulated militia being necessary... is what is known as a present participle]
'Stepan12's meaning is obvious, but 'Military family member' takes him to task for not designating the word 'being' as the present participle or the phrase as a participle phrase (as he finally acknowledges in post 114 - see below). Either very picky, or an unfortunate oversight of the word 'being' which I tried to gently point out with humor in my post 77.
Post 41 by: Military family member [a well regulated militia being necessary... is NOT a present participle.
The present participle is a verb form ending in -ing]Post 77 by: RebelTex ["To be, or not to be. That is the question."]
'Stepan12' then clarifies that he was talking about a phrase, but did not say participle phrase.
Post 90 by: Stepan12 [the phrase is a present participle and not a restrictive clause]
'Military family member' retorts:
Post 112 by: Military family member [A participle is a word, not a phrase." ..."A Well-Regulated militia, being necessary..." is not a participle.]
'Stepan12' retorts:
Post 113 by: Stepan12 [The english expert didn’t just say a participle — but a present participle.]
'Military family member' then clarifies his meaning and acknowledges that a phrase can be a participle phrase and that 'being' is a present participle.:
Post 114 by: Military family member [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. ... "Being" is a present participle.]
Now things are both clear and cloudy. The phrase is a participle phrase containing the present participle word 'being'. The only remaining question is: Does that make it a present participle phrase?
Who the hell cares? No matter how you parse the words, examine the punctuation, or correct the grammar, the meaning and intent of the second amendment is clear: MOLON LABE!
So both of you are right - and both of you are wrong (in several different ways). Now apologize to each other, or agree to meet on the 'Field of Honor' at dawn with your seconds ready for a duel. The obvious (for this thread) weapon of choice shall be flintlock pistols at twenty paces, one load of powder, and one paintball in the color of your choice.
;^D
I Believe Stepan12 attached other people's comments to my own. I sought clarity in the definition of participle. RebelTex, I made a statement defining participle. Stepan12 rebuked me for something I did not right. I need no course in reading comprehension...please read my first post and see for yourself.
If this english expert Copperund says the phrase is a present participle that does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, then that is good enough for me and I'm going with that.
I have the link in one of my earlier posts (from the Second Amendment Sister's board) and I urge everyone to read it!
I've always liked that one myself. In fact, I almost posted it until I found yours.
Congress has no rights. Only powers granted to them by the people.
A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be restricted.
I guess if many intellectual liberals read that the way they chose to read 2A, it explains a lot.
Post 125 by: Military family member "Please understand, I am not trying t5o (sic) defend the attempt against the Second Amendment rights."
Precisely my point. You are not defending nor supporting the subject of the thread. Instead, you seem obsessed with correctly defining the parts of speech. This might be forgiven in light of your current studies. Your posts, however, seem to be both confrontational and defensive.
Post 41 by: Military family member [a well regulated militia being necessary... is NOT a present participle.
The present participle is a verb form ending in -ing] (confrontational)
You could have been less confrontational by saying in post 41 to Stepan12, for example:
" I understand your point. However, for clarity, the word 'being' in your quote is the present participle, not the entire phrase, although the phrase might be considered a participle phrase."
And in the following, you exhibit defensiveness and soothe your ego while asserting your superiority.
Post 114 by: Military family member "I have a masters in English, and 90 hours toward a doctorate in English." (defensive)
As for your own errors, I assume that they are not a lack of knowledge, but made in haste and failure to proofread. The word 'Believe' should not be capitalized, the word 'right' should be 'write', and the word 'to' does not contain the number 5. (It's now time for the mathematicians and/or numerologists to chime in and prove me wrong, LOL)
Post 114 by: Military family member "I Believe (sic) Stepan12 attached other people's comments to my own. ... Stepan12 rebuked me for something I did not right (sic)."
Post 125 by: Military family member "Please understand, I am not trying t5o (sic) defend the attempt against the Second Amendment rights."
Stepan12, you took the bait and also became defensive.
Post 90 by: Stepan12 "Please, no more incorrect corrections."
So for both of you, my point is this:
Does it really matter whether only the word or the entire phrase is the present participle? Does the meaning of the sentence change by the designation of one or the other? Is it more important to you that one proves superiority over the other in grammar, or that our second amendment right is preserved?
My posts to both of you are not attacks. I am only attempting to point out the folly in the direction of your arguments. It is far more productive to be less confrontational and defensive, and to focus more on the point of the thread. (Hmmm - looks like I need to take my own advice, LOL. My apologies to ALL for inadvertently hijacking the thread.}
;^D
FReegards,
RT
I would take out the first as well, since the following phrase is restrictive (essential to the meaning of what precedes it), not nonrestrictive (parenthetical), although I still see many passages punctuated this way.
The middle one I think everyone would keep. For now.
Not the editor of the last newspaper where I worked as a photog and syndicated calumnist.
The way I recall it was that in our Civil War killed 600,000 out of a population of 30 million.
Scaling to today's population of 300 million would result in 6 million dead.
An early exercise in "democracy".
Although, in the grand scheme of things, it would be decidedly less impressive if scripture read "Jesus Christ died of old age for our sins".
: )
It should be noted that the Thirteenth Amendment provides a basis, and so far as I can tell the sole one, for denying felons the RKBA: slaves do not have, and have never had, a recognized right to keep and bear arms.
I think it's good to recognize that exception for two reasons:
I like what you said about democracy...more like “mob rule” than democracy. Satan splits mankind to turn our hearts against our brother. IOW, the devil uses natural differences to bring unnatural division. Pilate cowed to evil; yet Roman rule was the most advanced for its region and age. The laws of men cannot protect innocence when the Spirit of the Law is absent.
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.