Hehehehehe, sound s like my wife! Her favorite "style statement":
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.
‘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.’
‘The question is,’ said Alice, ‘whether you can make words mean so many different things.’
‘The question is,’ said Humpty Dumpty, ‘which is to be master - that’s all.
Honorable Humpty Dumpty, US Court of Appeals
Bump...
Thank you for posting my thoughts.
I’ve been saying this for years. Back then you didn’t have the communications or distribution systems you have now so there was no way to distribute guns to people from a centralized government location. Plus, people unused to shooting guns would be no good in a national emergency and would first have to be taught how to use a gun. Hence a militia of people who already had guns and already knew how to use them. DUH!!!!!!!
Only a country run by so-called progressives, but actually Marxist elitists could find in our Constitution the unfettered right to an abortion but no individual right to keep and bear arms. These are dangerous times.
Boy George is deeply saddened.
I think it is significant that this amendment wasn't written to say, "The Congress shall make no law ...". The prohibition is even stronger ... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I think "by anyone" is implicit in that wording.
1 The right to bear arms depends on the militia;
2 The militia depends on the right to bear arms.
There is a third way. The phrase "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, " is explanatory, not a dependency. Because we need a well regulated militia, the people need to bear arms.
Boy George is deeply saddened.
And, he knows we really do want to hurt him...
Nor does the Democrat Party (speaking of an abstraction as though it were a person) believe that our rights inhere in our very beings as persons, and are not mere privileges granted by the benevolent, all-wise state. The Declaration of Independence, the foundational document of our republic, has the source of our rights well and correctly defined, from which there should follow woe to any who try to deny them or restrict their expression without good cause.
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. ,
Huh. It still means we can keep and bear arms.
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.
“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.”
????? WHAT ?????
When Americans are disarmed, then revolts, schism, revolutions, anarchy, and ensuing tyranny can follow.
But because regular American citizens are armed to the teeth,
no amount of rock star movie actor popularity celebrity opinions,
no amount of natural disaster areas (whether through neglect or Emperor Nero tactics),
no amount of foreign powers’ interference, no amount of criminal pressure,
no amount of tyrannical tycoon global domination multi-billion/trillionaire or conspiratorial oligarchy of wealth,
and no amount of home grown anti-personal freedom politicians’ rhetoric will sway the nation’s will to stick to the original intent of the Constitution.
To take on the personal freedoms of Americans whilst we recognize the inalienable right to self-defense means that such resistance to and tyranny against Truth will be met with a hail of bullets.
And if our Constitution isn’t enough to exclaim the value and inherent right of self-denfence, then we can always rely on Jesus Christ.
Luke 22:
35
He said to them, “When I sent you forth without a money bag or a sack or sandals, were you in need of anything?” “No, nothing,” they replied.
36
He said to them, “But now one who has a money bag should take it, and likewise a sack, and one who does not have a sword should sell his cloak and buy one.
Thus the message to tyranny is, if you can’t love your fellow man because it’s God’s will to love you neighbor, then at least respect your neighbor’s strength of will—a neighbor who’d kill you in self-denfense in protecting what is his.
I’ve just found my new tagline.
Always have and always will. Ever since the very first day he asked the question.
"a well regulated militia being necessary... is NOT a present participle.
The present participle is a verb form ending in -ing"
Hmmm - so does that mean that 'be' is no longer a verb?
"To be, or not to be. That is the question."
LOL
;^D
As the old saying goes, "God made made man. Sam Colt made all men equal!".
Hehehehehe, sound s like my wife! Her favorite "style statement":
Congress' rights are enumerated. Not yours.
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.