AT LAW: Second Amdnement Showdown

The Wall Street Journal ^ | November 23, 2007 | MIKE COX

[Aristotelian]

militias marched into battle with privately-owned weapons

The Framers knew that militias were comprised of citizen soldiers who supplied their own weapons. The amendment was not meant to imply collective ownership but rather individual ownership of weapons -- weapons they could bring to a fight at a moment's notice.

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

The interns must be writing the headlines over the holidays....

;-)

[TomServo]

The interns must be writing the headlines over the holidays....

And the editors asleep - or drunk.

[Aristotelian]

Recently, the WSJ edit page’s Dan Henninger had George Wallace being “shot dead.”

[Beagle8U]

The whole article is worth reading. It was written by the Michigan Attorney General, Mike Cox.

[ButThreeLeftsDo]

The local rag (StarTribune) had a story today about a “pedestriam” being killed by the light-rail train yesterday.

[samtheman]

This is a good article, though I would like to have seen a little more analysis of the grammar as it relates to the dependent clause and the subject of the sentence. A strict grammatical approach is all that is needed to clearly see that what the framers were talking about was first and foremost an individual right to keep and bear arms, with a dependent clause shedding some contextual light on the reason for that right. Any other reading is wholly anti-English (grammar, that is).

[Skibane]

Original wording of a fictitious Amendment:

A well-educated populace being necessary for the prosperity of a free State, the right of the People to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

...and, a liberal's interpretation of it:

Only well-educated people may keep and read books.

[PROCON]

This weekend I’m going to plunk a couple of old pumpkins with some 9mm hollow point, close range!!

Off topic a bit, but oh, well!!

[Sophie Schol]

I’m anxious as to what the court will decide. I feel we should be allowed to own and carry whatever our soldiers and Marines carry.

[sergeantdave]

If the SC were to decide that the 2nd allows the Army to bear arms, it would be the most stupid and ludicrous interpretation of a law in human history.

[P8riot]

Normally I would assume the same, but the author of this piece is Mike Cox, the Michigan State Attorney General.

[P8riot]

I’m anxious as to what the court will decide. I feel we should be allowed to own and carry whatever our soldiers and Marines carry we want.

There, fixed it.

[P8riot]

oops, I see what you mean now.

[kickstart]

I recommend everyone should read John Ross’s “Unintended Consequences” if you want to get a good summary of the erosion of our right to bear arms.

[Capt. Tom]

Original wording of a fictitious Amendment: A well-educated populace being necessary for the prosperity of a free State, the right of the People to keep and read books shall not be infringed.

...and, a liberal's interpretation of it: Only well-educated people may keep and read books.

Very good Skibane. - tom

[El Gato]

I feel we should be allowed to own and carry whatever our soldiers and Marines carry. I don't think I can afford a Mk-19. or an M-2 for that matter. I know I couldn't afford to feed the M-2. Might be able to manage a .50 BMG anti-material rifle though.. but of course I could buy one of those today, just as quickly as I could get myself to a gun shop that has one. Still I would like an M-16. (Heck I'd *like* an F-16, but that's way out of the question financially... Ross Perot's kid might be able to afford one though, and he's already trained and qualified to fly one. If he wants one, he should be able to buy a shiny new one off the GD line, or a refurbished one out of the bone yard.

[Joe Brower]

Sir, could you please fix the misspelling in this article’s title? Thanks.

[Joe Brower]

Great article.

Thanks for the flag, pharmboy.

[uncbob]

And it says

THE RIGHT SHALL NOT BE ——

It doesn’t say the People shall be granted the right

In other words the RIGHT ALREADY EXISTS and it shall not be infringed

And if the geniuses on the Court some how think it is obsolete etc then it is not up to them to repeal it but the congress and the states through the Amendment process