from the article:
Their broader challenge is to the fundamental meaning of the Second Amendment. Here, commas, clauses and history all matter.
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.
From 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.
Notice the subtle difference...even after stressing punctuation?
The second enumerates two rights.....the collective and the individual...not either or...
Right #1
Collective: the right of a state to raise a well regulated militia
Right #2
Individual: the right of the people to keep and bear arms
Shall not be infringed.
Reason:
BOTH are necessary to the security of a FREE state...
In other words...the Dick act violates the second amendment on it’s face...(pun intended) by federalizing and supplanting state militias with federally charted troops(national gaurd)...which are under the sole control of the executive in times of duress...
BTW..OHIO is one of four states to have it’s own navy....serious...
Clearly...the bill of rights enumerates many individual rights....but it also enumerates several collective ones as well...
It really blows anti-gunner minds when I lay them back on the ropes...
The correct premis for the argument isnt collective vs individual...the correct premis is the the 2nd amendment enumerates both...
By not accepting the flawed premis as a basis for arguement...they have to frame their arguement on the correct terms....and that arguement holds no logic...
If the 2nd amendment wasnt collective...there would be no need for the dick act...
If it wasnt individual...it wouldnt contain the phrase “the people”...
The constitution was written so a person who passed the 5th grade could understand it (the common highest grade in the day)...
People forget that the norms of syntax use in our language has deformed over the years...
No one says “four score and seven years”....we say 47...
And people rarely if ever break simple connecting statements down into proper english...
Someone only need read the tenth to understand that half the crap the feds do is unconstitional...and the other half is “extra’ constitutional.....IE:...made up on the spot and justified later...enumerated no where...yet enforced with law...
The best part if to get a pro gunner and an anti gunner together and shut them both up with one arguement...
Of corse the light goes on over the progunner...and the anti-gunner walks off in disgust...but that is to be expected...
The same people that claim a private letter written by jefferson is the basis for the “separation of church and state”..are the same people who ignore the entire bulk of the federalist papers...
Ignorant is...as ignorant does...
try this one on them...
“A well balanced check book, being necessary to the security of a household, the right of the parents to write and cash checks, shall not be infringed’
Write it down...
Now tell me the house has a right to your checkbook and you dont...or that your household could function well for long without it..
*grin*
Be well..
Oh Good Lord, a two comma version.
Of course the original version had only one, between "state" and "the right". But several "near" original versions, including those sent to the states for ratification, had 3. The one common version is the most grammatically correct, but the 3 comma version has the two extras where one might pause for breath when reading the one comma version. Commas have two functions, one is that "pause ", the other as a logical separator.
But there are two rights protected. The right to keep arms and the right to bear arms. There is no collective right. The right can of course be exercised simultaneously by groups of individuals, along with the first amendment's right of peaceable assembly.
A bunch of Texas (and New York, Colorado and Minnesota maybe others all are welcome) FReepers have now done this twice, and we'll do'er again come May. We do it in Memory of FReeper Texas Cowboy, and 'cause we have a good time doing it. Before TC passed on, a subset did it with him, just 'cause it is fun. I had the high privilege and distinct honor to participate in one of those early gatherings. (but not the first :( ) We've even been known to have "children" (who no longer are that little anymore) firing machine guns at these affairs, and to fire .50 caliber rifles too. :)
Would you consider an idea I discussed with a friend of mine, who is qualified to argue cases to the Supreme Court (both in Texas and U.S.), and says that my analysis is an interesting and plausible boost to the “inalienable/individual” right to keep and bear arms as enumerated in the Second Amendment???
BTW, he agrees that this is something that needs to be “kicked” around to see if it can stand on its own...He beleive that things like this take time to develop and be analized themselves, and that it may be accepted only after I have been “planted” so to speak...hehehe
The term “free state” when the Second Amendment has been written, in certain publications I have noted that the phrase is either capitalized or not...But either way if you somehow manage to apply that phrase in other Amendments it simply makes more sense that the term is referring to the individuals “state” of existence, in society...And not so much or not at all about the “State” in reference to the government, or some geographic boundary on a map...
Yours and my (and others) “free state” is in my opinion and a few others that I’ve presented this to, is more in line with the individuals existense in a society that is based upon that persons “freedom” and condition of existance in a country that is based upon an individuals freedom to exist and prosper in that society...
When the first ten Amendments were approved, it was widely understood that those Amendments were not so much a guideline for the citizenry to use as a template or other way to conduct themselves...
But they were certainly guidelines and “restrictions and regulations” to how the government elected to “oversee” the conducting of business as a nation was to be restricted and nominally unable to infringe upon a great many things that would interfere tremendously against the “freedom” of the individual citizen...
You make some fantastic points in what you posted earlier...And I am glad to have seen them...
I’m all for, and have been at the point of really desiring to “sucker punch” elected officials who seem to not get it that even though we elect them to represent us...The control needs to always be flowing towards Washington D.C. and not the other way around...
If that little burr under the saddle were to ever be an irritation again, I believe things would really run a lot better in this country...
Just my humble opinion...
How about, "A bank checking account, being necessary to the security of a household, the right of the parents to write and cash checks, shall not be infringed"?
What is being protected? Can you protect one and not the other? Do you see a connection between the two?