CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › La Segunda Enmienda
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

La Segunda Enmienda

post #1 of 12
11/16/04 at 4:33pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
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.
Why is the first half ignored by gun-loving nuts? And if not ignored, twisted and spun?
Reply
post #2 of 12
11/16/04 at 4:38pm
Obviously a militia can be defined as "lone wacko"
Reply
post #3 of 12
11/16/04 at 5:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Merriamwebster.com
Main Entry: mi·li·tia
Pronunciation: m&-'li-sh&
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin, military service, from milit-, miles
1 a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
If you registered for selective service, your part of the militia.
Why is it you try to spin the back half.
It states the right of the people not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I
Reply
post #4 of 12
11/16/04 at 5:36pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nelson
Why is the first half ignored by gun-loving nuts? And if not ignored, twisted and spun?
No, I've seen a study that analyzed the state constitutions dating to that time that used the same grammatical construction, with the same meaning. The truth or falseness of the first, clarifying phrase has nothing to do with the inaliability of the right stated in the second, assertive one. The sentence says "because x, y cannot be revoked," not "while x" or "as long as x" or "until x is no longer true". If there was a law stating "Because it rains often, the right of the people to own umbrellas cannot be revoked," and from some point on it only rained twice a year, umbrella ownership would still be guaranteed.

Here's a similar analysis of English grammar of the language (yes, it's on a "gun-loving nut" site; ignore the rant at the bottom, it doesn't change the meaning of the sentence in question).

This offers a detailed examination of the constitution within some past and recent historical context, and points out that originally there was only one comma after "State", not the ones after "Militia" and "Arms" as it is so often quoted. I don't think that changes the meaning of the sentence (though they do), but it does make less sense.
Reply
post #5 of 12
11/16/04 at 6:21pm
I had looked this up last night for a school assignment.

Quote:
"Collective rights theorists argue that addition of the subordinate clause qualifies the rest of the amendment by placing a limitation on the people's right to bear arms. However, if the amendment truly meant what collective rights advocates propose, then the text would read "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the States to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." However, that is not what the framers of the amendment drafted. The plain language of the amendment, without attenuate inferences therefrom, shows that the function of the subordinate clause was not to qualify the right, but instead to show why it must be protected. The right exists independent of the existence of the militia. If this right were not protected, the existence of the militia, and consequently the security of the state, would be jeopardized." (U.S. v. Emerson, 46 F.Supp.2d 598 (N.D.Tex. 1999))
From http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/46fsupp2d598.html

And to clarify: The militia in question and the military are not the same thing; militia being something like all physically capable men between the ages of 17 and 45 who are not already part of the armed forces. Either way, the end clearly states "right of the PEOPLE", so I don't see how there can be an argument here. The only thing that ought to be argued is what they mean by "arms", but it's pretty cut-and-dry aside from that.
Reply
post #6 of 12
11/16/04 at 11:25pm
Why is the thread title in Spanish, is there a point to that?
Reply
post #7 of 12
11/17/04 at 12:56am
Because to the untrained eye, the title might be mistaken for The Second in Shit
Reply
post #8 of 12
10/17/08 at 9:14am
The word "people" in the Second Amendment means "a well regulated militia." When the parts of a legal expression don't concur, the rule in 1789 was that the end trumps the means. See Federalist No. 40 to see how James Madison uses the rule to make "revise the Articles of Confederation" mean "make a completely new constitution."
Reply
post #9 of 12
10/17/08 at 11:38am
The Supreme Court disagrees with you, SAM THE SHAM, and like it or not they interpret the Constitution.
Reply
post #10 of 12
10/17/08 at 11:57am
It's a poorly constructed sentence. If you wrote that in English class you'd get a D, even back in the olden days [citation needed]. And I agree, what exactly constitutes 'arms' is the thing to debate. Stupid vague-ass forefathers.
Reply
post #11 of 12
10/17/08 at 11:59am
The concept that a well armed population is the safeguard against tyranny is no longer applicable. Specially when the government has nuclear weapons and killer drones.

Also, see Iraq ... didn't everybody have a gun over there?

Also Terminator ... well, you get the point :-)
Reply
post #12 of 12
10/17/08 at 12:10pm
I'd love for the militia nuts to actually try an uprising. It would be intersting to see if they are as willing to die for their cause as their muslim equivalent or if they would cry foul and ask for a time-out when the first bombs start to drop.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › La Segunda Enmienda