|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
FL: A primer: Understanding the Second Amendment
Submitted by:
Mark A. Taff
Website: http://www.marktaff.com
|
There
are 4 comments
on this story
Post Comments | Read Comments
|
First of all, the language of the Amendment is confusing. It reads, and I 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.”
What, pray tell, did the Framers mean with this convoluted statement? Granted, the English language back in 1791 may have been a bit stilted, but even so, the sentence structure and choice of words at best breed confusion. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(6/14/2018)
|
While this article in general is pretty decent, I will point out, as someone who majored in English in college, the language of the 2A is not confusing at all. It is direct, straightforward, and deliberate.
Liberals seem most subject to misunderstanding -- or distorting -- the first clause where it uses the phrase "well regulated militia." This simply expresses the Founders' belief that for a militia to be useful, it must be well trained and disciplined.
It is NOT a reason to violate the CLEARLY STATED provision of the second clause;"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/14/2018)
|
MarkHamTownsend -
The author missteps right from jump street, calling the prefatory clause a "sentence". It is not. It is rhetorical throat-clearing. It has no subject, no verb and no predicate.
This red flag reduces the value of the whole piece. |
| Comment by:
MarkHamTownsend
(6/14/2018)
|
Phorto;
You're correct. It's actually called an exemplar. The 2A is actually one sentence. The "exemplar" simply is an "example"; as "this is the chief reason for:" followed by what the Founders' intent was.
Which is WHY it is grievously wrong to interpret "well regulatdd" to mean the government has any power to ban firearms. Exemplars simply cannot be used to contradict a straightforward unambiguous statement, as that second clause is. |
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(6/14/2018)
|
MarkHamTownsend -
Exactly so. Paraphrased, the sentence says, "Because of THIS, we are guaranteeing THAT."
THIS /= THAT
They are two distinctly different things. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| There are other things so clearly out of the power of Congress, that the bare recital of them is sufficient, I mean the "...rights of bearing arms for defence, or for killing game..." These things seem to have been inserted among their objections, merely to induce the ignorant to believe that Congress would have a power over such objects and to infer from their being refused a place in the Constitution, their intention to exercise that power to the oppression of the people. —ALEXANDER WHITE (1787) |
|
|
