Posted: 1/17/2013 11:15:18 AM EDT
|
Was arguing with a liberal, yes useless, I tried explaining the 2nd amendment to him.
He states that, " The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" refers to being in a militia. How I explained it was, there are two independent statements that are joined together by the comma separating them. So, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is one statement and " The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is the second statement. Then " shall not be infringed" refers to both statements. His reasoning was since there isn't an and in between the statements that it's not referring to individuals. I know I'm not great at English grammar but am I explaining it correctly? I'm pretty sure the comma can replace and in some cases. |
|
Quoted:
Was arguing with a liberal, yes useless, I tried explaining the 2nd amendment to him. He states that, " The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" refers to being in a militia. How I explained it was, there are two independent statements that are joined together by the comma separating them. So, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is one statement and " The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is the second statement. Then " shall not be infringed" refers to both statements. His reasoning was since there isn't an and in between the statements that it's not referring to individuals. I know I'm not great at English grammar but am I explaining it correctly? I'm pretty sure the comma can replace and in some cases. Supreme Court thinks your friend is wrong. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Was arguing with a liberal, yes useless, I tried explaining the 2nd amendment to him. He states that, " The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" refers to being in a militia. How I explained it was, there are two independent statements that are joined together by the comma separating them. So, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is one statement and " The right of the people to keep and bear arms" is the second statement. Then " shall not be infringed" refers to both statements. His reasoning was since there isn't an and in between the statements that it's not referring to individuals. I know I'm not great at English grammar but am I explaining it correctly? I'm pretty sure the comma can replace and in some cases. Supreme Court thinks your friend is wrong. and I should have mentioned that. ETA; definitely not a friend of mine |
|
This might help clear things up... The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. - James Madison, June 8, 1789 (The "original" 2nd Amendment as presented to the 1st Congress) |
|
Just think about it logically. If you join an organized military group, most people use the National Guard as their example of a modern day militia, why in the world would you need to be guaranteed the right to carry a gun. If you need one as part of your service, they will simply issue you one. You can't join the National Guard and demand to have a gun anytime you like, but it's silly to think that you might be denied one, so it has to be guaranteed to you. That's illogical.
That's like a chef needing a guarantee that his or her employer cannot deny the use of knives in the kitchen; why the hell would the employer even consider that, it's part of the job? |
|
Quoted:
Regardless the lack of an "and", the sentence which is the Second Amendment contains only one independent clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Exactly, the phrase "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," gives a reason for that independent clause. |