Comment: Posted here and at the RR paper linked

(See in situ)


Posted here and at the RR paper linked

A 2nd Amendment argument you can share with anyone!

"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."

The second amendment quoted above is clear, punctuated by its closing independent clause.

Let us first settle the grammatical debate;
A debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the
sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of
a free State," is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with
respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the
sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.
*Please see exchange Schluman to Copperud from provided source below.

Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would
also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the
Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not
be infringed."

My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be:

(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the
way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's
sentence?

(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the
people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate"--for
example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?

Copperud:

(1) Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

For more on how to read and defend the etymology, grammatical structure and meaning of the 2nd amendment see;
PRIVATE ARMS AS THE PALLADIUM OF LIBERTY: THE MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT - Ronald S. Resnick
http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Resnick1.htm

Regardless of your personal feelings on this divisive subject, in an
unprecedented 10 year climate of accelerated civil and personal liberty curtailment, we must all decide if we will live under the rule of law or the rule of men.

The United States Constitution is difficult to amend, some would
contest purposefully. As defined in Article V, the Constitution can be amended in one of two ways. First, amendment can take place by a vote of two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate followed by a ratification of three-fourths of the various state legislatures(ratification by thirty-eight states would be required to ratify an amendment today). This first method of amendment is the only one used to date.

Second, the Constitution might be amended by a Convention called for
this purpose by two-thirds of the state legislatures, if the
Convention's proposed amendments are later ratified by three-fourths of the state legislatures.

Because any amendment can be blocked by a mere thirteen states
withholding approval (in either of their two houses), amendments don't come easy.

This is the law of the land.

Recent efforts of law makers and the administration to circumvent the
most basic assurances of US Constitution are a clear violation of the
oath of office of each elected Representative and could be construed as sedition or an act of treason by a reasonable jury.

Politicians should heed caution here as the eyes of the Republic draw
on them to operate within the law. Failure to do so, could very well
cost them their own freedom when hurdles to prosecution of these types
crimes against the US Constitution, and the Republic for which it
stands, are overcome by the people through peaceful means or an
alternative not as appealing.

“Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the government take care of him better take a closer look at the American Indian.” ― Henry Ford.