Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
see, now I would have sworn they were, which is why the 5th amendment states that nobody shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.
|
Are we changing the subject to due process now?
Legally, there are eventual limits to freedom. Or would you like live in a country where one can be picked up off the street by a cult for the purpose of being sacrificed to a giant gerbil? That is, after all, absolute religious freedom. Or maybe you'd like to arm prisoners? After all, it's absolute gun ownership rights.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Martian
The justification is separate from the operative; They are two independent statements. The justification supports the operative, but does not limit or qualify it.
The justification statement could indeed have been included as a footnote, rather than as a part of the amendment itself, and the meaning would be unchanged. I would imagine this was not done because it's often considered poor style to annotate a document consisting of one sentence.
I'm viewing this from a logical perspective, interpreting the words quite literally. There are, of course, other ways to go about it.
|
I think the issue is that the grammar used in the amendment is no longer correct, or at least is no longer normal; like saying "thy". I think we'd be better off deciding how this would correctly translate to a modern (less awkward) phrasing. I tried to do that above, but it seems that you believe the justification and operative are, for all intents and purposes, almost like different sentences.
My translation would read:
An organized fighting force, separate from the government, shall not have their guns taken away from them.
Yours would more likely read:
The government shall not infringe on an individual's right to bear arms. An armed public is necessary to guarantee the security of a free state.
Does this sound about right?