Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Sion · 11-18-2003, 01:45 PM

"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."

many of those who hold that the 2nd amendment does not guarantee the individual right to firearms tend to focus on the semantics, specifically the meaning of "well-regulated militia." the problem with that tactic is that it ignores the construction of the sentence. the militia phrase ocurrs in the SUBORDINATE CLAUSE of the sentence, which means that what is expressed therein is ancilliary to the main point.

the main point is: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." this part of the sentence can stand alone and carry its meaning. the subordinate clause cannot.

that is the ONLY part of the sentence that is of any importance. the meaning "a well-regulated militia" is irrelevant to the guarantee.

note that the sentence does NOT say "In order to guarantee the security of a free state, the right of a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." IF that were the wording, then the meaning of militia would come to bear. it is not and therefore does not.

elsewhere, there is debate over the use of the plural term "the people." essentially, what this arguement boils down to is that if two individuals standing together have guns, they are "the people" but if only one person is standing there, he is not "the people" and therefore not entitled to the guarantee. this is absurdity in the extreme.

the 2nd amendment DOES guarantee the individual right to keep and bear arms. it really is that simple.

11-18-2003, 01:45 PM	#25 (permalink)
Sion Dumb all over...a little ugly on the side Location: In the room where the giant fire puffer works, and the torture never stops.	"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." many of those who hold that the 2nd amendment does not guarantee the individual right to firearms tend to focus on the semantics, specifically the meaning of "well-regulated militia." the problem with that tactic is that it ignores the construction of the sentence. the militia phrase ocurrs in the SUBORDINATE CLAUSE of the sentence, which means that what is expressed therein is ancilliary to the main point. the main point is: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." this part of the sentence can stand alone and carry its meaning. the subordinate clause cannot. that is the ONLY part of the sentence that is of any importance. the meaning "a well-regulated militia" is irrelevant to the guarantee. note that the sentence does NOT say "In order to guarantee the security of a free state, the right of a well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." IF that were the wording, then the meaning of militia would come to bear. it is not and therefore does not. elsewhere, there is debate over the use of the plural term "the people." essentially, what this arguement boils down to is that if two individuals standing together have guns, they are "the people" but if only one person is standing there, he is not "the people" and therefore not entitled to the guarantee. this is absurdity in the extreme. the 2nd amendment DOES guarantee the individual right to keep and bear arms. it really is that simple. __________________ He's the best, of course, of all the worst. Some wrong been done, he done it first. -fz I jus' want ta thank you...falettinme...be mice elf...agin...