In response to:

Liberal Says 2nd Amendment Meant to Give State Right to Bear Arms

Steven668 Wrote: Dec 23, 2012 5:02 AM
"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." Most people today assume that the Framers were just ignorant slobs who left this awkward phrasing in the Second Amendment in their precipitous rush to Get Something Done. I find that unlikely. I believe the Framers composed the Second Amendment with perfect grammar to say exactly what it means. The phrase, "being necessary to a Free State" is clearly a subordinate clause explaining the use of a well regulated Militia. The Second Amendment therefore says, "A well-regulated Militia, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
FletchforFreedom Wrote: Dec 23, 2012 8:06 AM
Sorry Steve - you're overworking this. The problem is that, in basic sentence structure, the ENTIRE section "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", lacking as it does any operative words, is subordinate, not just the second part, to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It is correct to say that the Framers were NOT ignorant slobs and because they were not, the only operative phrase is the one that stands alone: "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Steven668 Wrote: Dec 23, 2012 2:55 PM
The phrase you quote does not stand alone. It is separated by a comma into two phrases. I failed to point out above that "the right of the people to bear Arms" is itself a subordinate clause, making the Militia the thing that "shall not be infringed." Now we have the question: Why on God's green Earth would the government want to infringe a Militia? The only possible answer is that the Militia is not a government agency, but the people themselves, whose "right to bear Arms" establishes and maintains that Militia without government permission or interference.
Steven668 Wrote: Dec 23, 2012 5:17 AM
I do not take this to mean that any arrested development case with a couple of hundred bucks and an itchy trigger finger should be allowed to carry, or even own, a gun.

I do believe it is the duty, right and privilege of every responsible citizen who knows and obeys the law to be prepared and able to defend that law. No responsible gun owner would use his gun to arrest his neighbor for double parking. On the other hand, such a gun owner should never have reason to hesitate to use that gun to interrupt or stop a robbery, mugging, rape, or other violent crime in progress. The militia is always present, even when a professional policeman is nowhere to be found.
Steven668 Wrote: Dec 23, 2012 5:09 AM
Ick. Still awkward, what with that second comma and all. But wait! We can rephrase into modern language to say "A well-regulated Militia (defined as or established by) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Ladies and gentlemen, if we keep and bear arms, and know how and when to use those arms, we are the militia. As such, we are responsible, individually and collectively, for the security of the Free State in which we live. Actually, as a homeland defense force, that makes a lot more sense than hiring a bunch of unemployables to push everybody else around.

And of course, if you wish not to be responsible, and neither keep nor bear arms, that is your choice. This is supposed to be a free country, after all.
hmiller Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 6:49 PM



Read 'The Federalist Papers" #29 titled the militia.

First read the Constitution to see where the militia was established - 6 years before the Bill of Rights was written. Now why do you suppose they formed the militia in one document and then repeated that effort 6 years later?

Wendy60 wrote: The neoconservatives are the reason why Boehner is not putting up a fight. The neocons do the thinking for the Republican leadership on all matters of strategy and morality in politics. Boehner wouldn't take a dump if the neocons told him not to, and if they told him to do so, he would strain for hours. Neocons want tax increases, because paying higher taxes is a sacrifice. Neocons believe that the little people have to be forced into sacrificing for the "collective self," i.e., the state, because that is the only way to preserve the social order. What they...