Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Casual conversation between friends. Anything goes (almost).
Post Reply
User avatar
arch
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:48 pm
Location: Potomac Falls, Va
Contact:

Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Post by arch »

“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.” — U.S. Constitution

The principal clause (or declaration) of the sentence above is: "A well regulated militia . . . shall not be infringed". The middle clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", only modifies the main. This clause is a noun phrase which functions adverbially on the the participial phrase preceding it which, in turn, modifies the subject "A well-regulated militia". To clarify the meaning, the right of the people is only a right in the context (as members) of "A well-regulated militia" being necessary to the security of a free state. "Militia" is the collective entity whose right shall not be infringed.

Words are often misunderstood or misinterpreted with unfortunate consequences.
DGA
Former staff member
Posts: 9466
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Post by DGA »

arch wrote: Sat Feb 24, 2018 8:58 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.” — U.S. Constitution

The principal clause (or declaration) of the sentence above is: "A well regulated militia . . . shall not be infringed". The middle clause "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", only modifies the main. This clause is a noun phrase which functions adverbially on the the participial phrase preceding it which, in turn, modifies the subject "A well-regulated militia". To clarify the meaning, the right of the people is only a right in the context (as members) of "A well-regulated militia" being necessary to the security of a free state. "Militia" is the collective entity whose right shall not be infringed.

Words are often misunderstood or misinterpreted with unfortunate consequences.
I am inclined to parse the second amendment in the same way you do.

SCOTUS has too. See United States v. Miller (1939).

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) tells a different story, however.
joy&peace
Posts: 1115
Joined: Mon May 11, 2015 4:53 pm

Re: Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Post by joy&peace »

Address the cause.
User avatar
arch
Posts: 76
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:48 pm
Location: Potomac Falls, Va
Contact:

Re: Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Post by arch »

joy&peace wrote: Sun Mar 04, 2018 3:30 pm Address the cause.
Please say more about that. Not sure what you are specifically referring to. I will try to help if I can.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 5251
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:23 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

Post by DNS »

I may have mentioned this in one of the other gun threads but I'll repeat it here since this is specifically regarding the 2nd Amendment:

To repeal a Constitutional Amendment you need to have the okay from Congress plus 3/4 of the State legislatures. Since there are currently 50 states, that requires 38 states. The blue (liberal-Dem) states tend to be around coastal areas and the red (conservative-Republican) tend to be around the middle states (sometimes called "flyover states" - perhaps a derogatory term). There is no way to get 38 state legislatures to vote for repeal without a significant number of flyover states. In other words, not likely.

A better chance is for something like expanded background checks, better checks for mental health, etc and possible banning of certain weapons (there was an assault weapons ban during Bill Clinton era, so that's not impossible to do).
Post Reply

Return to “Lounge”