“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.
Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
Re: Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
I am inclined to parse the second amendment in the same way you do.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.
SCOTUS has too. See United States v. Miller (1939).
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) tells a different story, however.
Re: Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
Address the cause.
- 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
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).
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).