Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If they were two separate things they would have put them in two separate amendments. Something like:
Amendment 2. A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state
Amendment 3. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
2. or abridging the freedom of speech,
3. or of the press;
4. or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
5. and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
6. A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state
7. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Maybe they lumped together rights that were separate but related to keep the number of amendments to a reasonable amount.
wrong, if you read the amendment, you will note that the first half indicates the recognition of the founders that there needs to be a militia to secure the freedom of the states. its the second part of the amendment that puts the teeth into the amendment as a whole. the people have the individual right to keep and bear arms. otherwise you cant create the militia in the state, and thus you have no militia with which to create a standing army to protect the country as a whole.
I am reading the whole amendment, and frankly, I don't even see a "1st" and "2nd" half. There is no separation by a period, just commas. That makes the whole amendment one entire thought. Either that, or their grammar sucked.
"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."
If it was two separate thoughts it would either be 2 amendments as I described above, or something like:
"A well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Once you put "being" in there it implies that what follows afterwards is a continuation of the same thought. For example:
"Joe Smith, being of sound mind and body, is hereby declared fit for trial."
The argument that there are two separate thoughts in the amendment would be tantamount to me saying that, in my example above, the part beginning with "is" is a separate thought. But clearly it isn't because that would mean:
"1. Joe Smith, being of sound mind and body.
2. Is hereby declared fit for trial."
The grammar in the amendment is awkward enough as it is (even by 18th century standards), but assuming it's "really" two amendments assumes the grammar is even more awkward than it already is.
1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
2. or abridging the freedom of speech,
3. or of the press;
4. or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
5. and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
6. A well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state
7. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Maybe they lumped together rights that were separate but related to keep the number of amendments to a reasonable amount.
Those are all separated by "or" or "and." The 2nd amendment isn't. If it was:
"A well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
THAT would make sense as two separate thoughts. As it stands now, either the grammar is simply awful, or they are only 1 thought.
I am reading the whole amendment, and frankly, I don't even see a "1st" and "2nd" half. There is no separation by a period, just commas. That makes the whole amendment one entire thought. Either that, or their grammar sucked.
"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."
If it was two separate thoughts it would either be 2 amendments as I described above, or something like:
"A well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Once you put "being" in there it implies that what follows afterwards is a continuation of the same thought. For example:
"Joe Smith, being of sound mind and body, is hereby declared fit for trial."
The argument that there are two separate thoughts in the amendment would be tantamount to me saying that, in my example above, the part beginning with "is" is a separate thought. But clearly it isn't because that would mean:
"1. Joe Smith, being of sound mind and body.
2. Is hereby declared fit for trial."
The grammar in the amendment is awkward enough as it is (even by 19th century standards), but assuming it's "really" two amendments assumes the grammar is even more awkward than it already is.
Nobody is saying it is two amendments. There are two distinct but related rights spelled out in the amendment. Just as the right to a free press and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances are distinct but related rights. The first amendment isn't saying that the mainstream media is our vessel for petitioning the government and therefore we need no other means. In the same vein, to say that the militia is how our right to bear arms is expressed, presumably in the form of the national guard, is ludicrous on its face.
I didn't really mean "amendments" literally, more like two separate "thoughts" or "rights." But in any case it appears to be a single one, unless you assume their grammar was really really horrible.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
This tells me they DID know how to construct a grammatically proper sentence composed of strung-together separate thoughts or rights. The fact that they DIDN'T do the same for the very next amendment tells me that next amendment WASN'T composed of separate thoughts or rights, it was all ONE thought.
It also shows they could put two distinct but related items in the same amendment. And just as CNN is not our method of petitioning the government over our grievances, the national guard is not our method of expressing our right to bear arms.
wrong, if you read the amendment, you will note that the first half indicates the recognition of the founders that there needs to be a militia to secure the freedom of the states. its the second part of the amendment that puts the teeth into the amendment as a whole. the people have the individual right to keep and bear arms. otherwise you cant create the militia in the state, and thus you have no militia with which to create a standing army to protect the country as a whole.
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.
Except the second part does not use the word "individual". It says "the people" which is suppose to be representive of all of us as a whole not as individual components. When they say "A government of the people" they don't mean every single person is in government but that we have people represent us within the government. I would imagine that is what was intended with the militias as detailed in the 2nd Amendment. The militia members would representative of "the people".
Concerning the written structure of the 2nd Amendment there isn't even a period in between the two clauses. Only a comma; meaning that both clauses of the 2nd Amendment were meant to have an integral relationship with each other. To state otherwise would mean that the Founding Fathers didn't have a firm grasp of the English language and made a grammar error that a 10 year old would catch. Something I rather doubt. So when they say "the people" they are specifically talking about a "well regulated militia" not individual ownership of guns. The two clauses are definitely meant to have an integral relationship.
It also shows they could put two distinct but related items in the same amendment..
You're missing my point: Yes, they did put multiple distinct but related items in the same amendment - in the 1st amendment. But when they did that, they proved they were capable of constructing a grammatically correct compound sentence. They did NOT construct a grammatically correct compound sentence or for the 2nd amendment. Therefore, it was not intended to BE a compound sentence; and thus, it was not intended to BE a compound thought.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
