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.
I already suggested your edit, but the problem is, you remove a clause that makes it unclear. Your edit is certainly clear - but it's not necessarily what the original statement meant.
Here's the grammar problem. You've got to have a connecting word between state and "the right". Or at the beginning of the sentence.
For example,
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, requires that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms not be infringed.
As it's written, you have phrases with no connecting idea or word.
I get what you're saying. I do see your point. However, Your rewording still has a disconnect. Not to you because that is the language you speak or the grammar you use. But to someone more accustomed to Shakespearean English and grammar (I exaggerate just a little), your wording would make more sense thus;
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, requires that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". As you have it, I had to stop and re-read to get the meaning. The meaning is clear but to some it doesn't flow.
So really, it's the way people speak that is at issue. I understand your wording just fine but it is different to how I speak. I see the original wording of the 2A the same way. I had to re-read it a few times to get the full meaning of it.
Something I would like to address and that is the question of to be armed or not to be armed.
If one were to hypothetically remove all guns from a society, criminals included, the crime rate would likely go up, not down. Gun deaths would go down obviously and that would include suicide by gun. So what would suicidal person do if they can't get a gun? Well, some folks choose to jump off high buildings. Others take sleeping pill overdoses. In New Zealand, the preferred method of suicide is driving a car at high speed into an oncoming truck or rigid structure/building or rock face. Others choose to use a hose connected to a car exhaust. Far easier than using a gun. Painless too.
Besides attempting to stop suicide by removing access to guns, it would be an infringement of a persons rights preventing them from ending it. (See I used your grammar there )
So to you, evil or mentally disturbed people must keep the rights to owning gun, even if threatening to shoot to kill for as long as they don't actually go ahead and shoot someone for no justified reason?
Why do you say that evil or mentally disturbed people must keep the rights to owning gun, even if threatening to shoot to kill for as long as they don't actually go ahead and shoot someone for no justified reason?
No one else here has suggested that. Why do you suggest it?
Even as last summer's riots, murders, and burning continue into 2021, and children are dying from gang violence, and people find it impossible to walk on the sidewalks of major cities such as New York, Chicago, and Portland OR... for the umpteenth time, people are trying to blame guns for the increasing crime across our nation.
If a house in your part of the city is set on fire, are you going to blame the match?
But if somebody gets shot, why do you blame the gun?
In each case, it's the person who wields the gun (or match), who caused each occurrence.
What's one difference between the gun and the match?
The U.S. Constitution does not forbid government from making laws regulating or banning matches.
Yet once again we have groups advocating regulating or banning guns, blaming the guns for deaths and injuries.
The difference is simple:
It's a lot harder to defend yourself against a tyrannical government with a match than an AR-15.
As clear and ingenious as the constitution is, it's a baffling mystery to me why the Second Amendment was actually not written grammatically. That is the ONLY sentence in the constitution that's simply not clear what they're talking about. The clause doesn't connect to the rest of the statement correctly.
Reminds me of the way the Texas Pledge of Allegiance is written. Like someone was using copy and paste and accidentally messed up their phrasing.
"Honor the Texas flag; I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible."
SOMEBODY on the Constitutional Committee (maybe a clerk?) should have taken a glance at the 2nd Amendment and said um, can we clean up the language on this one?
The only people who think that the 2nd amendment needs interpretation are the ones who don't like what it very plainly says.
No one really questioned the meaning of the 2nd amendment until some people in government decided they didn't really like the people being an equal footing with them all that much.
Because the only reason that you might be scared of people defending their rights is if you plan on violating them.
If people no longer have guns, that doesn't remove the risk of violence, but it does reduce it, just like people not having matches reduces the risk of arson.
The second amendment was written for the purpose of a standing militia, because we cannot have freedom without a military to defend ourselves. Given a national military, the need to individual citizens to own guns does not carry the same meaning.
The second amendment didn't mean that only the milita was allowed to keep and bear arms.
If it did, then why didn't the Founders enforce that interpretation?
The only people who think that the 2nd amendment needs interpretation are the ones who don't like what it very plainly says.
No one really questioned the meaning of the 2nd amendment until some people in government decided they didn't really like the people being an equal footing with them all that much.
Because the only reason that you might be scared of people defending their rights is if you plan on violating them.
What is the logical reasoning behind the notion that the founding fathers, in the nations bill of rights, feeling the need to state that a standing army should be armed?
Exactly.
And why put something so obvious and self evident in the Bill of Rights at all, much less second only to freedom of speech?
Even as last summer's riots, murders, and burning continue into 2021, and children are dying from gang violence, and people find it impossible to walk on the sidewalks of major cities such as New York, Chicago, and Portland OR... for the umpteenth time, people are trying to blame guns for the increasing crime across our nation.
If a house in your part of the city is set on fire, are you going to blame the match?
But if somebody gets shot, why do you blame the gun?
In each case, it's the person who wields the gun (or match), who caused each occurrence.
What's one difference between the gun and the match?
The U.S. Constitution does not forbid government from making laws regulating or banning matches.
Yet once again we have groups advocating regulating or banning guns, blaming the guns for deaths and injuries.
And blaming defunding the police for the rise of crime across the nation is pretty stupid too.
WHile there have been many calls for 'defunding' few municipalities have reduced the budget significantly...but yet we are seeing nationwide significant increase in crime and folks blaming the whole defund the police 'chatter'.
But those same people refuse to try and connect the surge in gun sales to any increase in gun violence.....
Note -- not suggesting that is WHY there is an increase in crime...but the connecting the dots strategy used by some is less about connecting dots and more about jumping on clouds and floating from one idea to the next.
The whole point of appointing conservative judges wasn't just about the Supreme Court -- it was because folks blamed liberal judges for lenient sentences, etc. We had four years of appointing conservative judges and it was widely boasted......this has had zero impact on the crime on the street.
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.
)
