Posted: 9/13/2013 4:19:52 PM EDT
|
One to keep in your back pocket:
Roy Copperud, Professor of Journalism for 17 years at the University of Southern California, author of “A Dictionary of Usage and Style” and of “American Usage: The Consensus”, writing and editing consultant for newspapers and businesses, and member of the usage panel for the American Heritage Dictionary, issued his professional interpretation of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution: “The words ‘A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,’ constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying ‘militia,’ which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject ‘the right,’ verb ‘shall’). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia. The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people. The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.” Source: http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm |
| dickishness is strong in the replies to this thread. OP wasn't interpreting law, he was providing the results of an interpretation of our most highly regarded sentence, by someone who gets paid to do exactly that. Without regard for political filters or idealogical interpretation, what is the most logical understanding of the words of the 2nd Amendment? I appreciate the info. We should all find some comfort in the contents of his post, despite what we believe. Thanks, OP. |
|
Quoted:
Use, don't use it, it's your rights. If some of you would spend a little less time being smart asses, you might find a few more allies. I'm out. BTW, I'm one of the people who busted his ass getting both Morse and Giron voted out. You're welcome again. Ease back, smile, and come back friendly. This place occasionally picks on the new guy. Your post is good info. Keep it up and you will be more than welcome here. |
|
Quoted:
dickishness is strong in the replies to this thread. OP wasn't interpreting law, he was providing the results of an interpretation of our most highly regarded sentence, by someone who gets paid to do exactly that. Without regard for political filters or idealogical interpretation, what is the most logical understanding of the words of the 2nd Amendment? I appreciate the info. We should all find some comfort in the contents of his post, despite what we believe. Thanks, OP. +1 |
|
Quoted:
Use, don't use it, it's your rights. If some of you would spend a little less time being smart asses, you might find a few more allies. I'm out. BTW, I'm one of the people who busted his ass getting both Morse and Giron voted out. You're welcome again. Thank you so much brah, not even gonna ask if u lift |
