Hoorah for Heller!

[MidnightVoice]

Catch 22 ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[FretlessMayhem]

The Heller decision is great, but deeply disturbing to me.

Essentially, 4 Justices can't understand basic English. I was expecting 8-1 or 7-2 split.

When the Constitution was penned, gun ownership was common law. George Mason even said he was referring to each individual person.

This country was founded on the principal of putting the power with the people. It was intended to be something kept on a short leash by the people, for purposes of ensuring national security via the military and border security.

The Fathers had just completely overthrown their government. They knew the time might come when it had to be done again, so they ensured each person could retain access to weaponry. This isn't rocket science.

"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".

This, to me, reads that since the country needs a militia to ensure security of a free state, the people have a right to keep and bear arms to defend themselves from the militia.

It's funny how in this instance the "people" isn't the same as the "people" referred to everywhere else in the Constitution.

The good news is that now Obama can't resume his push for a national handgun ban.

However, he still maintains support for the national ban on carrying concealed weapons.

[MidnightVoice]

FretlessMayhem wrote:

Essentially, 4 Justices can't understand basic English. I was expecting 8-1 or 7-2 split.

Or alternatively,  4 Justices can't understand basic English 

Remember, it is NEVER about what the constitution actually says, it is a purely political decision.  Hence the desire of each party to appoint SCJ's.

[dizzier]

[llecs]

I was slow on the draw with "Heller"!  Just got it.

[Anonymous]

"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."

I see two subjects in that sentence, as well as a subject and a verb separated by a comma, leading to doubt about which noun phrase is the true intended subject of the sentence and therefore "shall not be infringed."

Where were Strunk and White when the Founding Fathers needed them?

[FretlessMayhem]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

"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."

I see two subjects in that sentence, as well as a subject and a verb separated by a comma, leading to doubt about which noun phrase is the true intended subject of the sentence and therefore "shall not be infringed."

Where were Strunk and White when the Founding Fathers needed them?

---

I'm not sure I follow cheddar. What is a Strunk?

The common law at the time was based from British law, where it was accepted by everyone that gun ownership is an individual right.

However, Bloomberg disagrees. He sent his goons down here to commit felonies in Virginia gun stores, and then sued them in NYC because for some reason NYC crime problems are VA's fault.

If it were a gun problem, then logically VA would have 10 times the crime of NYC because of the excessive gun ownership here. Then again, anti-gun people typically rely on emotional arguments rather than factual. This became abundantly clear last year with the VA Tech thing here.

[Anonymous]

---

FretlessMayhem wrote:

I'm not sure I follow cheddar. What is a Strunk?

---

William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White wrote The Elements of Style, which has become a standard for English grammar and usage.  The book is commonly referred to as simply Strunk and White.

My post was mostly tongue in cheek, but it does touch on the point that the reading of this sentence is not at all as straight forward as it might first appear.  For example, the interpretation you posted above is a new one to me.  I've never heard anyone interpret this single sentence quite that way, and I've looked at this sentence dozens of times.  So, it's not really a question of having a command of basic English.

It can be interpreted at least two ways, as I see it.  The phrase "shall not be infringed" is obviously the predicate, but what is the subject?  Is the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"?  If so, then what role is played by the phrase "A well regulated Militia"?

Maybe, just maybe, the key phrase is "A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed," and the rest of the sentence is an appositive.

Things are not always nearly as clear as they appear on first glance.

Message Edited by cheddar on 06-27-2008 01:26 PM

[FretlessMayhem]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

---

@FretlessMayhem wrote:

I'm not sure I follow cheddar. What is a Strunk?

---

William Strunk, Jr. and E.B. White wrote The Elements of Style, which has become a standard for English grammar and usage.  The book is commonly referred to as simply Strunk and White.

My post was mostly tongue in cheek, but it does touch on the point that the reading of this sentence is not at all as straight forward as it might first appear.  For example, the interpretation you posted above is a new one to me.  I've never heard anyone interpret this single sentence quite that way, and I've looked at this sentence dozens of times.  So, it's not really a question of having a command of basic English.

It can be interpreted at least two ways, as I see it.  The phrase "shall not be infringed" is obviously the predicate, but what is the subject?  Is the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms"?  If so, then what role is played by the phrase "A well regulated Militia"?

Maybe, just maybe, the key phrase is "A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed," and the rest of the sentence is an appositive.

Things are not always nearly as clear as they appear on first glance.

Message Edited by cheddar on 06-27-2008 01:26 PM

---

I do value your candid discussion, but I always think back to what they were thinking when they wrote. They were pretty paranoid and wanted to ensure the government could be overthrown if need be.

I always read it to mean that because the states need a well regulated militia, the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Mostly because of the comma, which separates the different thoughts.

There was a fantastic Penn and Teller on this, when I get home I am gonna try and dig up the link.

Even for those who don't agree, it's still funny.