Technically it's a punctuation error not spelling error. Glad to see an English professor such as yourself is trying to convince me that the literal words of the 2nd amendment is up to interpretation. I thought the founders had written what they meant.
open carry
- Thread starter seeley booth
- Start date
Technically it's a punctuation error not spelling error. Glad to see an English professor such as yourself is trying to convince me that the literal words of the 2nd amendment is up to interpretation. I thought the founders had written what they meant.
Fallschirmjäger
New member
Twenty-seven words? I bet most of us have.
What you posted is an editorial, the definition of which is "an article written by or on behalf of an editor that gives an opinion on a topical issue."
Bless ya heart.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Can you describe the functionality of a comma? How about when there are two commas in a sentence? What function in the English language do they serve?
Commas seperate clauses
2 commas seperate parenthetical elements,
Can't you google this. If I used a comma in the wrong spot I apologize. I never claimed to be an English major or point out any of your grammar. If this is a post arguing that the second amendment uses commas to seperate " independent clauses" and the founders did not refer to any able body person fit for military duty when they wrote "people" I'd say that's just your speculation
How about when the wrote "arms" it referred to muskets, flintlock pistols, swords and spears. One could argue that these weapons are the only weapons protected by the 2nd amendment. I don't believe in this I am just stating. This may be all wrong I thought I read somewhere that the government couldn't define "arms" and limit the weapons protected by the 2nd amendment. I'm just pulling this out of left field and have "0" facts to back it up. Like I said I don't even believe in this.
The founding fathers wrote exactly what they meant in the 2nd Amendment. They wrote:
If they would have meant "A Militia well regulated by the government...." that is what they would have wrote. But they didn't.
Link Removed
Oh, I'm sorry. I thought that's what a forum was. I thought people come to discuss and voice their opinions. Since the 2nd amendment has be topic of debate for over 100 years I doubt any of your opinions will seal the deal and close the debate forever. I'm just hear to play devils advocate and keep the discussion going.
Finally!!!! An exceptional and educated answer!!!!! I've been waiting for someone to say something like this instead of saying "it's my constitutional right Yankee scum". Thank you. You have no idea how long I've been waiting to hear something like this. I started off dumbing it down, figured it would make it easier for an educated response. All I got was liberal, Yankee, gun grabber name calling with no actual educated rebuttals. I stepped it up and used actual quotes and opinions based on facts, still all I got was name calling and uneducated responses. Finally you came through!!! I wish I had a prize to give you. You are 100% right.
Firefighterchen
OC for Tactical Advantage
What next..."bear" is going to cover only the animal?
Sent from my D6616 using USA Carry mobile app
Axeanda45
Banned
MHas, you have no frigging clue what words actually mean... You went to public skewl, right? We can tell...... here is a very good article that has someone who is an actual EXPERT on the English language.... It is even about the 2nd Amendment!!!! I suggest you go read it and stop showing your ignorance here.
Link Removed
Link Removed
BluesStringer
Les Brers
Yeah, that's what I figured you'd say. Oops. You dove head-first into my wolf-trap, and that's probably because the trap naturally searches for a foot to latch onto, and yours is still in your mouth. You are in desperate need of some remedial English instruction, but don't fret, I brought some with me. Please read it all before telling me (or the rest of us that have known this all along) that I'm "speculating" about what the commas mean, or how many thoughts are expressed within the one sentence (hint: it's more than one), what part is the subject, what modifies what and by what grammatical means etc. Certainly read it all before dismissing it as mere speculation by the experts in journalism and writing who offered the following analysis of the 2A's sentence structure, and gave their permissions to have it republished for the benefit of those in need of a free education (like you). Ready? OK, here we go:
[TABLE="class: grid, width: 800"]
[TR]
[TD]
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:
"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][Copperud] The words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 25, 1991, 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.
In reply to your questions:
[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to a "well regulated militia"?
[Copperud: (1) 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.
[Sculman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the 2nd. A., or does the 2nd. A assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and mere state that such right "shall not be infringed"?
[Copperid: (2) 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.
[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?
[Copperud: (3) no such condition is expressed or implied. 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 requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?
[Copperud: The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia mean: "well-equipped", "well-organized", "well-drilled", "well-educated", or "subject to the regulations of a superior authority"?]
[Copperud: (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.
[Copperud: to the best of my knowledge thare has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put:
"Since 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 abridged."
[Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the 2nd A. to the following sentence:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the 2nd. A. sentence; and
(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" - e.g. registered voters w/ a high school diploma?
[Copperud: (1) your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure;
(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
The complete text of this book is available online at www.Pulpless.com.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
[TR]
[TD]
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?
That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:
"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][Copperud] The words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 25, 1991, 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.
In reply to your questions:
[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to a "well regulated militia"?
[Copperud: (1) 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.
[Sculman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the 2nd. A., or does the 2nd. A assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and mere state that such right "shall not be infringed"?
[Copperid: (2) 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.
[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?
[Copperud: (3) no such condition is expressed or implied. 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 requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?
[Copperud: The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia mean: "well-equipped", "well-organized", "well-drilled", "well-educated", or "subject to the regulations of a superior authority"?]
[Copperud: (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.
[Copperud: to the best of my knowledge thare has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put:
"Since 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 abridged."
[Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the 2nd A. to the following sentence:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the 2nd. A. sentence; and
(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" - e.g. registered voters w/ a high school diploma?
[Copperud: (1) your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure;
(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
The complete text of this book is available online at www.Pulpless.com.[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
In light of this new (to you) information, it appears that it is you who owes the board an apology for engaging in the rankest of rank speculation about the meaning(s) of the 2nd Amendment. This research is likely as old, if not older, than you are. Also, if you are thirsty for even more knowledge about how the English language works with grammar, punctuation, modifiers etc., simply click on the link in the title of the above quoted material and read from another educator and language expert the nearly identical analysis, only with a twist. Mr. Brocki was given a slightly different sentence to analyze, which was this one:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
You really should read and see if the 2A analysis by Copperud differs at all in the Brocki analysis of the above modified 2A, only regarding the right to books instead of arms. Does it make any difference to you worded that way?
Not-so-coincidentally, Scalia's Majority Opinion in Heller is perfectly consistent with Professor Copperud's analysis that the subject of the sentence is "the right of the people" completely unlimited or unmodified by the preceding militia clause.
Thank me. I'm welcome.
Blues
Fallschirmjäger
New member
Thank You, BluesStringer.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
HA! Beat me by three freakin' minutes! Whaddaya wanna bet he'll ignore it twice now? HA!
Axeanda45
Banned
So, you are leaving once irrefutable truth proves your entire premise wrong? got it....
Pretty much. Not much to argue anymore. Navy hit the nail on the head. My wife and I only enjoy starting heated debates and getting people worked it. It's a boring existence when your life is work, baby, sleep. It's things like this, that entertain us. I can stay and talk but a debate is only fun and entertaining when there are 2 sides. I just admitted you were right. For the most part you've been right all along. We were just waiting for an educated factual answer. Can you imagine a debate with only 1 side? Not much fun. If you give us a little bit we can try and think of a topic to play devils advocate again but it's usually easier when we jump into a forum and previously started debate. Not sure what we can come up with. We went through a ton of topics back and forth here with this group. Our game may only be fun with a new group.
By tomorrow we should be able to come up with a topic where you guys can go back to name calling and posting pictures of stupid things instead of writing educated factual responses. We have some good religious topics but we usually don't use those in gun forums. The "Jesus was a con-man" gets the Bible Belt roaring.
BluesStringer
Les Brers
So how long have you actually been a drunken troll?
