Comments on: Inconsistent http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/01/18/inconsistent/ Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:04:41 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: straightarrow http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/01/18/inconsistent/comment-page-1/#comment-193739 straightarrow Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:30:53 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/01/18/inconsistent/#comment-193739 "That sentence, read according to the rules of English grammar, restricts only the government…the federal government."-Ron W Not exactly correct, Ron. Certainly the federal government is one of those entities so restricted. In actuality the bar to infringement in the second amendment is universal. There is no limit placed on who may not infringe. The infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is barred to all, by the amendmen'ts lack of mention of whom specifically is barred. Unlike the first amendment for instance, where it states" <strong>Congress </strong>shall make no law.....", depicting exactly whom is being restrained. In the second there is no such depiction, making the bar to infringement applicable any and all. “That sentence, read according to the rules of English grammar, restricts only the government…the federal government.”-Ron W

Not exactly correct, Ron. Certainly the federal government is one of those entities so restricted.

In actuality the bar to infringement in the second amendment is universal. There is no limit placed on who may not infringe. The infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is barred to all, by the amendmen’ts lack of mention of whom specifically is barred.

Unlike the first amendment for instance, where it states” Congress shall make no law…..”, depicting exactly whom is being restrained.

In the second there is no such depiction, making the bar to infringement applicable any and all.

]]> By: Turk Turon http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/01/18/inconsistent/comment-page-1/#comment-193738 Turk Turon Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:10:28 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/01/18/inconsistent/#comment-193738 A prefatory clause, like that in the Second Amendment, appears in only one other place in the Constitution: in the Patents and Copyrights section. There have been several Supreme Court rulings on Patents and Copyrights in the 20th Century, and all of them held that the prefatory clause only explained what followed, it did not limit or condition or impose a requirement upon it. So if the SC rules differently in the Second Amendment, they will have a lot of explaining to do. What the Founders meant in the 2A is, "Because Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, it will always be possible to form militias." A prefatory clause, like that in the Second Amendment, appears in only one other place in the Constitution: in the Patents and Copyrights section. There have been several Supreme Court rulings on Patents and Copyrights in the 20th Century, and all of them held that the prefatory clause only explained what followed, it did not limit or condition or impose a requirement upon it. So if the SC rules differently in the Second Amendment, they will have a lot of explaining to do.
What the Founders meant in the 2A is, “Because Americans have the right to keep and bear arms, it will always be possible to form militias.”

]]> By: Ron W http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/01/18/inconsistent/comment-page-1/#comment-193699 Ron W Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:44:54 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/01/18/inconsistent/#comment-193699 A well-regulated militia beng necessar to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infirnged." That sentence, read according to the rules of English grammar, restricts only the government...the federal government. The sentence begins with a subordinate clause which is explanatory why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. The founders understood "militia" to be an armed citizenry which is precisely cogruent to the meaning of the sentence. "Militia" in teh subordinate clause must agree with "the people" in the main or independent clause or the sentence is contradcitory and nonsensical. So in exact oppostion to this meaning, the government can supposedly infringe on the right of the citizens to keep and bear (carry) arms...when the independent clause of the 2nd Amendment tells the government it may NOT infringe??!! A well-regulated militia beng necessar to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infirnged.”

That sentence, read according to the rules of English grammar, restricts only the government…the federal government. The sentence begins with a subordinate clause which is explanatory why the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. The founders understood “militia” to be an armed citizenry which is precisely cogruent to the meaning of the sentence. “Militia” in teh subordinate clause must agree with “the people” in the main or independent clause or the sentence is contradcitory and nonsensical.

So in exact oppostion to this meaning, the government can supposedly infringe on the right of the citizens to keep and bear (carry) arms…when the independent clause of the 2nd Amendment tells the government it may NOT infringe??!!

]]> By: drstrangegun http://www.saysuncle.com/2008/01/18/inconsistent/comment-page-1/#comment-193693 drstrangegun Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:07:29 +0000 http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2008/01/18/inconsistent/#comment-193693 *shakes head* *boggle* what? *shakes head* *boggle* what?

]]>