False. Taken from an Article called "The Unabridged Second Amendment" by J Neil Schulman. Invterview with Roy Copperud. You can google the article its the first thing that pops up. Credentials 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. [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 26, 1991, constitutes 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 to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia. "In reply to your numbered 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." [Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?" [Copperud:] "(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 a 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:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."
The "second half" (the main clause) as written is not independent-GOLEM [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 26, 1991, constitutes 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'). You stated the Second half is not independent. That is false statement. The second Half is absolutely independent of the first clause. We know this to be true because you can lift the second clause out of the full amendment and it stands on its own as a complete sentence.
I have no idea what that has to do with what you quoted, but.... what nonsense! The fact that it can stand on its own only means that it's a different clause. The first clause is NOT independent of the second
It absolutely demonstrates that the second clause is not dependent on the first clause. Do you understand that invalidates your entire grammatical argument? In order for the Peoples right to be dependent on being in a militia, those clauses would have to be dependent on each other. The fact that they are not 100 percent shatters your entire argument. https://english.lingolia.com/en/grammar/sentences/participle-clauses Examples of Present participle clauses. The nominative Clause is the use of the Noun "Militia" and the Participle "Being" Followed by the independent clause of which is not dependent of the nominative clause by definition. This is also known as Nominative Absolutes but often gets confused with dangling participles.
I would settle for you even understanding my grammatical argument. Of course you can make a brand new sentence by cutting any composite sentence in half. But what kind of argument is that for... anything?
Ahh yes the Superiority strawman. Were not smart enough to understand your argument. Classical Liberal fallacy Of course you can make a brand new sentence by cutting any composite sentence in half. But what kind of argument is that for... anything Were not making a brand new sentence. Were looking at the second amendment as its written. Its a Present particle followed up by a independent clause. Which means there is no connection between Milita service and the right of the people to keep and bare arms. You are just wrong sir. flat out.
If the OP is to suggest that the second amendment is a States right issue, I disagree. It is not for the people or the Constitution to conform to a States deviations. It is for the State to conform to the peoples constitutional right. Otherwise there is no certainty in anything regarding liberty. And a State can abolish it all.
The 2nd Amendment, as written, contains a Main Clause that explains "what", and an Absolute Clause that explains "why" the Main Clause exists. Now... what is your argument, if you have one?
We do not agree. The two clauses are completely independent. That is incorrect. Both clauses are independent. The second half of the Second Amendment is military in part. But it also includes keeping and bearing guns for private self defense. Rights have many facets to them. Agreed. The second half of the Second Amendment merely protects a preexisting right. Not really. The intent of the law matters much more than its grammar.
How would you know the "intent" if you don't understand what is written? Unless you believe you are in direct communication with the minds of the framers using some form other than written English. You just admitted that you don't understand what grammar is. That is pure nihilism. If you don't get that understanding written English is the most basic... most crucial requirement to understanding written law, there is not much I can say to you.
No, The second amendment, as written, Contains a Present participle and an Absolute Cause. The absolute being that the People shall not have their right to a firearm infringed with for the sake of being able to form Militias. The right is assumed. The right is for the people not for the militia
Was that your "argument"? The NAME of the clauses? I don't give a crap what you call them! Scalia (in "Heller") called them "Prefatory Clause" and "Main Clause". Linguists call them what I said. Some philologists use a different terminology. Which metalanguage you use is NOT the point of this thread. The point is that they were written the way they were written to convey a particular meaning. The meaning of the phrase as a whole can easily be determined by comparing them to ALL sentences written at the time that have a similar structure, like the ones I listed on the OP. Rebutting the point I make in this thread should be simple (assuming a rebuttal exists), but there is only ONE way: by showing a different sentence in English, with the same structure, that has a different meaning. Nobody has... therefore, my point stands.
Yeah but your point is fundamentally flawed because your not adhering to a basic rule of English. Present participles don't render Absolute Clauses dependent. Therefore the act of government not infringing on the rights of the people is not connected with BEING in a militia. Example Sentence " A well schooled electorate, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed" The act of being well schooled does not confer the right to own and keep books. The act of owning and keeping books is assumed and the right to do so shall not be infringed in order to have a well schooled electorate. The key word there is BEING. Which lets you know that you are dealing with a present participle. https://learnenglish.britishcouncil...iate-to-upper-intermediate/participle-clauses Here are some common ways we use present participle clauses. Note that present participles have a similar meaning to active verbs. To give the result of an action The bomb exploded, destroying the building. To give the reason for an action Knowing she loved reading, Richard bought her a book. To talk about an action that happened at the same time as another action Standing in the queue, I realised I didn't have any money. To add information about the subject of the main clause Starting in the new year, the new policy bans cars in the city centre.
Your examples make no difference. The second example uses "stative" verbs. Meaning a state. "Knowing" is a stative verb. Like the 2nd A "being (necessary)" denotes a state. Not an action like "standing" or "exploding" So you can rearrange the phrase without changing the meaning. "Because she knew that she loved reading, Richard bought her a book" So she wouldn't have bought him a book, if Richard didn't know (a state) she loved reading, he wouldn't have bought her a book (according to the phrase).
Of course they make no difference, that is the whole point. Present participles do not put a limiting principle or meaning change on the Noun/pronoun of the nominative clause. Thus Militia is not a limiting principle on People.
I do understand what is written. I know intent by being familiar with the legal history of the Second Amendment. I make no such admission. I do understand what it is.
No idea what you mean by "limiting". Who said anything about limiting? The 2nd A only addresses ONE justification for keeping and bearing arms, which is that of a well-educated militia. It doesn't limit, confer, create, ... or in any way address any others.
All the second amendment confers is the the right for the people to keep and bare arms cannot be infringed. That is it.
The ONLY reason you understand what is written is because of English grammar. You wouldn't be able to understand even a child if you don't start with a shared English grammar. Even less the framers. Do you understand that grammar is the basis of ALL communication? Be it when you read a book, a text, ... a LAW! Or when you talk or write in this forum? So unless you have something other than this nihilistic approach, I think this is a waste of time.
Those rules of grammar do come into play when I am understanding what I read when I learn about the legal history of the Second Amendment. It is true that if I did not understand language, I would not be capable of learning about the law. But what the rules of grammar do not do is play any part in the interpretation of the second Amendment. The way to interpret the Second Amendment is to look at what the right to keep and bear arms has been throughout history. And history shows that the right to keep and bear arms has included both "a right of individual people to have arms for military purposes" and "a right of individual people to have arms for private self defense". The Heller ruling does disregard part of the Second Amendment by only protecting the right to have guns for private self defense. But that is still a huge step forward. Courts previous to Heller disregarded both individual rights.
Grammar has EVERYTHING to do with the interpretation of the 2nd A. Without it you wouldn't even know if "shall" means past, present or future. This is why nihilism is just empty nonsense. If you want to discuss the history of the 2nd A, this thread is not about that. You can do that in this other thread: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ But don't bother if you are going to start off with some other type of nihilism.
That is incorrect. Grammar is irrelevant. What matters is the legal history of the right. The tense of "shall" is also irrelevant. I'll get there eventually. Pointing out that something lacks relevance isn't nihilism.
Ok. If the tense of "shall" is irrelevant, then I can I hold that "shall not be infringed", in the 2nd A as written, means that it shouldn't be infringed at the present time when the Bill of Rights was written, but does not apply to the future (i.e. today). Prove me wrong without addressing grammar. NOTE (to anybody else reading this except T.A.): This is a sarcastic response to an absurd argument
Laws apply until they are repealed. Since the Second Amendment has not been repealed, its protections still apply.
I moved this to the thread where the discussion is on-topic before the mods do. Which doesn't mean the "prefatory" clause doesn't exist, or that it can be ignored. It's THERE. Just like it's in the examples I provided: "...the passengers can embark" is the main clause. But when you us it in context with the absolute clause (which you call "prefatory"), it makes what is meant by the main clause clear: "The ship having docked into the port, the passengers can embark" clear. They are inseparable. And you most definitely can't ignore the fact that the framers INCLUDED it. It's not giving permission to own guns to ANYBODY. There was no need for such a "permission" at the time it was written. People could own arms like they could own a boots, or a house or a horse... It's not about owning weapons. It's about bearing arms. The 2nd A doesn't address in any way owning guns, but bearing arms. And the full explanation of what that meant in the 18th century is here: The Heller decision is, for now, the law of the land. But it has nothing to do with the 2nd A (which is what I was discussing). So it can be overturned simply by a more sensible Supreme Court decision. The current composition of the Supreme Court will not stay this way forever. So, if Congress can't pass sensible gun legislation, it WILL be overturned. No doubt about it. Proof that I am right lies on the fact that neither you nor anybody has been able to debunk what I say by going back to the structure or the history of the 2nd A as written. You had to go to Heller to try to prove this... That proves Heller is the Law of the Land, but not that it can be reasonably argued by circular reasoning like yours: "The 2nd A says X, because Heller states it says X, which proves that the 2nd A says X, so Heller states it says X ..."
