Re: Free State Security - part 2

Jim Bianchi apparently said ...:

On Sat, 26 May 2007 10:28:23 GMT, Bob the Burger-Builder wrote:
Jim Bianchi apparently said ...:
On Fri, 25 May 2007 20:29:51 GMT, Bob the Burger-Builder wrote:
Jim Bianchi apparently said ...:
Can you rationally demonstrate how to remove half
the words from a sentence and it still mean the
same thing?

Simple. The sentence should be a compound sentence, having two
clauses. Whichever clause can stand alone as a complete sentence is
what the whole sentence is about. As in "the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." THAT is what the 2nd is
about. Ask any English teacher.

Hot dayam! We finally have a competitor!

Ok, lets ride this one for a bit.

Following your logic, this

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.

means exactly the same as

The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not
be infringed.

No. I'm sorry. You said '..still mean the same thing?' While I said
'..that's what the 2nd is about.' I guess you're right and I'm unable to
demonstrate how that might be done. Only, you see, I (and most others),
don't really ignore the 'militia clause.' Rather we don't subscribe to it
being the reason for the existance of the 'rights clause' as you (and many
gungrabbers) do. Hence, like the USSCt, we tend to ignore it in our args,
since it has no meaningful effect (such as a reason to restrict the RKBA to
militia groups).

So since it isn't of overwhelming importance to what we are saying
(that there is such a thing as an individual RKBA when giving lists of the
many rights people have), we simply ignore it in favor of what the sentence
is really about.

Jim. First of all, my thanks for a decent reply. I'd just
about given up on this thread.

np.

This, the matter of what importance is ascribed to the first
part of the 2ndA, seems to be the crux of the whole matter, still.

From where YOU are coming from, this may seem true. Only, you see,
the historical record, the congress of this couuntry, 200 years of USSCt
decisions and scholarly opinion (plus the elementary rules of the English
language) all say the idea [that the 'militia clause' is the controlling
part of the 2nd, or that it gives an EXCLUSIVE rationale for the right set
forth in the 'rights clause'] is, to put it bluntly, so incredibly lame as
to not be believed.

Y'know, I've searched, but can't find the use of the phrase
"incredibly lame" anywhere in either the original documents,
or the later interpretations. ;)

And I'd point out that you are drifting into the uncertain
realm of assumption with "From where YOU are coming from".

Focusing on that in particular, (in case you either missed something or
got dragged into a spurious side issue), my point it that one cannot
dismiss the first part as simple pre-amble, leaving the latter part the
only "active" part as if it were all that had been written,

And among constitutional scholars it is common practice to ascribe
to every word of eg, an amendment, equal weight ACCORDING TO THE RULES OF
ENGLISH COMPOSITION AT THE TIME THE INSTRUMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS
FORMULATED. Then, as now, the ultimate meaning of a compound sentence is
found by breaking said sentence into clauses. The clause that can stand
alone as a complete sentence IS what that sentence is about.


"is found by breaking said sentence into clauses" IOW,
interpreting it. It is "assumed" and "promoted" that this
is how to read it by one side of this running argument, and
"assumed" and "promoted" to mean something else by those
who take the alternate view. A standoff. Not a final
resolution. I'd like a final resolution. Wouldn't you?

Its well established that there are at least two different
interpretations of the 2ndA. One must surely take both into
account when dealing with this matter. The very act of
dismissing one or the other, or even refusing to recognise
the possibility there could even be yet another, is not an
analysis but simply an act of investing in one or the
other. This, as I've already cautioned, is a technique that
can lead to a permanent state of fluctuation between one
version and the other, subject to political influence more
than a finally established and thoroughly evidencable
statement of exactly what the 2ndA means and what it
doesn't. And this political fluctation is typically managed
by the very authority the 2ndA was (IMO) designed to limit.
Cart before horse really.

Far from dismissing the 'militia clause' out of hand or considering
it as mere meaningless (or valueless) preamble, we realise that it provides
only one (among many possible) RATIONALES for what follows: the 'rights
clause' (which is what the 2nd is about).

There is a case for this, and I'm not dismissing it, simply
postulating that this is not the simplest nor the most
logical interpretation, and as such, leaves the existing
"popular" interpretation vunerable to dismissal at a later
time if and when political expediency moves things in that
direction.

IOW, its a tenuous "victory" to claim "And thats that!"
based on later documents and statements formed from opinion
and semantic direction with a clear intent toward any
particular interpretation, no matter how impressive they
may seem, nor how "authorative" the source.


So far it seems to me that the crucial difference between
one version and the other is not so much the available
"evidence" (which can still be demonstrated either way),
but that an effective majority CHOOSE to invest in the
current interpretation. This is where some of my concern
rests. It shouldn't be variable, and it shouldn't be subject
to the control of that which it should be limiting, no
matter if this is favourable to the few or the many.

And I think the FFs knew this, which is why I think the more
solid literal reading as a single sentence, unbroken by
later interpretive methods, is the most dependable reading.

For instance:

The safety of my daughter, being necessary to the
peace of mind of her parents, the use of the family
car shall not be restricted.

In NO WAY does this give her permission to take the thing
out and trash it with her friends on some half-arsed
doped-up alcohol-fueled credit-card shopping spree or
dickhead-enhanced night-club trawl. The purpose of this
guarantee is clear, as is the limit of it.

She could argue otherwise, but, unlike the FFs, I'm still
around to confirm what I meant.

--
Bob
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Conflicts, contrasts or differences between Catholics and Protestants in Great Britain
    ... the Catholic Church was given precisely as an interpretation ... of that clause in the Creed. ... I can only find three mentions of the six-day creation in the second ... of Christ and the Church. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Dem member of Congress killed
    ... It is a dependent clause. ... existence of the militia depends on the people being armed. ... "One interpretation, known to grammarians as a nominative absolute construction, proposes the Second Amendment consists of an opening justification phrase or qualifying clause, followed by a declarative clause where the opening phrase modifies the main clause much as an adjective would ...
    (alt.guitar.amps)
  • Re: chotto, ot
    ... and the clause restricts the main clause of 'it excites Michael Moore', ... it being the sentence in question, 'it excites Michael Moore ... afraid I don't fully understand your interpretation. ... that should make Americans a little nervous (WHAT? ...
    (sci.lang.japan)
  • Re: Jumping around through forms
    ... matter of changing the ORDER BY clause instead of using the constant. ... Private Sub cmdFilter_Click ... Dim strWhere As String ...
    (microsoft.public.access.formscoding)