Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
NRA version of 2nd Amendment lacks common sense
http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/opinion/ct-sta-mcgrath-gun-rights-st-0607-20150605-story.html
Ask any high school English teacher to parse the Second Amendment, and they will say that it does not prohibit common-sense restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns, in spite of the National Rifle Association's claim to the contrary. The proof lies in the amendment's exact language — "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."
Literally, it means that the American people will retain the right to carry weapons as members of a state militia in order to safeguard their freedom.
====
To prove that this is the only interpretation that makes sense, try using the exact language and sentence structure from the Second Amendment applied to another subject — A democratically elected Congress being necessary for a secure and free State, the right of the People to enact legislation shall not be infringed.
If the introductory phrase is ignored in the same erroneous way it was with the Second Amendment, the above law would mean that every individual, and not Congress, was entitled to make and follow his own laws and to hell with everyone else.
Or this — The Air Force's arsenal of nuclear weapons being necessary to ensure the defense of the United States, the right of the People to build weapons of mass destruction shall not be infringed.
Ask any high school English teacher to parse the Second Amendment, and they will say that it does not prohibit common-sense restrictions on the purchase and possession of guns, in spite of the National Rifle Association's claim to the contrary. The proof lies in the amendment's exact language — "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."
Literally, it means that the American people will retain the right to carry weapons as members of a state militia in order to safeguard their freedom.
====
To prove that this is the only interpretation that makes sense, try using the exact language and sentence structure from the Second Amendment applied to another subject — A democratically elected Congress being necessary for a secure and free State, the right of the People to enact legislation shall not be infringed.
If the introductory phrase is ignored in the same erroneous way it was with the Second Amendment, the above law would mean that every individual, and not Congress, was entitled to make and follow his own laws and to hell with everyone else.
Or this — The Air Force's arsenal of nuclear weapons being necessary to ensure the defense of the United States, the right of the People to build weapons of mass destruction shall not be infringed.
Until the Supreme Court, the one that ruled that corporations are people and money is speech, changes in structure such obvious arguments are relegated to opinion columns and not the law of the land.
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
knifes, swords and blackjacks are illegal most places(at least certain kind) and the NRA is pretty quite on those as well nuclear bombs.
