Quote:
Originally posted by fastpat
By anyone reading the document we call the Constitution as amended. It's written in plain, if slightly archaic, english and is easily understood. Only those wishing to define away rights protections attempt to "misunderstand" the words.
|
With all due respect, no, it is not clear. If it was intended to be individual, there would be no need to include either (1) the word militia, and the words (2) well-regulated. Try as you might to claim it's not vague by capturing and highlighting only 1/2 of the the sentence as proof of "clarity", the sentence as you quote is not complete, and when the sentence is presented in it's entirety, as written, it's vague.
Quote:
|
No, it's quite clear. You do need a firm grasp of grammar, true, but we don't write documents like the Constitution for the lowest of the educated, or shouldn't at least. It was expected then, and should be now, for you to have a good grasp of functional common law and english legal tradition.
|
Whew, well then, it's a good thing I do have a firm grasp of those things.
Quote:
|
Try this for logical reference, "A well read electorate, necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed." Do you think that sentence restricts book possession to only the electorate?
|
Doesn't matter what you or I think, this clause doesn't exist.
Yes, and because the clause is VAGUE...get it, VAGUE (remember, you claim to have a firm grasp of the english language, surely you know what VAGUE means), this is one of two potential interpretations to this VAGUE clause.