Quote:
Originally posted by competentone
You need to interpret a sentence written in the 1700s using the language as it was used and understood in that time period.
Taking a modern understanding of words and grammar, then trying to say that the meaning of some earlier language is "unclear" because the usage is not consistent with modern usage is just plain silly -- but this is precisely what those seeking to destroy the Second Amendment try to do.
It looks like you've bought into their game, hook-line-and-sinker!
|
Exactly. The Second Ammendment stands on the strength of the second part, "the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." That is the limitation it places on governmental power; the first part "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, " is merely an attempt to justify the need to enact the second part. If the true intention was " the right of the
militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", that is precisely what it would say. There is none of the gun grabbers' hoped-for ambiguity in those words. Taken at face value, in the common usage of our language in that day, it is very clear. The amount of supporting correspondence between the framers of the Constitution that supports their notion of an individual right is overwhelming.