Skip to main content

View Diary: Dear Founding Fathers... (89 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Thank you. I saw that years ago. (4+ / 0-)

    A dependent clause introduces the second part and is the foundation for the second part. Arms belonged to an organized fighting force and not a paranoid mob.

    I remember years ago someone asked Charlton Heston to recite the second amendment and he said, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." He grinned when asked about the first part, and I'm paraphrasing, but he implied that too many people were too interested in that first part. The Supreme Court, of course, went with their conservative impulse and not the "originalist" language in this case.

    "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

    by Wildthumb on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:29:10 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  P.S. For some reason, I remember a dependent (0+ / 0-)

      clause from Don Quixote that I ran across years ago (in English translation): "These preparations having been made,"
      {the Don was able to sally forth on his nag}. In other words, Quixote couldn't start his adventure without the preparations.

      "They come, they come To build a wall between us We know they won't win."--Crowded House, "Don't Dream It's Over."

      by Wildthumb on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 03:32:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Would it be too strictly constructionist (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wildthumb

      to pass a law allowing people to keep and bear the arms they already have, but not allow them to buy anymore?

      It doesn't say anything about the right to BUY guns does it?

      And the government does have the right to regulate commerce.

      I mean, if the right can totally bypass the dependent clause, we can stick to the exact meaning of the words.

      The sleep of reason brings forth monsters. --Goya

      by MadScientist on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:55:34 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Just about as likely to... (0+ / 0-)

        ...be accepted as disallowing the purchase or possession of paper, ink, printing presses, printed materials, TVs, radios, and internet access would be.

        Such laws would not be "abridging the freedom of the press" any more or less than banning the purchase, by the people, of firearms would have "infringed" on  "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site