Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  I think it is the opposite (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laconic Lib

    The first part does not clarify the second part.  Rather, the first part is an assumption, then the author states the second part. The second part rests on the assumption of the first part -- though it is not clear how the second part flows from the first part. They arguably could be separate statements because the there is no coodinartor word.  They work equally fine and are equally confusing as either two sentences (assuming "being" is changed to "is") or as the one sentence. There is nothing very clear about the sentence at all other than that the author intended the principal part of the sentence to focus on prohibiting infringement of whatever right that is asserted.

    •  If it's an assumption, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mike101

      why is it necessary to specifically spell it out, stating what it is, AND why it's necessary?

      Grammatically, "A well regulated Militia IS a necessity of a free state" works, but the word being and the comma changes it to a dependent clause.  

      Nope, the second part clearly is to deal with what is set up in the first part.  Interesting how if that reading you suggest is correct, it's the only amendment to address two different subjects.

      In other words, Nope it's ONE point, and it refers to militia, not individuals.

      I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

      by detroitmechworks on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 04:27:00 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Still not convinced (0+ / 0-)

        Why would it principally deal with a well regulated militia when the point of the 10 amendments in the "Bill of Rights" was to restrict the central government's power?  Your reading would be the one that makes it different from the other 10.  Several of the other 10 (including the 1st amendment) deal with multiple matters.

        •  States... (0+ / 0-)

          Have militias.  Therefore, it deals with the states rights to resist a federal government in the worst case scenario.

          As far as the other amendments go, the "Multiple matters" are clearly related.

          One could argue the same for the 2nd amendment, however, that assumes that the individual "Right To Arms" was considered equal with that of the state's rights to arm and maintain a militia.

          In no case can I find a similarity with any other amendment where the rights of states and the rights of individuals are conflated.

          I don't blame Christians. I blame Stupid. Which sadly is a much more popular religion these days.

          by detroitmechworks on Thu Dec 27, 2012 at 05:22:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site