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
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: In your opinion, what is the Second Amendment? n/t [View all]petronius
(26,613 posts)21. That's how I read it as well, as far as plain English is concerned: the preface is
explanatory rather than conditional...
Edit to add:
I posted a somewhat goofy analogy a few months ago, which didn't get a lot of traction (probably because I mucked it up by including a nonsensical poll as a joke), but here was my thought-prompt:
Amendment XYZ: Well-nourished children being essential for the productivity of a modern state, the right of the people to plant and maintain backyard gardens shall not be infringed.
Queries for linguists, grammarians, syntacticians, high school and university English instructors: based on the phrasing of Amendment XYZ above,
Queries for linguists, grammarians, syntacticians, high school and university English instructors: based on the phrasing of Amendment XYZ above,
- Is the right to plant and maintain gardens limited to those people who have children, or even to children themselves?
- Is the right to garden protected only when that garden is being specifically used for the feeding of children?
- Is the right to garden one which is held by individuals, or is it a right of the modern state (to be exercised through state-administered gardening programs, perhaps)?
- If a state-run system for the nourishment of children came into being (a really effective school lunch program for example), would the right to backyard gardening then evaporate?
- Does the right to plant and maintain a backyard garden come into being with Amendment XYZ, or does the phrasing of XYZ acknowledge an existing right and provide one (perhaps of many) reason to prevent infringement on that right?
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
71 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Sure - it was written a few hundred years ago. Militia. Muskets. Totally different country
NRaleighLiberal
Jul 2015
#5
here's the other issue - differences of culture, opinions, backgrounds.
NRaleighLiberal
Jul 2015
#17
I've loved this exchange. thanks! if I don't learn something each day, I am disappointed.
NRaleighLiberal
Jul 2015
#29
Protects people's right to own muskets should a militia be needed to protect the U.S. ...
Auggie
Jul 2015
#6
As I recall it was a compromise and only 10 of the 12 proposed made it
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Jul 2015
#32
I think the militia qualification was a "yes, and" and not an "only if" clause.
HappyPlace
Jul 2015
#16
That's how I read it as well, as far as plain English is concerned: the preface is
petronius
Jul 2015
#21
I agree. The government needs the 2nd to fulfill its Article 1 obligations. And I have my own.
Eleanors38
Aug 2015
#66
Prohibits the government from infringing on the inherent and universal right of the people to be
Nuclear Unicorn
Jul 2015
#44
The Constitution recognizes enumerated and non-enumerated individual rights. 2A is one...
Eleanors38
Jul 2015
#58