(06-16-2016, 05:01 PM)Benton Wrote: It supports what Fred and Matt have both said if you read the whole sentence.



The intent was to not have what we have now: a large army that we constantly put to use at the cost of taxpayers, or to be used as a tool to keep taxpayers under the government's control. If the individual states got into a conflict or had to handle a situation, that was up to the state (and its militia). The Continental Army was small and supplemented by militias. After the Treaty of Paris, it was disbanded because it wasn't needed, there were militias. The initial attempts to form the current Army after the war were rejected multiple times because the states feared that a central army that was too large might be used against individual states that objected to federal regulation.

I support gun ownership, but the 2nd Amendment is more about rights to protect yourself from centralized government more than it is individual rights.protect yourself.

If that was the case then the 2nd half of the amendment wouldn't have been put in. It distinguishes the two groups (militia and people). It's for the ability to have a militia, and the individual right to bear arms.

Meh, people don't like complicated and grey minutia so the fact that the whole gun argument can be "settled" by a three-word statement "2nd Amendment, biotch!" is popular. That's not even getting into the fact that strong proponents of the 2nd Amendment tend to be the same demographic that dislikes all those stupid Amendments that keep the good-guy USA government from catching and torturing those deemed to be dastardly.

..

(06-16-2016, 05:16 PM)Brownshoe Wrote: If that was the case then the 2nd half of the amendment wouldn't have been put in. It distinguishes the two groups (militia and people). It's for the ability to have a militia, and the individual right to bear arms.

I don't like derailing threads and this one is about jokes, so I'll just make one last comment and leave it at that. If you'd like a response, I'd be happy to PM or go to a gun control thread. Anyway...

There isn't a second half of the amendment. It's not really even the second half of a sentence. One sentence, same subject. If they had wanted to differentiate between subjects they would have used a period or semi colon, as they did in the First and Fifth. Instead, they used a comma to let you know they were talking about the same thing; only with a comma, you insert them at times — or an em dash — to let people know you're interjecting a thought about the same subject, as opposed to the semi colon to let you know it's a different subject within the same sentence.

Quote:2nd Amendment Linguistics

A) the structure of English has not changed much. Especially legal and formal language.

B) from diagramming sentences, we know that:
- the most important clauses to identify are the subject and predicate
- then we look at supporting information, including clauses
- we look at the supporting information within the framework of the subject/predicate. This is because the supporting information is not the focus. It adds to the subject/predicate. In fact, the supporting phrases can be removed.

C) Example: Even though it was brand new, less than 6 months old, the red house was re-painted blue.

Subject: house
Predicate: was painted

Subordinate info for subject:
Which one? the red

Subordinate info for predicate:
What color was it painted? blue

The sentence could be simplified to: The house was repainted. (The rest of the info is supporting information.)

D) apply to 2A:
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Subject: the right of the people to keep and bear arms
Predicate: shall not be infringed

Subordinate for subject:
A well regulated militia
- Being necessary to the security of a free State

E) the subject
noun: right
What/who's right? The people's
To do what? To keep and bear arms

And it's all in one phrase. Together. Separated from both the support phrases and predicate by commas. Which was done on purpose. The placement of the commas is not an accident.

It is to be interpreted as one phrase.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms

F) predicate: active verb

infringed
past participle,
past tense of in·fringe (Verb)
- Actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.): "infringe a copyright".
- Act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy".

G) predicate: auxiliary verb

Shall
Used before a verb in the infinitive to show:
1. Something that will take place or exist in the future: We shall arrive tomorrow.
2. Something, such as an order, promise, requirement, or obligation: You shall leave now. He shall answer for his misdeeds. The penalty shall not exceed two years in prison.
3. The will to do something or have something take place: I shall go out if I feel like it.
4. Something that is inevitable: That day shall come.

Being that the statement is in a legal document, the definition to be used is #2.

H) There is no supporting predicate phrase.

I) predicate

Shall not be infringed = Don't break it and don't undermine it. Not ever.

J) so the subject and predicate together are:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

K) regulate[ reg-yuh-leyt ]
verb (used with object) reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing.
1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.

It's pretty clear that it wasn't definition 1 or 2 ... that would have conflicted with the "shall not be infringed" predicate. Which leaves definition 3.

well regulated means "in good working order"

L) militia[ mi-lish-uh ]
noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

Let's review the phrases involved:
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ..."

The purpose of the militia is ensuring that the free state stays free. Definitions 1 and 3 are not applicable. They are state-based definitions. Hence, they could be used to enforce totalitarianism. Having eliminated those, definitions 2 and 4 remain. Which one? Let's look to the wording again. It uses the term well-regulated, which we know means "in good working order." In both cases, it is a "body of citizen soldiers" ... which tells us there could be an organization - could be one person, and could be an organization. Neither option is eliminated. One definition lists a purpose, the other doesn't. As a result, 4 is a subset of 2. Which means that, in this context:

Militia: a body of citizen soldiers (1 or more) as distinguished from professional soldiers (this includes citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government)

M) Arms. Notice it is capitalized.

arm (ärm) n.
1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
2. A branch of a military force: infantry, armor, and other combat arms.
3. arms
a. Warfare: a call to arms against the invaders.
b. Military service: several million volunteers under arms; the profession of arms.
4. arms
a. Heraldry Bearings.
b. Insignia, as of a state, an official, a family, or an organization.
v. armed, arm·ing, arms
v.intr.
1. To supply or equip oneself with weaponry.
2. To prepare oneself for warfare or conflict.
v.tr.
1. To equip with weapons: armed themselves with loaded pistols; arm a missile with a warhead; arm a nation for war.
2. To equip with what is needed for effective action: tax advisers who were armed with the latest forms.
3. To provide with something that strengthens or protects: a space reentry vehicle that was armed with a ceramic shield.
4. To prepare (a weapon) for use or operation, as by releasing a safety device.
Idiom:
up in arms
Extremely upset; indignant.
[From Middle English armes, weapons, from Old French, pl. of arme, weapon, from Latin arma, weapons; see ar- in Indo-European roots. V., Middle English armen, from Old French armer, from Latin armre, from arma.]
armed (ärmd) adj.
armer n.

Look at that first definition: "A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms."

Well, that's pretty clear. Notice how it does not say "musket"? If any further discussion is needed, check out the Federalist Papers. The founding fathers intended the populace to have access to any weapon the government could access.

N) all of this is in the SAME sentence, so it was all one thought.

O) so put that all together:
- people have the right to keep and bear arms
- that right shall not be broken or limited
- one reason for this is because it is really important to have a militia (1 or more citizen soldiers, not professional soldiers)
- the militia needs to function really well
- in fact, it's necessary
- the security of the free state is dependent upon it.

P) the founding fathers managed to put all of that meaning in 27 words. Pretty snazzy.

(if you are an English teacher: yes, there are more levels to diagraming this ... I tried to simplify. Going to lower levels would likely be seen as pedantic and is unnecessary for the intended purpose.)

(H/T to Rebecca Paddock, who wrote this, the image I attached)

For those who argue the semantics of the sentence..

..

A little biased, and maybe even a tad bigoted, but it made me chuckle.

..

(06-16-2016, 06:19 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: ..

This is total garbage.

If "militia" was the subject then the sentence would read "The militia shall not be infringed".

The word "militia" is the subject of a subordinate clause, not the subject of the sentence.  The subordinate clause has its own predicate which is "being".

You fail at English grammar. 

(06-16-2016, 06:17 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: For those who argue the semantics of the sentence..

I just bookmarked that article to read yesterday but we lost power at home last night.

(06-16-2016, 06:28 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: A little biased, and maybe even a tad bigoted, but it made me chuckle.

Why didn't he just check the guy's belt buckle as a form of ID?

(06-17-2016, 11:03 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Why didn't he just check the guy's belt buckle as a form of ID?

Bonus "murica points if your gut hangs over said huge belt buckle!

(06-17-2016, 04:30 PM)JustWinBaby Wrote:

Well....yeah !
They go in the moat.

..

I believe that the forefathers had the insight to envision this day coming..

..

Bone for the Bernie crowd..

..