Looks like gun-crazy, republican nuts need us foreigners to teach them not only logic and common sense, but proper English grammar as well:
The just released DOJ report re. the Uvalde school shooting, and law enforcements embarrassing failure, with hundreds of officers tripping over each other, without daring to take down the shooter, brings back troubling memories.
Even after numerous mass shootings, including elementary school children shot to pieces with assault weapons again and again, references are made to the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution, allegedly giving anyone the right to run around with any kind of weapons. WRONG! The 2nd Amendment has been misinterpreted, perhaps on purpose, with fatal results!
The text of the Second Amendment reads in full: “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.”
Why would the drafters of the amendment water it down by inserting anything about the general population, when the main point was the militia being necessary for security, and their rights to bear arms? No age limits, mental condition, criminal convictions, or what kind of arms besides muskets anyone could bear! Interpreted correctly, the amendment only talks about the Militia, which “the people” refers to, and that they need to be armed. If people in general were intended, it would only say “people”, and not a specific, limited group, like the Militia. The comma means “and”!
Grammatically, if “the” is put before “people”, it refers to a small number, specific and defined, like the Militia. Otherwise, generalization is meant by leaving “the” out.
Back to New Post
Jorg,
I agree that there have been many, many tragedies resulting from the actions of maniacs bearing firearms.
However, the first battle of the American Revolution was against a contingent of Redcoats who were assigned to confiscate arms of the people that were stored in Concord.
The militia that defeated them was an ad hoc gathering of American farmers and tradesmen.
A militia organized at the last minute.
Read some history.
The 2nd Amendment specifies that all people should be free to bear arms.
Your interpretation is incorrect.
Al,
Reread what I wrote, with an open mind! Your interpretation makes absolutely no sense, neither grammatically, nor logically, or socially.
And it shouldn’t be necessary to dwell more on the disastrous results of the wrong interpretation. Haven’t we had enough mass massacres yet?
Jorg
Jorg,
Sorry about the grammar error.
There should have been a comma, following “people”.
Also, I was schooled in a British system, so we may have different ideas re grammar.
I don’t question that there are solid logical and social arguments for doing away with or modifying the 2nd Amendment.
Only a deranged person wants mass murder.
What is wrong, is assuming that an interpretation by a majority of the SCOTUS, who are learned scholars, is wrong.
The term “the people”, as used in the Constitution, means the American population in general, keeping in mind the social structure at the time.
I don’t know, but I wonder if proper English grammar was a little different two centuries ago. I leave that to scholars.
Instead of complaining about a legal decision, it would be more productive to set forward ideas on how to go about amending the amendment.
Set forward those ideas without insulting those you disagree with.
You don’t change people’s minds by insulting them.
That just comes across as arrogant, although that may be fine with the majority of those who read your blog.
Al
Al: And interpreted in such a manner that an 18-year-old looney can buy an AR-15 assault weapon on his way to an elementary school in Uvalde and blow apart 19 innocent little kids and 2 teachers, while hundreds of police officers were gathering outside the classroom, afraid of this guy’s deadly weapon? The Texas Republican authorities even refused to increase the age limit to 21 after this horrible massacre, never mind banning entirely such weapons only meant for war! Do you really think and believe that the amendment drafters had that in mind? We know what has happened, over and over and over again, – and nothing is being done! Read my blog entry again, and try to open your mind!
Jorg
Jorg,
Did the Founders have 18 year olds committing mass murder of innocents in mind?
Yes.
The Founders included an amendment provision to take care of that.
They were farsighted men.
Despite the sometime accomplishments of progressive judges, it’s not supposed to be the function of the SCOTUS to make or modify laws; that’s to be done by “the people”, through congress.
The current situation re firearms, immigration, regulations, and a host of other issues leads me to believe that an influential third party is necessary.
Necessary to wrest the country from the iron grip of the extremist influenced two major parties.
A relatively small number of right wing ideologue crazies, and lunatic lefties, have pretty much paralyzed congress, and it’s hard to imagine a solution other than a major third party.
All politics is local.
Congress members, if they are honest, vote according to the wishes of the majority of their constituents.
It’s the right of everyone else to disagree with extremist wishes.
So, a third party is needed to satisfy the wishes of centrists like myself.
Al
What non-sensical double-talk, Al! You mean we need a third party to fix the obvious? There should be no controversy when it comes to much needed gun control to take at least assault weapons off the market and ban such war weapons from sale and public use. The only problem is dishonest, non-caring Republicans standing in the way, with all the dummies still voting for such an outdated cult! Voting for Trump in 2016, after his p-grabbing brag, should be more than enough to turn every decent voter away from such a low-scum. And after we have seen all the damage and chaos Trump has caused, most of them still intend to vote for him? My goodness, how irresponsible can they be?