"Clause and Effect" from the NY Times

[Bruff]

Just passing along this gem from today's NY Times op-ed section...a parsing of the 2A in terms of content, commas, grammar etc.

Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin


I'm sure everyone will pleasantly surprised at the writer's eventual conclusion.

 

[Pilgrim]

The last paragraph of that crap shows his true socialist self.

 

[ijw]

Perhaps the next amicus brief will find the true intent of the amendment by pointing out that “militia” and “state” are capitalized in the original, whereas “people” is not.

This is a great point; capital-p "People" is synonymous with "the State;" think "People vs. Murderer X." Small-p "people" refers to us common folk; good thing the founders codified our right to bear arms instead of the state's right to do so

 

[Dick]

An absolutely moronic op-ed piece - just what I'd expect from the self-proclaimed "newspaper of record." Parsing sentences and contemplating the purpose of commas (and resorting to translations of Horace, for Chrissake) is the last refuge of simpletons.

The only way to understand what right the framers intended to protect with the 2nd Amendment is to follow the discussions that led up to it (and the rest of the Constitution), in their individual writings and in the public discourses that we know as the Federalist Papers. Anyone who does that and comes away arguing that the 2nd protects a collective rather than individual right is being intentionally disingenuous.

 

[Scrivener]

The only way to understand what right the framers intended to protect with the 2nd Amendment is to follow the discussions that led up to it (and the rest of the Constitution), in their individual writings and in the public discourses that we know as the Federalist Papers. Anyone who does that and comes away arguing that the 2nd protects a collective rather than individual right is being intentionally disingenuous.

You state the crux of the issue.

 

[Garys]

This is what the founders had to say at the time. Remember also, as I'm sure you all do, that the founders were rightly suspicious of standing armies.



"I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." George Mason, Virginia's U.S. Constitution Ratification Convention, 1788.

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state." George Mason, Virginia ratification convention, 1788.

"What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped." James Madison, Federalist No. 29.

"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience, or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788.

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms." Richard Henry Lee, Letters from The Federal Farmer, 1788.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

Oh, and this one,

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

From MA, no less. I wonder if he could get elected today?

Gary

 

[9000S]

You state the crux of the issue.

True, all literature is junk without holding the time and context in which it is written. As a lit major it burned my britches when people would take a post-modernist view of some antiquated work and say" oh look at how so an so was so far reaching in this thoughts on this issue." pffft. Given our forefathers wanted us to have a flexible and living document they know what things were non-negotiable as well.
Without studying the context of time and place, most written works wont connect as they should with most readers.

 

[gene]

Cause gun grabbers are a**h***s, they Effect my rights!

 

[strangenh]

I don't think the author of that piece would be very happy if his same methodology were applied to the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, or Eighth Amendments.

 

[Ninemil]

bugmenot login

For those of you who do not want to register to read the article:

Username: dontlikeregs
Password: dontlikeregs

 

[n1zfg]

This humanoid falls into the "brainwashed useful idiot" class. (useful to the socialists, that is) I hesitate calling him a person, unless he acknowledges himself as being a part of "the people" in all the amendments of the bill of rights.

I find it funny that he couldn't bring himself to put the words "to keep and bear arms" to paper.

 

[ronbok]

Cause and Effect = Lies and Deceit

Once again, the New York Times proves its ignorance and touts its anti-American, anti-Constitutional agenda publishing an Editorial entitled “Clause and Effect” by Adam Freedman on December 16, 2007.

Adam Freedman notes that “Refreshing though it is to see punctuation at the center of a national debate, there could scarcely be a worse place to search for the framers’ original intent than their use of commas.” He continues later on by stating, “The best way to make sense of the Second Amendment is to take away all the commas (which, I know, means that only outlaws will have commas). Without the distracting commas, one can focus on the grammar of the sentence.” Finally Mr. Freedman writes, “Advocates of both gun rights and gun control are making a tactical mistake by focusing on the commas of the Second Amendment.”

The problem with Mr. Freedman is that he is guilty of doing the very same thing he is suggesting that we do not do – play with the commas. Even worse, he is advocating modifying the Constitution of the United States (destroying its meaning) and doing exactly what typical liberals do – do as I say, not as I do.

Mr. Freedman is right about one thing, looking solely at the commas for exact meaning is in fact wrong. Instead you need to do the research behind the Bill of Rights, its core meaning of why the Bill of Rights exists (inalienable a.k.a impossible to take away) and the little known fact that 44 out of 50 States individual State Constitutions declare, without a doubt, that the Right To Keep and Bear Arms is in fact an individual right. Punctuation excluded, how could the United States Constitution be interpreted any differently?

http://www.nclsportsmen.org/News_View.aspx?Articleid=159

 

[Cato]

The only way to understand what right the framers intended to protect with the 2nd Amendment is to follow the discussions that led up to it (and the rest of the Constitution), in their individual writings and in the public discourses that we know as the Federalist Papers. Anyone who does that and comes away arguing that the 2nd protects a collective rather than individual right is being intentionally disingenuous.

It also helps to read each draft.

June 8, 1789: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

July 28, 1789: A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

September 9, 1789: 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.