Where debating everything under the sun is only the beginning

Although SF already knows my answer to the OP question, I do have to point out to him that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean anything at all to anyone outside of the US, as their laws on guns vary widely. (Probably already knows that, but I am pointing it out regardless)

Who are the people in the latter part? People in general or the people of the "well regulated Militia"?

Poor wording in the amendment, but from what I have understood, it's often the case in English (and medieval German) common law tradition.

This is an egregious case of syntax error. What is this thing about "well regulated Militia"? Does this set the context, in light of which the entire amendment should be read? This would actually make sense, but why not make it clear? Who are the people in the latter part? People in general or the people of the "well regulated Militia"?

It's not a syntax error, nor is it unclear: [...] "[Because] A well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

So the arguments go round and round, but the casual link with the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State" is pretty clear I think (the clue is in the use of the word "being" which points it to being the objective of the whole sentence, not simply one of a list of items).

The problem persists:
By degrading "well regulated Militia" into a subordinate clause in the sentence, this interpretation plays entirely into the hands of pro-gunners. When in subordinate clause, what force do the words "well regulated" have? Apparently none over "the people" and their "Arms".

such syntax does not occur in European English legal texts.

The situation was even worse in the law, where a long English tradition held that punctuation marks were not actually part of statutes (and, therefore, courts could not consider punctuation when interpreting them). Not surprisingly, lawmakers took a devil-may-care approach to punctuation. Often, the whole business of punctuation was left to the discretion of scriveners, who liked to show their chops by inserting as many varied marks as possible.

Likewise, when the justices finish diagramming the Second Amendment, they should end up with something that expresses a causal link, like: “Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” In other words, the amendment is really about protecting militias, notwithstanding the originalist arguments to the contrary.

so well isn't it!

Quote from: string on 2014-02-14, 11:22:57

So the arguments go round and round, but the casual link with the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State" is pretty clear I think (the clue is in the use of the word "being" which points it to being the objective of the whole sentence, not simply one of a list of items).

So, as per you, it would be possible to make out the whole amendment as referring to the security of the incipient state? Does it mean that now, when the state is considered secured by other means, the right of people to bear arms can be gracefully interpreted as obsolete or nearly so?

Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-14, 11:56:44

The problem persists:
By degrading "well regulated Militia" into a subordinate clause in the sentence, this interpretation plays entirely into the hands of pro-gunners. When in subordinate clause, what force do the words "well regulated" have? Apparently none over "the people" and their "Arms".

I don't follow your argument. Terms like adjunct clause and subordinate clause are purely syntactic. Such clauses are disposable in the sense that you still have a grammatical sentence without them, not in the sense that they don't affect the meaning.

Quote from: ersi on 2014-02-14, 11:56:44

such syntax does not occur in European English legal texts.

It does not occur in European English legal texts from the second half of the eighteenth century?

But I got the answer. Looks like the interpretation of the whole amendment should revolve around the "well regulated Militia" bit rather than anything else, but of course pro-gunners construe the second part as a holy human right, to which the wording - the wording of the second part specifically - seems to entitle them, nevermind the first part of the same amendment.

After removing two commas which are possibly distracting to English people and adding a because for similar reasons, you get something like this: "[Because] A well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

Thank heavens we lost the ex-colonies.........

Over 10,00 killed each year and of course the corporate gun lobby and their childish gun toing pals brain us with guns don't kill people do. Well what un-intentionally only backs up what I say about playing cowboys.

Music too loud and teens refuse to turn it down? Shot dead. Before these laws, no jury in America would convict someone legitimately defending himself.

A jury has found Michael Dunn, the Florida man accused of shooting an unarmed teenager to death during a dispute over loud music, guilty of four charges, but the jury was unable to reach a decision on the top count, first-degree murder.

Dunn, who is white, fired 10 shots into an SUV, killing Jordan Davis, 17, who was black. The shooting in a convenience store parking lot in Jacksonville erupted after Dunn asked the teenagers in the vehicle to turn down their music.

Dunn was charged with first-degree murder, three counts of attempted second-degree murder and one count of firing into a vehicle in the Nov. 23, 2012, shooting. The jury couldn’t reach a decision on the first-degree murder charge, but convicted on the other four.

Dunn contended he acted in self-defense. Prosecutors suggested that Dunn, 47, was angry because he was being disrespected by a young black man.....

...... Florida's "stand your ground" law allows the defense to seek a special hearing to receive immunity from prosecution before a trial. Dunn did not choose to go that route, but argued that he had acted in self-defense because he thought there was a weapon in the car and he feared for his life........

......Dunn was remanded to the custody of authorities. Sentencing, which could total as much as 75 years in prison, was set for around March 24.

.........killing around 10,000 of each other annually. And all based on a thinking rooted in the past.

If we choose to kill ourselves with automobiles, recreational vehicles, firearms, or by any other means of choice, we freely understand & accept that freedom is not free.