--- Dan Minette <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Dean Forster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> > >
> > > With rights come responsibilities. I suggest
> that
> > > the first half of the 2nd
> > > amendment and the comma
> >
> > the foundation of your argument is a comma. I
> know
> > you can do better than this, i've seen it. you're
> not
> > a lawyer, are ya? ;) darn lawyers.
> >
> First of all, I'm not a lawyer.
The wink meant i was kidding, I certainly didn't mean
offense.
I am a Phd
> physicist who works as a
> consultant in nuclear petrophysics. But, I do have
> a strong interest in
> scripture study, having taken a graduate course in
> it. I'm about at the
> level where I need to take ancient languages in
> order to progress.
>
> >From that work, I've developed viewpoints about
> reading critical text. When
> reading a text that has few words and is considered
> critical, such as a key
> periscope of scripture or a clause in the
> Constitution, one needs to look at
> all the information available to obtain as close an
> understanding as
> possible. I draw a personal parallel between
> fundamentalist interpretations
> of scripture and interpretations of the 2nd
> ammendment that ignore
> significant parts of it, its contrast to to the
> other ammemdments in the
> Bill of Rights, and reconstruct the grammar to suit
> purpose.
wow, you can make sense of the Bible? I'm not being
sarcastic, that's quite a feat. My father put quite a
bit of study into it and got to the point where he
could look at a passage randomly, then find another
that was 180 degrees away from it.
>
> It is extremely hard, as Rev. Dr. Peter Gomes points
> out in the Good Book,
> to read a personally important piece of literature
> without bring some
> preconceptions to it. The purpose of technical
> arguements is to improve the
> objectivity of the reading. I'll certainly agree
> that my own reading is
> influenced by the baggage that I bring to it. But,
> with technical
> arguements, I can at least present concepts that can
> be argued independant
> of my presuppositions.
>
> In what I have argued above, I have focused on two
> things: the first half of
> the 2nd
> ammendment and a comma in the second. I would argue
> that the crafters of the
> constitution were too careful, too talented, and too
> numerous for us to
> dismiss the first half of the ammendment as
> ambiguous accident.
To play devil's advocate, perhaps they anticipated
people such as you and I, and intentionally worded it
so that it could be taken as either so that the issue
would be deadlocked.
>
> Second, one cannot ignore punctuation while trying
> to fathom the meaning of
> sentences. Otherwise the sentences:
>
> No, women should have the right to vote.
>
> and
>
> No women should have the right to vote.
>
> would have the same instead of opposite meanings.
> Objecting to the
> elimination of a comma is not just nitpicking,
> punctuation is critical to
> understanding the meaning of English sentences as
> the above example shows.
>
> My particular parsing of the sentence that comprises
> the 2nd Ammendment is
> that the main clause is
>
> A well regulated militia shall not be infringed.
>
> with subordinant clauses:
>
> being necessary to the security of a free state
> &
> the right of the people to keep and bear arms
>
If we're taking this as divided up, I don't think that
the last part is ambiguous at all.
> Other interpretations that I repsect are that the
> subject was complex and
> that the framers put in some creative ambiguity and
> the wording was a
> compromise between different ideas. I cannot see,
> though, how the grammar
> or the wording would be accidental. I think that
> any interpretation should
> answer the question "why was it written as it was?"
>
> Elsewhere you have suggested that the second
> ammemdment be interpreted
> through comparision with the rest of the
> constitution. That's an execellent
> suggestion. I won't even post the whole Bill of
> Rights, but the 1st and the
> 3rd should be enough for our purposes:
>
> They are
> Amendment I
>
> Congress shall make no law respecting an
> establishment of religion, or
> prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging
> the freedom of speech,
> or of the press; or the right of the people
> peaceably to assemble, and to
> petition the government for a redress of grievances.
>
>
> Amendment III
>
> No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in
> any house, without the
> consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a
> manner to be prescribed
> by law.
>
>
> Can you see the significant contrast between I and
> III and II?
>
> II is the only one with a preamble.
>
> Others have suggested that the grammar of the time
> be considered. That's
> very valid, and I'd welcome any analysis based on
> the changes in the rules
> of grammar from then till now.
>
I'm afraid I didn't follow you on the last one there.
I know that the framers were lawyers and they were
doing their work knowing that other lawyers later
would interpret it, but these were some quite
visionary men who had the utmost respect of their
peers and the people at large. They wanted to create
a just and lasting country so that they could leave
their mark on history. Would they write something so
important that the common man could not read it
plainly and know what it pledges? Would they want
that man to read it and think "great, another clerk
wrote this, he was just like the oppressors they just
got done casting off of themselves"
dean forster
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more.
http://buzz.yahoo.com/
