I agree it could be huge. Here is my take, starting with some basic grammatical premises:
1 - The first phrase: ""A well regulated Militia", is the subject of a clause. 2 - The second phrase: ""being necessary to the security of a free State" is the predicate of that clause. 3 - The complete clause: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" 4 - The sentence subject is "rights". 5 - The phrase "of the people" is a modifier of rights. 6 - The phrase "to keep and bear arms" is a modifier of rights. 7 - The predicate of the sentence is - "shall not be infringed" Here are some things that grammatically follow: a - The initial clause is interesting, in that it explains the purpose of the "right". It does not however, modify the subject "right". b - The "right" IS modified by the phrase "of the people", as distinct from the purpose (a well run militia), or the state. c - The subject "right" is declared by the predicate, "shall not be infringed". I see no room for any other interpretation without violating the rules of grammar. This matters little to politicians, but hopefully, will carry compelling weight with lawyers and judges. Dave > > The justices are facing a decision about whether to hear an appeal from city officials in Washington, D.C., wanting to keep the capital's 31-year ban on handguns. A lower court struck down the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment rights of gun ownership. > The prospect that the high court might define gun rights under the Constitution is making people on both sides of the issue nervous. > "I wouldn't be confident on either side," said Mark Tushnet, a Harvard Law School professor and author of a new book on the battle over guns in the United States. > The court could announce as early as Tuesday whether it will hear the case. > The main issue before the justices is whether the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own guns or instead spells out the collective right of states to maintain militias. The former interpretation would permit fewer restrictions on gun ownership. > http://www.thestate.com/nation/story/227274.html > > "Support and Defend the Constitution of the United States, Against All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic" > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Conservative_Principles_and_Activism/ -------------------------- Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL PROTECTED] -------------------------- Brooks Isoldi, editor [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.intellnet.org Post message: [email protected] Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods, techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,' you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
