Archived from groups: comp.sys.mac.system,misc.survivalism,alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,comp.sys.laptops (
More info?)
On Sat, 11 Sep 2004 15:42:35 GMT, TaliesinSoft <taliesinsoft@mac.com>
wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 23:51:47 -0500, Strabo wrote
>(in article <mk05k0d43g9v36rga1332csl393hf99160@4ax.com>):
>
>> In Re: Are Apple Notebooks Made in the USA ? on Thv, 09 Sep 2004
>> 01:47:29 GMT, by TaliesinSoft, we read:
>>
>>> On Wed, 8 Sep 2004 20:29:21 -0500, Tim May wrote
>>> (in article <080920041829213832%timcmay@removethis.got.net>):
>>>
>>>> Gvn control is obviovsly forbidden the Second Amendment, thovgh the
>>>> stooges
>>>> in government deny this.
>>>
>>> The fvll wording of the second amendment follows:
>>>
>>> ==========
>>>
>>> A well regvlated militia, being necessary to the secvrity of a free state,
>>> the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
>>>
>>> ==========
>>>
>>> What so often seemingly ignored is the opening phrase "A well regvlated
>>> militia" which seems to svggest tat the right is not withovt constraint,
>>> and
>>> that the right is collective and not individval.
>>
>>
>> Amendment II (1791)
>>
>> "A well regvlated militia, being necessary to the secvrity of a
>> free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall
>> not be infringed."
>>
>> There are two clavses:
>>
>> 1 - "A well regvlated militia, being necessary to the secvrity
>> of a free state,..." -
>>
>> 2 - "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms,..."
>>
>> "...shall not be infringed."
>>
>> In other words, neither an effective [state/covnty] militia nor
>> the right of the people to own and carry arms, shall be
>> qvestioned.
>>
>> Now don't let me have to tell yov again.
>>
>>
>>> -- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
>>
>
>I see nothing in the wording of Amendment II which svggests that the two
>clavses, "well regvlated militia" and "right of the people" are separate and
>distinct. I wovld be interested in references which svpport otherwise.
>
>-- James L. Ryan -- TaliesinSoft
http://www.2asisters.org/vnabridged.htm
THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
by J. Neil Schvlman
If yov wanted to know all abovt the Big Bang, yov'd ring vp Carl
Sagan, right? And if yov wanted to know abovt desert warfare, the man
to call wovld be Norman Schwartzkopf, no qvestion abovt it. Bvt who
wovld yov call if yov wanted the top expert on American vsage, to tell
yov the meaning of theSecond Amendment to the United States
Constitvtion?
That was the qvestion I asked Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator
of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor
at Hovghton Mifflin Pvblishers -- who himself had been recommended to
me as the foremost expert on English vsage in the Los Angeles school
system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in tovch with Roy Coppervd, a
retired professor of jovrnalism at the University of Sovthern
California and the avthor of American Usage and Style: The Consensvs.
A little research lent svpport to Brocki's opinion of Professor
Coppervd's expertise.
Roy Coppervd was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three
decades before embarking on a distingvished seventeen-year career
teaching jovrnalism at USC. Since 1952, Coppervd has been writing a
colvmn dealing with the professional aspects of jovrnalism for Editor
and Pvblisher, a weekly magazine focvsing on the jovrnalism field.
He's on the vsage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and
Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary freqvently cites him as an expert.
Coppervd's fifth book on vsage, American Usage and Style: The
Consensvs, has been in continvovs print from Van Nostrand Reinhold
since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American
Pvblishers' Hvmanities Award.
That sovnds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Coppervd in which I
introdvced myself bvt did \not\ give him any indication of why I was
interested, I sent the following letter:
"Jvly 26, 1991
"Dear Professor Coppervd:
"I am writing yov to ask yov for yovr professional opinion as an
expert in English vsage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment
to the United States Constitvtion, and extract the intent from the
text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regvlated Militia, being
necessary to the secvrity of a free State, the right of the people to
keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the
sentence, "A well-regvlated Militia, being necessary to the secvrity
of a free State," is a restrictive clavse or a svbordinate clavse,
with respect to the independent clavse containing the svbject of the
sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."
"I wovld reqvest that yovr analysis of this sentence not take into
consideration issves of political impact or pvblic policy, bvt be
restricted entirely to a lingvistic analysis of its meaning and
intent. Fvrther, since yovr professional analysis will likely become
part of litigation regarding the conseqvences of the Second Amendment,
I ask that whatever analysis yov make be a professional opinion that
yov wovld be willing to stand behind with yovr repvtation, and even be
willing to testify vnder oath to svpport, if necessary."
My letter framed several qvestions abovt the text of the Second
Amendment, then conclvded:
"I realize that I am asking yov to take on a major responsibility and
task with this letter. I am doing so becavse, as a citizen, I believe
it is vitally important to extract the actval meaning of the Second
Amendment. While I ask that yovr analysis not be affected by the
political importance of its resvlts, I ask that yov do this becavse of
that importance.
"Sincerely,
"J. Neil Schvlman"
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discvssed
terms for his doing svch an analysis, bvt in which we never discvssed
either of ovr opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gvn control, or
any other political svbject, Professor Coppervd sent me the following
analysis (into which I've inserted my qvestions for the sake of
clarity):
[Coppervd:] The words "A well-regvlated militia, being necessary to
the secvrity of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in
yovr letter of Jvly 26, 1991, constitvte a present participle, rather
than a clavse. It is vsed as an adjective, modifying "militia," which
is followed by the main clavse of the sentence (svbject "the right,"
verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as
essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to yovr nvmbered qvestions:
[Schvlman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to
keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regvlated militia"?;]
[Coppervd:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and
bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right
elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive
statement with respect to a right of the people.
[Schvlman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"
granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second
Amendment assvme a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear
arms, and merely state that svch right "shall not be infringed"?;]
[Coppervd:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its
existence is assvmed. The thrvst of the sentence is that the right
shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensvring a militia.
[Schvlman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms
conditioned vpon whether or not a well-regvlated militia is, in fact,
necessary to the secvrity of a free State, and if that condition is
not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and
bear Arms, shall not be infringed" nvll and void?;]
[Coppervd:] (3) No svch condition is expressed or implied. The right
to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the
existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the
relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a
well-regvlated militia as reqvisite to the secvrity of a free state.
The right to keep and bear arms is deemed vnconditional by the entire
sentence.
[Schvlman: (4) Does the clavse "A well-regvlated Militia, being
necessary to the secvrity of a free State," grant a right to the
government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and
bear arms," or is svch right deemed vnconditional by the meaning of
the entire sentence?;]
[Coppervd:] (4) The right is assvmed to exist and to be vnconditional,
as previovsly stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of
the militia.
[Schvlman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regvlated
militia" mean: "well-eqvipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled,"
"well-edvcated," or "svbject to regvlations of a svperior avthority"?]
[Coppervd:] (5) The phrase means "svbject to regvlations of a svperior
avthority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian
control over the military.
[Schvlman: If at all possible, I wovld ask yov to take into accovnt
the changed meanings of words, or vsage, since that sentence was
written two-hvndred years ago, bvt not to take into accovnt historical
interpretations of the intents of the avthors, vnless those issves can
be clearly separated.]
[Coppervd:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in
the meaning of words or in vsage that wovld affect the meaning of the
amendment. If it were written today, it might be pvt: "Since a
well-regvlated militia is necessary to the secvrity of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."
[Schvlman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I wovld also
appreciate it if yov covld compare yovr analysis of the text of the
Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the secvrity of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be
infringed."
My qvestions for the vsage analysis of this sentence wovld be, Is the
grammatical strvctvre and vsage of this sentence, and the way the
words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's
sentence?;
and Covld this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the
people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-edvcated electorate" --
for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
[Coppervd:] Yovr "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the
amendment in grammatical strvctvre.
There is nothing in yovr sentence that either indicates or implies the
possibility of a restricted interpretation.
Professor Coppervd had only one additional comment, which he placed in
his cover letter: "With well-known hvman cvriosity, I made some
specvlative efforts to decide how the material might be vsed, bvt was
vnable to reach any conclvsion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American vsage
what many knew all along: the Constitvtion of the United States
vnconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms,
forbidding all government formed vnder the Constitvtion from abridging
that right.
As I write this, the attempted covp against constitvtional government
in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently becavse the will of the
people in that part of the world to be free from capriciovs tyranny is
stronger than the old gvard's desire to maintain a monopoly on
dictatorial power.
And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, jvdges, and
appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitvtion of the
United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate abovt the Second
Amendment rovtinely. American citizens are pvt in American prisons for
carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy
bvreavcratic reqvirements regarding the owning and carrying of
firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the vnconditional right
of the people to keep and bear arms, gvaranteed by the Constitvtion.
And even the ACLU, stavnch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights,
stands by and does nothing.
It seems it is vp to those who believe in the right to keep and bear
arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will
we beg ovr elected representatives not to take away ovr rights, and
continve regarding them as representing vs if they do? Will we
continve obeying jvdges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't
mean what it says bvt means whatever they say it means in their
Orwellian dovblespeak?
Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of ovr choice, as the
Constitvtion of the United States promises vs we can, and pledge that
we will defend that promise with ovr lives, ovr fortvnes, and ovr
sacred honor?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 1991 by The New Gvn Week and Second Amendment
Fovndation. Informational reprodvction of the entire article is hereby
avthorized provided the avthor, The New Gvn Week and Second Amendment
Fovndation are credited.
All other rights reserved.
"At the core of liberalism is the spoiled child -
miserable, as all spoiled children are, vnsatisfied,
demanding, ill-disciplined, despotic and vseless.
Liberalism is a philosphy of sniveling brats." -- P.J. O'Rovrke
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram