DiscussMormonism.com

ldsfaqs wrote:Anyone trying to infringe on that right is of evil, not good. Pure and simple! You have no excuse.

To grasp the original intent of the twenty-seven words of the Constitution’s Second Amendment, the Supreme Court would do well to review the Framers’ understanding of the Latin construction, the Ablative Absolute, on which the Amendment’s introductory phrase, an English Nominative Absolute, is based. The Court needs to get beyond the oversimplification and obfuscation in law professor Nelson Lund’s amicus curiae brief on behalf of The Second Amendment Foundation (“Such constructions are grammatically independent of the rest of the sentence, and do not qualify any word in the operative clause to which they are appended.”). If the Court does, it will recognize that the grammar of the Absolute argues for a rigorous connection between the first thirteen words (“A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State”) and the following fourteen (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed”).

Numerous grammar books written closer to the time of the Republic’s founding than to ours agree that “the usual function of Absolute constructions is to convey some information about the circumstances surrounding the statement in the main clause.” In this non-lawyer’s view, grammarians are clear on the relationship of an Ablative Absolute relative to its sentence’s main clause. While the Absolute stands free of (i.e., not dependent on) the grammar of the main clause (hence its designation absolute), its force is “to indicate and express the time, cause, condition, means, manner, concession or attending circumstances” expressed by the sentence’s main clause. In the words of Albert Harkness’s Latin Grammar (1864), the Absolute expresses the “existing condition or state of affairs” out of which the main clause follows, “adding to the predicate [i.e., the logic and meaning of verb in the main clause] an attendant [i.e., logically accompanying] circumstance.” Note that most grammarians begin their explanation of the role of the Absolute with its temporal meaning.

Grammar textbooks are replete with relevant examples. Consider the Latin sentence Marco imperante, omnia bene administrantur. It can be translated into English as “Because Marcus rules, all is well administered,” indicating cause, or “While Marcus rules, all is well administered,” indicating time. Similarly, hoc facto, tutus eris can be rendered, “If this is done, you will be safe,” indicating condition, or “When this has been done, you will be safe,” indicating time.

Every second-year Latin student learns that the force of the Absolute often depends upon the tense of the verb in the main clause. This being so, it serves the Court well to examine closely the pairing in the Second Amendment of the Absolute with the future tense verb in the main clause. Consider, for example, oppidis nostris captis, bellum geremus, which can be translated causally as “Because our towns have been captured, we shall wage war,” conditionally as ”If our towns are captured, we shall wage war,” or temporally as “When our towns are captured, we shall wage war.”

Now apply this grammar lesson to the Second Amendment’s opening Nominative Absolute and its connection to the future tense of the verb in the main clause. If we construe it to be causal, the text becomes “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.” If we construe it conditionally we have “If [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.” If we consider the Absolute in its most common form, which is temporal, we arrive at the following reading: “When [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.” While all three renderings are significant, the temporal version argues most convincingly for the common sense of the District of Columbia’s effort to ban handgun possession in the Nation’s Capital.

The horrors of the murders in Connecticut on December 14 are reopening the national debate about gun control. Those who oppose stricter gun control usually cite the second amendment's protection of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

The second amendment may be the most misunderstood amendment in the constitution, so it is worth taking a closer look at what it actually says.

The second amendment reads:

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.

This amendment begins with a grammatical construction called the "nominative absolute," akin to the ablative absolute of Latin, but perhaps less familiar to English speakers who have not studied Latin. "That being the case" is another nominative absolute; it stands in a causal relation to the rest of the sentence. In essence, in the second amendment sentence, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." means "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state...."

There are two ambiguous words in the text of the amendment. The first is "state," which may mean one of the federal states that comprise the United States, or it may mean "nation-state."

The second ambiguous word is "people," which can mean either "persons, individuals," or "a collective group of human beings." In the second amendment, the "collective group" sense of "people" would mean specifically either "nation" or "state."

In the context of the first clause of the second amendment, that nominative absolute, the reading of "people" to mean "nation" or "state" is far more probable. If one takes it to mean "state," the meaning is, "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, each state has the right to keep and bear arms." This reading suggests that the second amendment explicitly permits each state to maintain a state militia. James Madison wrote the second amendment, and the rest of the Bill of Rights, in 1789, just a few years after the last British troops left New York and Congress signed the Treaty of Paris. State militias played the primary role in fighting the American Revolution, and so it is likely that Madison crafted this amendment specifically to support their endurance as an institution in the new country

"People" may mean "country," so it is also possible that the amendment means, "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free country, the nation has the right to keep and bear arms." Under this reading, the second amendment justifies maintaining a standing army.

If "people" meant "persons" in this amendment, then the first clause, the nominative absolute, would be entirely irrelevant, inserted into the amendment for no reason. Therefore, "people" cannot mean "persons" here. Nonetheless, there is some history of debate as to whether the second amendment establishes the right of individuals to bear arms, or only of militias. The grammatical use of the nominative absolute is clear, however.

Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

ldsfaqs wrote:And if you don't understand that even, then understand this.
A persons right to defend themselves however they see fit, be it a Sword in Feudal Japan or a gun in modern America is a MORAL INALIENABLE RIGHT.... to a free man to freely protect himself and others.

Anyone trying to infringe on that right is of evil, not good. Pure and simple! You have no excuse
.

ldsfaqs wrote:Japan didn't invade the California coast because of our "gun bans", they didn't invade because every single American had a gun and would give them hell.

The Founders knew this, you people should too.