I never thought that would happen. But it did. Did you read my article? Today the Supreme Court threw out the comma! Hoorah!
Ok, I was brief and did not pontificate as they did, but we both reached the same conclusion that the Comma was the damn problem.
Here is what the Supreme Court said:
The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased,“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.”
” 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.”
That damn comma is the source of all of our problems. The one between ‘arms’ and ’shall’.
What is that comma doing there? Why doesn’t this read …”the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? (Without a comma)
You and I would understand that clearly: “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Why? “Because a well regulated miltia is necessary to the security of a free state.” Anyone with a pre-1970 high school English education knows this.
Fortunately, for all Americans, the US Supreme Court received its high school education before 1970. Thank the Good Lord for that!
Sure, the Supreme Court goes on for 157 pages with their opinion. That’s because the people who actually read Supreme Court decisions are educated beyond their intelligence. When this happens, one must carefully plant each logical step or else people get confused. Like the judges that voted against the decision. I would like to think they will now read the 157 pages of the winning side but instead they will likely go bowling.
The good guys score one this time but it was a narrow escape. 5-4.
2 responses so far ↓
swandiver // June 26, 2008 at 9:49 pm
While 90% of the time my political loyalties lie squarely with traditional progressive beliefs, I have always been a proponent of the Second Amendment.
As Michael Moore pointed out in “Bowling for Columbine”, other countries (i.e. Canada) have more guns per capita than the US yet has significantly less gun violence. Obviously the gun violence issue that many of my fellow left-wingers like to hold up for dramatic effect as a cause is merely a symptom of much deeper cultural issues that can’t be solved through the banning of one type of weapon.
Also, given that America is becoming more and more of a blatant police state (not just to minorities and poor folk anymore), the thought of only government officials carrying arms scares me.
ReasonableCitizen // June 27, 2008 at 4:01 am
Somehow the Democrats are perceived as being on the wrong side of this issue. But I don’t think this is a Republican vs Democrat issue. I think this is a Big City vs Small Town issue. It is more likely that people who grow up in large cities (protected by thousands of police, where no hunting exists, and there is no land to indulge your shooting lifestyle) simpy do not see the ‘need’ for guns. Whereas ’small town Sam’ sees a gun as part of his/her life and not as an ‘object to be feared for its lethality’.
I think we all know what happens when power is one-sided: oppression. We need to be vigilant and to protect our rights to own guns. Even if we choose not to own one ourselves. Like me.