the news needs to have at least two sides of the argument being represented so that the people can be better informed and make a decision on their own and not just have one side rammed down their throat, otherwise you can think the ramming idea is the only and best one
CNN's Fareed Zakaria & Jeffrey Toobin Ask If It's Time To "Correct" The Constitution?
- Thread starter Immortal Technique
- Start date
"Zakaria: the second amendment is a grammatical mess
Toobin: its nearly incomprehensible as a sentence"
This is ludicrous. It's perfectly comprehensible to anyone who has graduated 5th grade English grammar.
The "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." part is a subordinate
clause. It explains that since it's necessary that the Militia be well regulated, that "the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What part of "shall not be infringed" do those knuckleheads not understand?
As far as an armed Populace regulating the Militia, notwithstanding the very definition of Militia
is every able-bodied adult citizen, is so that when the government troops, claiming to be the "militia,"
come to take away your other God-given rights, you can say, "*CLICK!* Think again, bucko!"
Toobin: its nearly incomprehensible as a sentence"
This is ludicrous. It's perfectly comprehensible to anyone who has graduated 5th grade English grammar.
The "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." part is a subordinate
clause. It explains that since it's necessary that the Militia be well regulated, that "the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What part of "shall not be infringed" do those knuckleheads not understand?
As far as an armed Populace regulating the Militia, notwithstanding the very definition of Militia
is every able-bodied adult citizen, is so that when the government troops, claiming to be the "militia,"
come to take away your other God-given rights, you can say, "*CLICK!* Think again, bucko!"
Last edited:
BuddyRey
Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2007
- Messages
- 11,172
Great reference. I also think about Ellsworth Toohey whenever I see someone in the media smirking or laughing at the ideas of liberty, because of how Toohey instructed Peter Keating to "use laughter to destroy."
easycougar
Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2009
- Messages
- 243
flightlesskiwi
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,058
good luck with that!
anyway, my brain started to melt so i stopped when the curly-haired turd couldn't understand how the representation of smaller states could be overrun by larger states in "this day and age."
ignorance under the guise of enlightenment is what these f**ckheads are espousing.
FreedomProsperityPeace
Member
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2007
- Messages
- 2,839
[video=youtube;QtK2AeONPYg]QtK2AeONPYg[/video]
C
Chester Copperpot
Guest
If these guys are the best the globalists have then we're going to destroy them intellectually.
Austrian Econ Disciple
Member
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2009
- Messages
- 8,264
Isn't that ironic considering progressives consider themselves so superior and intellectually above everyone else (even though by all the evidence libertarians could easily claim this fact), but yet they can't comprehend simple sentences and ideas. Hmmm. I am sure they understand exactly what it means -- they just do not like it -- so they come up with this BS propaganda.
flightlesskiwi
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2008
- Messages
- 4,058
i agree with you. however, i don't think a lot of people are all that interested in intellect.
e-mend the constitution!! sum dood on tv sez so!! letz do it!
specialK
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 658
Maybe Zak needs it translated into Urdu in order to understand it. You guys need to be a little more selective in whom you allow to become citizens, perhaps.
Edit: Marathi, not Urdu. I thought he was Pakistani for some reason.
Last edited:
CaptUSA
Member
- Joined
- May 17, 2011
- Messages
- 18,938
What's really scary is the ease with which these fools discuss such things. They're not disucssing it as if this was a radical solution to the problems that we are facing, but as if it's common knowledge that the Constitution is preventing our government from saving us. Despicable.
This is how liberty is destroyed. This is how tyrants are created. This is how slaves are made.
And yet, these morons, either through naive or sinister actions, are willing to deprive free people the only document that ensures that their freedom is not infringed.
Sometimes I feel like Paul is actually going to win this thing and people are beginning to understand their liberty is on its last leg. Other times, it seems like the forces in opposition to freedom are so great that the only means with which we are going to be left is armed resistance. Please help make sure we have the former and not the latter.
This is how liberty is destroyed. This is how tyrants are created. This is how slaves are made.
And yet, these morons, either through naive or sinister actions, are willing to deprive free people the only document that ensures that their freedom is not infringed.
Sometimes I feel like Paul is actually going to win this thing and people are beginning to understand their liberty is on its last leg. Other times, it seems like the forces in opposition to freedom are so great that the only means with which we are going to be left is armed resistance. Please help make sure we have the former and not the latter.
Luciconsort
Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 256
he's not Pakistani?
specialK
Member
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2009
- Messages
- 658
BrendenR
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 374
Huh?
The Constitution doesn't grant anything, it says that you have rights (always have, always will) and that the government can't take them away.
Vessol
Member
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2009
- Messages
- 6,237
I guess I should have clarified. By 'supposedly' I meant that is what most people believe.
It saddens me when people talk about their constitutional "rights" or they go "Well, I have the 1st amendment!"
Merk
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2008
- Messages
- 437
Only the "miracle" of Government Schools can make the 2A a grammatical mess.
Link
The following is taken from J. Neil Schulman's book Stopping Power,
(Pulpless.com, 1999 © 1999)
//The first person usage refers to Mr. Schulman//
"I just had a conversation with Mr. A. C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator for the Office of Instruction of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Mr. Brocki taught Advanced Placement English for several years at Van Nuys H.S., as well as having been a senior editor for Houghton Mifflin.......
I gave Mr. Brocki my name.....then asked him to parse the following sentence:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
Mr Brocki informed me that the sentence was over punctuated, but the meaning could be extracted anyway:
"A well-schooled electorate" is a nominative absolute.
"being necessary to the security of a free State" is a participial phrase modifying "electorate."
The subject (a compound subject) of the sentence is "the right of the people."
“Shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with "not" as an adverb modifying the verb phrase "shall be infringed."
"To keep and read books is an infinitive phrase modifying the verb phrase "Shall not be infringed."
I then asked him if he could rephrase the sentence to make it clearer.
Mr. Brocki said, "Because a well schooled electorate is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
I asked: can the sentence be interpreted to restrict the right to keep and read books to a well schooled electorate.....
He said, "No."
I then identified my purpose and read the 2nd A. in full:
"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."
I asked, "Is the structure and meaning of this sentence the same as the sentence I first quoted you?'
He said, "Yes."
I asked him to rephrase this sentence to make it clearer.
He transformed the sentence the same way as the first sentence: "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."
I asked him whether the meaning could have changed in 200 years.
He said "No."
I asked whether this sentence could be interpreted to restrict the right to keep arms to "a well regulated Militia."
He said, "No."
According to Mr. Brocki, the sentence means that the people are the militia, and that the people have the right which is mentioned.
I asked him again to make sure:
SCHULMAN: "Can the sentence be interpreted to mean that the right can be restricted to a "well-regulated militia?"
BROCKI; "No, I don't see that."
SCHULMAN; "Could another professional in English grammar or linguistics interpret the sentence to mean otherwise?"
BROCKI: "I can't see any grounds for another interpretation."
I asked Mr. Brocki if he would be willing to stake his professional reputation on the opinion, and be quoted on this.
He said, "Yes."
At no point in the conversation did I ask Mr. Brocki his opinion on the 2nd. Amendment, gun control, or the right to keep and bear arms. -July17, 1991
Sculman and Usage continued…………
"……but who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?"
That was the question I asked A. C. Brocki.... Mr Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at USC and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. ...
American Usage and Style: The Consensus has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.
//Schulman goes on to describe how he introduced himself to Professor Copperud and then describes a letter he wrote containing many questions concerning the 2nd. A. given the debate whether the opening clause, A well regulated militia..... "is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause w/ respect to the independent clause and subject of the sentence, "the right of the ......"
Sculman went on to ask, "I would request that your analysis ..... be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further.....I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary." – PB//
"After several more letters and phone calls... Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis:
[Copperud] The words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 25, 1991, constitute a present participle rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall" . The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your questions:
[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to a "well regulated militia"?
[Copperud: (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.
[Sculman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the 2nd. A., or does the 2nd. A assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and mere state that such right "shall not be infringed"?
[Copperid: (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security 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" null and void?
[Copperud: (3) no such 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-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security 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 such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?
[Copperud: The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia mean: "well-equipped", "well-organized", "well-drilled", "well-educated", or "subject to the regulations of a superior authority"?]
[Copperud: (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.
[Copperud: to the best of my knowledge thare has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put:
"Since 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 abridged."
[Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the 2nd A. to the following sentence:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the 2nd. A. sentence; and
(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" - e.g. registered voters w/ a high school diploma?
[Copperud: (1) your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure;
(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
//Abbreviations and ellipses are mine and are used for the sake of brevity. The complete text of this book is available online at www.Pulpless.com. //
Link
The following is taken from J. Neil Schulman's book Stopping Power,
(Pulpless.com, 1999 © 1999)
//The first person usage refers to Mr. Schulman//
"I just had a conversation with Mr. A. C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator for the Office of Instruction of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Mr. Brocki taught Advanced Placement English for several years at Van Nuys H.S., as well as having been a senior editor for Houghton Mifflin.......
I gave Mr. Brocki my name.....then asked him to parse the following sentence:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
Mr Brocki informed me that the sentence was over punctuated, but the meaning could be extracted anyway:
"A well-schooled electorate" is a nominative absolute.
"being necessary to the security of a free State" is a participial phrase modifying "electorate."
The subject (a compound subject) of the sentence is "the right of the people."
“Shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with "not" as an adverb modifying the verb phrase "shall be infringed."
"To keep and read books is an infinitive phrase modifying the verb phrase "Shall not be infringed."
I then asked him if he could rephrase the sentence to make it clearer.
Mr. Brocki said, "Because a well schooled electorate is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
I asked: can the sentence be interpreted to restrict the right to keep and read books to a well schooled electorate.....
He said, "No."
I then identified my purpose and read the 2nd A. in full:
"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."
I asked, "Is the structure and meaning of this sentence the same as the sentence I first quoted you?'
He said, "Yes."
I asked him to rephrase this sentence to make it clearer.
He transformed the sentence the same way as the first sentence: "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."
I asked him whether the meaning could have changed in 200 years.
He said "No."
I asked whether this sentence could be interpreted to restrict the right to keep arms to "a well regulated Militia."
He said, "No."
According to Mr. Brocki, the sentence means that the people are the militia, and that the people have the right which is mentioned.
I asked him again to make sure:
SCHULMAN: "Can the sentence be interpreted to mean that the right can be restricted to a "well-regulated militia?"
BROCKI; "No, I don't see that."
SCHULMAN; "Could another professional in English grammar or linguistics interpret the sentence to mean otherwise?"
BROCKI: "I can't see any grounds for another interpretation."
I asked Mr. Brocki if he would be willing to stake his professional reputation on the opinion, and be quoted on this.
He said, "Yes."
At no point in the conversation did I ask Mr. Brocki his opinion on the 2nd. Amendment, gun control, or the right to keep and bear arms. -July17, 1991
Sculman and Usage continued…………
"……but who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?"
That was the question I asked A. C. Brocki.... Mr Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at USC and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. ...
American Usage and Style: The Consensus has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.
//Schulman goes on to describe how he introduced himself to Professor Copperud and then describes a letter he wrote containing many questions concerning the 2nd. A. given the debate whether the opening clause, A well regulated militia..... "is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause w/ respect to the independent clause and subject of the sentence, "the right of the ......"
Sculman went on to ask, "I would request that your analysis ..... be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further.....I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary." – PB//
"After several more letters and phone calls... Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis:
[Copperud] The words "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 25, 1991, constitute a present participle rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall" . The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your questions:
[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to a "well regulated militia"?
[Copperud: (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.
[Sculman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the 2nd. A., or does the 2nd. A assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and mere state that such right "shall not be infringed"?
[Copperid: (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.
[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security 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" null and void?
[Copperud: (3) no such 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-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security 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 such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?
[Copperud: The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.
[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia mean: "well-equipped", "well-organized", "well-drilled", "well-educated", or "subject to the regulations of a superior authority"?]
[Copperud: (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.
[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.
[Copperud: to the best of my knowledge thare has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put:
"Since 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 abridged."
[Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the 2nd A. to the following sentence:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."
My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the 2nd. A. sentence; and
(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" - e.g. registered voters w/ a high school diploma?
[Copperud: (1) your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure;
(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.
//Abbreviations and ellipses are mine and are used for the sake of brevity. The complete text of this book is available online at www.Pulpless.com. //
Similar threads
