Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!hoptoad!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!rutgers!husc6!necntc!adelie!infinet!rhorn From: rhorn@infinet.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.flame Subject: Rational response - part 2 Message-ID: <1007@infinet.UUCP> Date: Sat, 31-Oct-87 19:00:08 EST Article-I.D.: infinet.1007 Posted: Sat Oct 31 19:00:08 1987 Date-Received: Tue, 3-Nov-87 00:58:03 EST Reply-To: rhorn@infinet.UUCP (Rob Horn) Organization: Infinet, Inc. North Andover, MA Lines: 46 Part 2 - The super grammarian arguments I don't really take these arguments too seriously. I have seen too much colonial writing to believe them. BUT, since people have argued that the constitution was written by superb grammarians who analyzed every phrase in minute detail (hah!) I will respond (sarcastically at times). The 2nd Amendment says: , the right of the people to bear arms... Now, grammatically, the initial clause is purely for clarifying. The phrase ``the people'' means everybody. It is used elsewhere in the Constitution and it has always been interpreted to mean everybody. So this sentence clearly means everybody can bear arms. Since it is in the context of a militia, they obviously must mean the arms to be those that are relevant to a militia. Thus the grammatical argument must be that we have a constitutional right to buy pistols, rifles, machine guns, missiles, etc. The militia clause cannot be a reference to people, since people is used throughout the remainder of the Constitution to mean everybody, all citizens. If they had meant it to refer just to the active militia, why then they would have said ``...the right of the active militia to bear arms ...''. To assume that it refers to the word people would require an error that is inconsistent with the premise that it was written by perfect grammarians with great care taken on every clause. Since the clause exists, it must be in reference to some other word. Such perfect grammarians would not leave in a purposeless clause. The only available ambiguous word is ``arms''. Do they mean just personal arms like muskets, pistols, swords and rifles or do they mean militia arms like grenades and cannons? Why, since the clause says militia, they must mean militia arms. ``I have yet to see a rational argument from supporters of gun control for why they don't just make another amendment. The rules are clear and we did just that to eliminate slavery and introduce the income tax.'' - me-- Rob Horn UUCP: ...harvard!adelie!infinet!rhorn Snail: Infinet, 40 High St., North Andover, MA (Note: harvard!infinet path is in maps but not working yet)