[[email protected]]

On May 4, 4:44 am, wrote:
On Fri, 04 May 2007 10:12:43 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Fri, 04 May 2007 09:47:51 GMT, "Scout"
wrote:

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On 3 May 2007 17:21:18 -0700, Bret Ludwig wrote:

The reason for an armed populace has nothing to do with statistics.
It has to do with principles and any statistics either way should be
ignored.

Your constitution does not give you permission to keep a gun for self
defence.

Odd,..."shall not be infringed". Seems pretty broad and all incompassing to
me.

It is very specific - your permission to bear arms is for the
purpose of maintaining an armed militia.

Sorry, I am unable to find the grammatical linkage limiting the protection
to this one and only purpose. Can you provide a structured analysis in which
you establish this limitation linkage you assert exists?

I'm thinking of this:

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.

Any other use of a gun is
unconstitutional.

Hardly. 9th and 10th Amendments would protect those right off even if the
2nd did not apply.

That is unless you can show us where the federal government is granted any
specific authority to regulate/control gun ownership among the general
population.

I haven't studied this in any detail, so I could well be wrong.

Here is an article you may be interested in reading then:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT

by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl
Sagan,
right ? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to
call
would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. 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, editorial coordinator of
the
Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at
Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me
as
the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system.
Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired
professor journalism at the University of Southern California and the
author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus."

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor
Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three
decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching
journalism at USC. Since 1952, 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.
Copperud's fifth book on usage, "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
Publisher's
Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I
introduced
myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I
sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an
expert
in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the
United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being
necessary for the security 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-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of
a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with
respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the
sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into
consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be
restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and
intent.
Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of
litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, 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."

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second
Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and
task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe
it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second
Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the
political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of
that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed
terms
for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either
of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any
other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow
analysis
(into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[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 26, 1991, constitutes 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 to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for
maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered 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."

[Schulman:] "(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 assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear
arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(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 a 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:] "(4) 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 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:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account
the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was
written
200 years ago, but not 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, there 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 tot he 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
Second Amendment 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 Second Amendment's
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'
--
for example, registered voters with 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."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in
his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some
speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was
unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage
what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States
unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms,
forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from
abridging
that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government
in
the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people
in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is
stronger
than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial
power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and
appointed
officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United
States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment
routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying
arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy
bureaucratic
requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of
which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to
keep
and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender
of
the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

it seems it is up 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 our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and
continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we
continue
obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what
it
says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian
doublespeak ?
Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the
Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that
we
will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred
honor ?

(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation.
Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized
provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation
are credited. All other rights reserved.

About the Author

J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by
Anthony Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman, and writer of the
CBS "Twilight Zone" episode in which a time-traveling historian
prevents
the JFK assassination. He's also the founder and president of
SoftServ
Publishing, the first publishing company to distribute "paperless
books"
via personal computers and modems.

Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the
Second
Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the individual's
right
to keep and bear arms recognized as a constitutional protection equal
to
those afforded in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth
amendments.

J. Neil Schulman may be reached through: The SoftServ Paperless
Bookstore, 24-hour bbs: 213-827-3160 (up to 9600 baud). Mail address:
PO Box 94, Long Beach, CA 90801-0094. GEnie address: SOFTSERV
--

Great, a bunch of LA "intellectuals" telling me how to disect the
english language, some being from that bastian of higher learning, the
failed LA city school system, the worst in the country. They should
get together with Bill Clinton to re-write Websters "depends on what
the meaning of the word is, is".

As to the rest of you, read this: "More Guns, Less Crime" by John
Lott.

I'll be glad to give up my gun, right after the rest of you give up
yours first.

Jim Williams
Audio Upgrades