|
|
|
It's good to see Christmas hasn't stopped the Right Wing gun fanatics
from delivering their presents.
PERRIS, California (AP) -- An 87-year-old man visiting a family member
at a convalescent home allegedly shot a nurse in the face Friday after
he became angry about the care the relative was receiving, authorities
said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/25/nurse.shot.ap/index.html
PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- A homeless man was shot to death during an
argument with another man in front of dozens of horrified holiday
shoppers on Thursday, police said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/24/portland.shooting.ap/index.html
|
| |
| |
yeah the repugnant view of health care is that the green eye shade folks
decide if what treatment you get, not doctors.
|
| |
| |
--
----------
It's good to see Christmas hasn't stopped the Right Wing gun fanatics
from delivering their presents.
What's your problem?
You like incarcerating Pro-Life elderly persons in nursing homes away from
their family members and then bilking medicare and medicare?
PERRIS, California (AP) -- An 87-year-old man visiting a family member
at a convalescent home allegedly shot a nurse in the face Friday after
he became angry about the care the relative was receiving, authorities
said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/25/nurse.shot.ap/index.html
PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- A homeless man was shot to death during an
argument with another man in front of dozens of horrified holiday
shoppers on Thursday, police said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/24/portland.shooting.ap/index.html
|
| |
| |
It's good to see Christmas hasn't stopped the Right Wing gun fanatics
from delivering their presents.
PERRIS, California (AP) -- An 87-year-old man visiting a family member
at a convalescent home allegedly shot a nurse in the face Friday after
he became angry about the care the relative was receiving, authorities
said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/25/nurse.shot.ap/index.html
PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- A homeless man was shot to death during an
argument with another man in front of dozens of horrified holiday
shoppers on Thursday, police said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/24/portland.shooting.ap/index.html
Both of them have just as much possibility of being a liberal as they do a
conservative!
Nice try making more of a story that is there!
And since you cross-posted to abortion groups, you are obviously trolling!
|
| |
| |
--
----------
It's good to see Christmas hasn't stopped the Right Wing gun fanatics
from delivering their presents.
PERRIS, California (AP) -- An 87-year-old man visiting a family member
at a convalescent home allegedly shot a nurse in the face Friday after
he became angry about the care the relative was receiving, authorities
said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/25/nurse.shot.ap/index.html
PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- A homeless man was shot to death during an
argument with another man in front of dozens of horrified holiday
shoppers on Thursday, police said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/24/portland.shooting.ap/index.html
You the guy who thinks I watch Fox News so much?
Well, if so, what is all this CNN stuff I see here?
|
| |
| |
--
----------
It's good to see Christmas hasn't stopped the Right Wing gun fanatics
from delivering their presents.
And, it's bad to see gun-control freaks who are against the Constitution
posting accusatorial innuendo directed at bilking the people of more of
their freedoms.
PERRIS, California (AP) -- An 87-year-old man visiting a family member
at a convalescent home allegedly shot a nurse in the face Friday after
he became angry about the care the relative was receiving, authorities
said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/25/nurse.shot.ap/index.html
PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- A homeless man was shot to death during an
argument with another man in front of dozens of horrified holiday
shoppers on Thursday, police said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/24/portland.shooting.ap/index.html
|
| |
| |
In article <DLkzd.25416$wZ1.14710@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
--
----------
What's your problem?
You like incarcerating Pro-Life elderly persons in nursing homes away from
their family members and then bilking medicare and medicare?
The mentality of the Right. Kill everyone.
|
| |
| |
In article <sOkzd.15301$k25.932@attbi_s53>, Johnny Lingo
<johnnylingo@spammenot.com> wrote:
Both of them have just as much possibility of being a liberal as they do a
conservative!
Not really. The NRA Right are the only ones who can't leave home
without their guns.
Nice try making more of a story that is there!
And since you cross-posted to abortion groups, you are obviously trolling!
You must be brain dead.
|
| |
| |
In article <XNkzd.25417$wZ1.9107@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
--
----------
You the guy who thinks I watch Fox News so much?
Well, if so, what is all this CNN stuff I see here?
THAT makes a lot of sense. I wasn't saying you should get stories from
one source. I was saying Fox "NEWS" is known for handing out
disinformation. Those who watch Fox "NEWS" are far more likely to be
misinformed.
|
| |
| |
In article <sPkzd.25418$wZ1.23513@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
--
----------
And, it's bad to see gun-control freaks who are against the Constitution
posting accusatorial innuendo directed at bilking the people of more of
their freedoms.
What freedom do you feel you have been "bilked" from?
PERRIS, California (AP) -- An 87-year-old man visiting a family member
at a convalescent home allegedly shot a nurse in the face Friday after
he became angry about the care the relative was receiving, authorities
said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/25/nurse.shot.ap/index.html
PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- A homeless man was shot to death during an
argument with another man in front of dozens of horrified holiday
shoppers on Thursday, police said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/24/portland.shooting.ap/index.html
|
| |
| |
You really are one deceptive mother @$#*er David. Neither of these articles
mentions anything about the right wing. If someone gets killed in Iraq today
(god forbid), I suppose you would claim that the person who shot him was
right wing. I suppose that it was also right wingers fault that 20 died in a
Nigerian fuel blaze.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/africa/12/23/nigeria.blast/index.html
Do you think you could try to be honest for a change?
It's good to see Christmas hasn't stopped the Right Wing gun fanatics
from delivering their presents.
PERRIS, California (AP) -- An 87-year-old man visiting a family member
at a convalescent home allegedly shot a nurse in the face Friday after
he became angry about the care the relative was receiving, authorities
said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/25/nurse.shot.ap/index.html
PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- A homeless man was shot to death during an
argument with another man in front of dozens of horrified holiday
shoppers on Thursday, police said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/24/portland.shooting.ap/index.html
|
| |
| |
abelincoln <bushsucks@whitehouse.com> wrote:
yeah the repugnant view of health care is that the green eye shade folks
decide if what treatment you get, not doctors.
HMOs?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
|
| |
| |
Reasoned Insanity <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
You really are one deceptive mother @$#*er David. Neither of these articles
mentions anything about the right wing.
\And the fact that it's the right-wing that insists upon the right of
anybody to own any gun isn't at all relevant.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
|
| |
| |
Reasoned Insanity <mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
\And the fact that it's the right-wing that insists upon the right of
anybody to own any gun isn't at all relevant.
I never have supported giving guns to just anyone. I don't think I've ever
seen anyone on the right wing suggesting that you give guns to convicts
coming out of prison or anything like that so if you can show it, I'd like
to see it. I just support any law abiding citizens right to bear arms, even
if that arm happens to be an assault weapon. Should I start posting stories
about all the people who were killed in their homes because they didn't have
a way to defend themselves? I'm sure most of them were probably liberals
anyway, but that don't really matter. I just don't support the disarming of
the American people.
|
| |
| |
In article <sOkzd.15301$k25.932@attbi_s53>, Johnny Lingo
<johnnylingo@spammenot.com> wrote:
Not really. The NRA Right are the only ones who can't leave home
without their guns.
That is an invalid assumption your are making about said articles. Please
cite proof as it relates specifically to the articles originally cited!
You must be brain dead.
Nope just you!
|
| |
| |
--
----------
In article <sPkzd.25418$wZ1.23513@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
What freedom do you feel you have been "bilked" from?
Why are you asking me a question?
Are you aware of the right to bear arms?
Somehow I think you are using this information to deny people their
Constitutional right to bear arms.
Makes it tough to strong arm people with that right intact, doesn't it?
PERRIS, California (AP) -- An 87-year-old man visiting a family member
at a convalescent home allegedly shot a nurse in the face Friday after
he became angry about the care the relative was receiving, authorities
said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/12/25/nurse.shot.ap/index.html
PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- A homeless man was shot to death during an
argument with another man in front of dozens of horrified holiday
shoppers on Thursday, police said.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/24/portland.shooting.ap/index.html
|
| |
| |
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 13:31:59 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <sOkzd.15301$k25.932@attbi_s53>, Johnny Lingo
<johnnylingo@spammenot.com> wrote:
Not really. The NRA Right are the only ones who can't leave home
without their guns.
Untrue. They're protecting us from liberals who want all of us to be
without guns.
Nice try making more of a story that is there!
And since you cross-posted to abortion groups, you are obviously trolling!
You must be brain dead.
|
| |
| |
In article <Z5ozd.633276$D%.612322@attbi_s51>, Johnny Lingo
<johnnylingo@spammenot.com> wrote:
That is an invalid assumption your are making about said articles. Please
cite proof as it relates specifically to the articles originally cited!
Try simply thinking about it.
Nope just you!
Wow! Great come back.
|
| |
| |
In article <7khss0t707bha4oar86947kahbfs3ouo3u@4ax.com>, Julian D.
<jules@ersatz.com> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 13:31:59 -0800, "David W. Barnes" <spam@aol.com>
wrote:
Untrue. They're protecting us from liberals who want all of us to be
without guns.
How sad. What a life you must lead. All that fear and cowardice.
|
| |
| |
In article <cwlzd.8498$c%.3336@okepread05>, Reasoned Insanity
<mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
You really are one deceptive mother @$#*er David. Neither of these articles
mentions anything about the right wing.
Who else carries a gun with then to a department store?
If someone gets killed in Iraq today
(god forbid),
God forbid? LOL! It is a daily occurance.
I suppose you would claim that the person who shot him was
right wing.
Stop with the bull#@($ already. The military in Iraq isn't a
Republican at Walmart.
I suppose that it was also right wingers fault that 20 died in a
Nigerian fuel blaze.
The fact that you have to distort this really tells us a lot. Who do
you suppose those people in the articles were? Liberals with concealed
weapons?
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/africa/12/23/nigeria.blast/index.html
Do you think you could try to be honest for a change?
I'm always honest. YOU on the other hand seem to have to be told
everything. Try doing a little thinking.
|
| |
| |
In article <kCpzd.25962$wZ1.23401@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
--
----------
Why are you asking me a question?
Are you aware of the right to bear arms?
Are you aware of the concept of "context?"
Somehow I think you are using this information to deny people their
Constitutional right to bear arms.
They don't have that right, moron. Read the WHOLE second amendment.
"A WELL REGULATED MILITIA, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed."
Unlike the First Amendment, the Second Amendment begins with a
qualifying statement that limits the scope of the rest of the
amendment.
The United States Supreme Court has ruled that this refers to the
National Guard and not individual citizens.
The Supreme Court decided in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller, 307 U.S.
174, that possession of a firearm is not protected by the Second
Amendment unless it has "some reasonable relationship to the
preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia." The Supreme
Court has stated that today's militia is the National Guard.
That decision by the Supreme Court is the law of the land. Live with
it.
Makes it tough to strong arm people with that right intact, doesn't it?
How so?
|
| |
| |
In article <evnzd.8503$c%.5321@okepread05>, Reasoned Insanity
<mintclovers@yahoo.com> wrote:
I never have supported giving guns to just anyone. I don't think I've ever
seen anyone on the right wing suggesting that you give guns to convicts
coming out of prison or anything like that so if you can show it, I'd like
to see it.
What ever happened to "...the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed?" Now you want to infringe that with
those who leave prison?
I just support any law abiding citizens right to bear arms,
That isn't what the 2nd Amendment says, now is it?
even
if that arm happens to be an assault weapon.
How about a rocket launcher?
Should I start posting stories
about all the people who were killed in their homes because they didn't have
a way to defend themselves?
Which assumes a gun would have helped. Statistically, having a gun in
your home LOWERS your security. Furthermore, where do you suppose the
criminals are getting their guns? They steal them from homeowners.
I'm sure most of them were probably liberals
anyway, but that don't really matter.
THAT makes a lot of sense.
I just don't support the disarming of
the American people.
Because God knows, it has been so good for our country.
|
| |
| |
In article <Z5ozd.633276$D%.612322@attbi_s51>, Johnny Lingo
<johnnylingo@spammenot.com> wrote:
Try simply thinking about it.
These articles made no statements about the right OR the NRA. You are being
very dishonest about your post. Making wild accusations with zero proof and
expect others to just accept. You made the accusation, the onas is on YOU
to provide proof as it relates *specifically* to the articles you originally
cited!
And yes I do happen to know liberals who carry concealed weapons! As one
example, my sister is just about as far left as one can get, yet she has had
a concealed weapon permit and carried a gun for YEARS! So, stop your B.S.!
Nice try making more of a story that is there!
And since you cross-posted to abortion groups, you are obviously
trolling!
You must be brain dead.
Nope just you!
Wow! Great come back.
|
| |
| |
In article <ghFzd.565375$wV.70027@attbi_s54>, Johnny Lingo
<johnnylingo@spammenot.com> wrote:
These articles made no statements about the right OR the NRA.
AGAIN. Try thinking. Stop requiring you be told EVERYTHING.
You are being
very dishonest about your post. Making wild accusations with zero proof and
expect others to just accept.
If you go to bed at night and there is no snow on the ground, and you
wake up and there is snow on the ground, do your REALLY need to be told
it snowed last night?
You made the accusation, the onas is on YOU
to provide proof as it relates *specifically* to the articles you originally
cited!
Specifically the article says some asshole was carrying a concealed
weapon to a hospital and a department store. To me, that means gun
advocate. Maybe you need to see their NRA lifetime membership cards, I
don't.
And yes I do happen to know liberals who carry concealed weapons!
Bull#@($. Prove it.
As one
example, my sister is just about as far left as one can get, yet she has had
a concealed weapon permit and carried a gun for YEARS! So, stop your B.S.!
Bull#@($. Prove it.
If I claimed to have personal knowledge that both of these individuals
in the articles were Republican gun nuts and members of the NRA, would
you believe me, too?
|
| |
| |
In article <ghFzd.565375$wV.70027@attbi_s54>, Johnny Lingo
<johnnylingo@spammenot.com> wrote:
AGAIN. Try thinking. Stop requiring you be told EVERYTHING.
If you go to bed at night and there is no snow on the ground, and you
wake up and there is snow on the ground, do your REALLY need to be told
it snowed last night?
Specifically the article says some asshole was carrying a concealed
weapon to a hospital and a department store. To me, that means gun
advocate. Maybe you need to see their NRA lifetime membership cards, I
don't.
Bull#@($. Prove it.
Bull#@($. Prove it.
If I claimed to have personal knowledge that both of these individuals
in the articles were Republican gun nuts and members of the NRA, would
you believe me, too?
Bottom line is your are a leftwing NUT! You see things that aren't there
because you want to see them. Is it possible that these people were
conservative...yes. Is it possible that these people were NOT conservative
....YES! But you only want to assume that they were conservative because it
conforms with your ideals.
Its just like my sister who when watching the original Stargate movie
complained that it was gay bashing. I (nor anyone other sane person I knew)
saw anything of the sort. The only people who felt that way were her and
her two lesbian friends.
Stop looking for things that don't exist! You are a k00k!
|
| |
| |
In article <UEGzd.261422$V41.251199@attbi_s52>, Johnny Lingo
<johnnylingo@spammenot.com> wrote:
Bottom line is your are a leftwing NUT!
Naw. The bottom line is you want to believe contrary to the obvious.
You see things that aren't there
because you want to see them.
I deduced.
Is it possible that these people were
conservative...yes.
Likely, you mean.
Is it possible that these people were NOT conservative
Possible, but unlikely.
...YES! But you only want to assume that they were conservative because it
conforms with your ideals.
If it Walks Like a Duck and Quacks Like a Duck, Then it Must Be A Duck.
Its just like my sister who when watching the original Stargate movie
complained that it was gay bashing.
Never saw it - sorry.
I (nor anyone other sane person I knew)
saw anything of the sort.
Maybe she is sane and you aren't? Actually, I just went to Google and
put in "Stargate Gay Bashing" I didn't read the articles, but it looks
like your sister is not alone.
The only people who felt that way were her and
her two lesbian friends.
LOL! I see. And you assume that means they are wrong.
Stop looking for things that don't exist! You are a k00k!
You are a bigot and hardly liberal. Big deal.
|
| |
| |
In article <UEGzd.261422$V41.251199@attbi_s52>, Johnny Lingo
<johnnylingo@spammenot.com> wrote:
Naw. The bottom line is you want to believe contrary to the obvious.
I deduced.
Likely, you mean.
Possible, but unlikely.
If it Walks Like a Duck and Quacks Like a Duck, Then it Must Be A Duck.
Never saw it - sorry.
Maybe she is sane and you aren't? Actually, I just went to Google and
put in "Stargate Gay Bashing" I didn't read the articles, but it looks
like your sister is not alone.
LOL! I see. And you assume that means they are wrong.
You are a bigot and hardly liberal. Big deal.
As for bigot..no I am certainly not. But you are definitely a quack and a
k00k!
Go ahead and keep up with it! It will just continue to make it easier for
Republicans to win elections.
If it makes you feel better to read the news and blame conservatives for all
of the bad things in the world, and that liberals would never think of doing
such a thing, you are truly a pathetic person!
You can assume all you want, but that does not make it true! You should try
getting *facts* about specific things before making sweeping accusations!
|
| |
| |
In article <DsHzd.566135$wV.477313@attbi_s54>, Johnny Lingo
<johnnylingo@spammenot.com> wrote:
As for bigot..no I am certainly not. But you are definitely a quack and a
k00k!
Because you are in a corner?
Go ahead and keep up with it! It will just continue to make it easier for
Republicans to win elections.
And winning is what is important, right? To hell with the truth.
If it makes you feel better to read the news and blame conservatives for all
of the bad things in the world, and that liberals would never think of doing
such a thing, you are truly a pathetic person!
I thought you said you were a liberal?
You can assume all you want, but that does not make it true! You should try
getting *facts* about specific things before making sweeping accusations!
I have many years of experience getting these facts.
|
| |
| |
In article <DsHzd.566135$wV.477313@attbi_s54>, Johnny Lingo
<johnnylingo@spammenot.com> wrote:
Because you are in a corner?
Corner? I am in a big open room!
And winning is what is important, right? To hell with the truth.
You don't know what the truth is, only theory!
I thought you said you were a liberal?
I never said that *I* was a liberal.
You can assume all you want, but that does not make it true! You should
try
getting *facts* about specific things before making sweeping accusations!
I have many years of experience getting these facts.
Then present *fact* and not theories and assumptions based on your
ideologies!
If actual *fact* (actual documented proof) is not presented to show that the
people involved in your original quoted stories were in fact "Right Wing gun
fanatics" as you boldly accused, then I will no longer respond to this
topic, or you in this thread!
Merry Christmas k00k!
|
| |
| |
If it Walks Like a Duck and Quacks Like a Duck, Then it Must Be A Duck.
Its just like my sister who when watching the original Stargate movie
complained that it was gay bashing.
Never saw it - sorry.
I (nor anyone other sane person I knew)
saw anything of the sort.
Maybe she is sane and you aren't? Actually, I just went to Google and
put in "Stargate Gay Bashing" I didn't read the articles, but it looks
like your sister is not alone.
The only people who felt that way were her and
her two lesbian friends.
LOL! I see. And you assume that means they are wrong.
Stop looking for things that don't exist! You are a k00k!
You are a bigot and hardly liberal. Big deal.
As for bigot..no I am certainly not. But you are definitely a quack and
a
k00k!
Because you are in a corner?
Corner? I am in a big open room!
You talk like you are in a corner.
You don't know what the truth is, only theory!
You might be surprised.
I never said that *I* was a liberal.
OK
You can assume all you want, but that does not make it true! You should
try
getting *facts* about specific things before making sweeping accusations!
Then present *fact* and not theories and assumptions based on your
ideologies!
If actual *fact* (actual documented proof)
I get it! You are one of these people who only believes what he reads
on the very prestigious Internet.
is not presented to show that the
people involved in your original quoted stories were in fact "Right Wing gun
fanatics" as you boldly accused, then I will no longer respond to this
topic, or you in this thread!
Coward.
|
| |
| |
If it Walks Like a Duck and Quacks Like a Duck, Then it Must Be A
Duck.
Its just like my sister who when watching the original Stargate
movie
complained that it was gay bashing.
Never saw it - sorry.
I (nor anyone other sane person I knew)
saw anything of the sort.
Maybe she is sane and you aren't? Actually, I just went to Google
and
put in "Stargate Gay Bashing" I didn't read the articles, but it
looks
like your sister is not alone.
The only people who felt that way were her and
her two lesbian friends.
LOL! I see. And you assume that means they are wrong.
Stop looking for things that don't exist! You are a k00k!
You are a bigot and hardly liberal. Big deal.
As for bigot..no I am certainly not. But you are definitely a quack
and
a
k00k!
Because you are in a corner?
You talk like you are in a corner.
You might be surprised.
OK
I get it! You are one of these people who only believes what he reads
on the very prestigious Internet.
Coward.
OK, I decided to respond to this only because of the coward comment. There
is no cowardice involved! You have yet to provide any stitch of *actual
proof* of the accusations that you made. Since you made the accusations it
is upon you to provide proof. You have been given several opportunities to
provide the proof, but you only respond with accusations and theory but no
*actual proof*! Now, to be taken seriously from here you must provide
*fact* (actual documented proof) that the people involved in your original
quoted stories were in fact "Right Wing gun fanatics" as you accused. If
you do not do this, we will all know that you are just a left wing nutjob
that likes to sling BS around with theories and assumptions, but have
nothing to back it up with! Thus I will no longer waste my time with you
and not respond further to this thread.
|
| |
| |
David W. Barnes wrote:
In article <kCpzd.25962$wZ1.23401@bignews3.bellsouth.net>, Johnny
<wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote:
They don't have that right, moron.
Yes, they do. That is why I and about 60 million other citizens of
this country carry firearms, own firearms, collect firearms, and there
isn't diddly you can do about it.
Read the WHOLE second amendment.
YOU read it.
"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."
Indeed. Two unrelated clauses may be separated by a comma, as any
english grammar expert will tell you. In the second clause, the word
"people" does not refer to the militia in the first clause. The
founders were indeed smart enough to know the difference between the
words "militia" and "people." If the second amendment was definitively
written to exclude the general populace and indicate that only an
organized body of military personnel were granted the right to own and
use firearms, the second clause would not have been added. In fact,
the amendment would not have been put there in the first place
clustered with the other enumerated individual rights (such as free
speech, exercise of religion, security in houses/papers/effects etc).
Of course, there isn't any real difference between a militia and the
general populace, anyway.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for
few public officials." --George Mason
Unlike the First Amendment, the Second Amendment begins with a
qualifying statement that limits the scope of the rest of the
amendment.
That is not how linguists have evaluated the amendment. In fact, it's
very appearance in the Bill of Rights (as opposed to articles I and II
where powers with respect to the militia are enumerated) give the lie
to your enterpretation. Nevertheless:
_______________________________________________________________________________
This analysis is seconded by two professional grammarians and usage
experts. In 1991, author J. Neil Schulman submitted the text of the
Second Amendment to A. C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Office
of Instruction of the Los Angeles Unified School District and a former
senior editor for Houghton Mifflin, and Roy Copperud, now deceased, the
author of several well-regarded usage books and a member of the
American Heritage Dictionary usage panel. Brocki and Copperud told
Schulman that the right recognized in the amendment is unconditional
and unrestricted as to who possesses it.
Asked if the amendment could be interpreted to mean that only the
militia had the right, Brocki replied, "No, I can't see that."
According to Copperud, "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." As to the relation of the
militia to the people, Schulman paraphrased Brocki as saying, "The
sentence means that the people are the militia, and that the people
have the right which is mentioned." On this point, Copperud, who was
sympathetic to gun control, nevertheless said, "The right to keep and
bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining the militia."
It is also important to realize that, as a matter of logic, the opening
phrase does not limit the main clause. As the legal scholar and
philosopher Stephen Halbrook has argued, although part one of the
amendment implies part two, it does not follow that if part one doesn't
obtain, part two is null and void. The sentence "The earth being flat,
the right of the people to avoid ocean travel shall not be infringed"
does not imply that if the earth is round, people may be compelled to
sail. The Framers would not have implied that a right can properly be
infringed; to call something a right is to say that no infringement is
proper. As another philosopher and legal scholar, Roger Pilon, has
written, the amendment implies that the need for a militia is a
sufficient but not a necessary condition for forbidding infringement of
the right to have firearms. The sentence also tells us that an armed
populace is a necessary condition for a well-regulated militia.
Superfluous Commas
A word about punctuation: most reproductions of the Second Amendment
contain a plethora of commas: "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." But according to the
American Law Division of the Library of Congress, this is not how the
amendment was punctuated in the version adopted by Congress in 1789 and
ratified by the States. That version contained only one comma, after
the word state which, by the way, was not uppercased in the original,
indicating a generic political entity as opposed to the particular
States of the Union. If the superfluous commas have confused people
about the amendment's meaning, that cause of confusion is now removed.
One need not resort to historical materials to interpret the Second
Amendment, because it is all there in the text. Nevertheless, it is
appropriate to point out that history supports, and in no way
contradicts, that reading. Gun ownership was ubiquitous in
eighteenth-century America, and the Founding Fathers repeatedly
acknowledged the importance of an armed citizenry. They also stated
over and over that the militia is, as George Mason, the acknowledged
father of the Bill of Rights, put it, "the whole people." Madison
himself, in Federalist 46, sought to assuage the fears of the American
people during the ratification debate by noting that an abusive
standing army "would be opposed [by] a militia amounting to near half a
million of citizens with arms in their hands." That would have
comprised the entire free adult male population at the time. There's no
question that at the center of the American people's tacit ideology was
the principle that, ultimately, they could not delegate the right of
self-defense to anyone else and thus they were responsible for their
own safety.
Perhaps the deterioration of American education is illustrated by the
high correlation between the number of years a person has attended
school and his inability to understand the words "the right of the
people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It is more
likely, though, that those who interpret the Second Amendment to
preclude an individual right to own guns are driven by their political
agenda. Whichever the case, they do themselves no credit when they tell | | |
