Only the same "proper" power as they have to regulate seat belts, identity theft, kidnapping, child pornography, endangered species ... and many other things. But that has nothing to do with this thread. I'm happy to see you have no objections to any of the threads I mentioned.
To OP: Your understanding of the English language is an embarrassment. The first part of the second amendment is a present participle. Present participles do not affect the verb or subject of a sentence. The subject being people and the verb being shall. Moreover not a single other amendment in the bill of rights do we interpret as some sort of collective right. We consider the rest individual liberties. Now are you really going to sit here and pretend that founders made 9 individual liberties and 1 collective one. That fails even the basic logic test. You should delete this and quit embarrassing yourself
Your post is absolute hogwash. But, if the OP is inaccurate, it's very easy to demonstrate it. All you need to do is provide a counter-example. I'm not talking about other amendments. I'm talking only about the 2nd Amendment. Focus!
So we are in agreement: this "right to own weapons" (nor a "right to bear arms") was not "granted" by the 2nd A. That's my overall point in all the threads I opened on this topic. Thank you for agreeing.
It’s really easy to provide a counter example. Just remove the first clause and it’s still grammatically a sound sentence. Which absolutely proves it’s not a dependent clause. “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” But if you need more than that. “A well schooled electorate, being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed”. That is a grammatically identical sentence and does not confer the right of only educated people to keep and read books. So your opinion piece is utter garbage. Secondly the bill of rights is all one document. The first ten were written together in said document. Your argument says either the framers did not understand basic English or they ****ed up 1 out 10 specific limitations on the government and have conferred said limitation.... to the government? Yeah I’m sure that’s what they meant. Not even on basic logic does that pass muster. Did you honestly think before you posted this drivel?
the right is assumed and the document prevents the government from infringing on it. Meaning you can’t make a law to ban fire arms in the United States.
Yep. Just like if you eliminate the word "not" it's also a grammatically sound sentence. However, doing either is not a couterexample. It's just changing the amendment. I'm afraid you are not understanding the point. The point is NOT whether the phrase is grammatically sound or not. It's what it MEANT. A- "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" To an average English speaker means exactly the same as B- "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" This is not an "opinion". This a scientific FACT (linguistics IS a science). It could be easily falsified by showing a counter example... Not by arbitrarily eliminating a part of it, but by showing a phrase with the same grammatical structure and the same type of verb (stative) that could not possibly be transformed into B. This allows us to understand what people at the time, including all those who voted to approve the 2nd A, interpreted when they read the sentence. I have no idea what you mean by "one document". Each and every Amendment was debated, modified, and approved independently by the House and the Senate. At least in the case of the 2nd A this was so. It was amply discussed and many versions were approved, discarded, modified, then approved again, before they were sent to the states for ratification. See http://www.politicalforum.com/index...form-part-of-a-well-regulated-militia.589757/ No. My argument is that the framers DID understand basic English. And, more than that, it's that gun advocates also understand basic English, but act as if they didn't because basic English would obliterate half of their arguments.
Wrong! Meaning that you can't make a law that infringes the right "to keep and bear arms". What that meant in the mind of any average English speaker at the time (including the framers) is the topic of a separate thread. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/
Not only did you deflect from the argument presented but you ignore a whole host of other quotes by the signees of the Bill of rights who made it abundantly clear that all people had a right to own their own firearms. They did debate each amendment, that is true, and they put them in a single document spelling out basic limitations that the government could not infringe on INDIVIDUALS. That document wasn’t meant to be 9 amendments for individual people and 1 collective amendment. It was 10 individual amendments in the Bill of rights. Your revisionist history is nonsense. It’s not grammatical sound, nor is it even logical. To anyone else reading this; do not buy in to this line of thinking for a second.
You are in the wrong thread. WHAT it is that "shall not be infringed" is explained here http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/english-102-to-keep-and-bear-arms.586083/ Again: wrong thread. What the 2nd A was meant to accomplish is being discussed in this one. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ You appear to be confusing trying to keep the thread on topic with deflecting. I have written extensively in this forum about the topics you are addressing. But too many of my threads have been closed in the past because they wander way off-topic. Read the OP in the above threads, and if you have something to comment about them, do it there (or do it here, but be aware that I will move them there). This particular one is ONLY about the grammatical structure of the 2nd A.
And I’ve completely debunked your incorrect narrative on the grammatical structure of the second amendment. It’s just be fairly obvious to anyone with an IQ over 60 that you can’t disconnect the second amendment from the rest of the bill rights to make a grammatical argument. (Which is completely incorrect). While simultaneously ignoring the broader documents historical context. It’s called the bill of rights. Not the bill of governments collective rights
Linguistics is a science. And just like any science, the ONLY way to "debunk" a statement like the one on the OP is to falsify it. This is the most frequently used example: if all we see are white swans, the conclusion "all swans are white" is the most reasonable. And it can be falsified by showing a swan that is not white (in fact this has been falsified) The same that occurs with any science happens with linguistics. If all sentences that use the structure of the 2nd A have the meaning stated on the OP, the most reasonable conclusion is that ALL sentences have the same meaning. And this is falsifiable ONLY by showing a counter-example. You have not shown one, therefore, the conclusion stands. Thanks for playing....
Linguistics is not a science. The fact that it might use scientific methodology does not make it science. Science is universal, verifiable and repeatable, and none of those apply to linguistics. Yes, there is Grimm's Law for vocalic and fricative shifts, but you cannot predict whether "p" morphs into "f" or "v" or whether "f" morphs into "v" or "p". What distinguishes science from everything else is the ability to accurately predict precisely, and you science allows that because it is universal, verifiable and repeatable.
He doesn't understand that rights cannot be granted. I exist, therefore I have an inherently innate right to free speech whether government exists or not. He further fails to understand that the Amendments exist to prevent government from infringing on the inherently innate rights people had before the government existed.
Not only is it a science, it's arguably very close to an exact science. But that's irrelevant to this discussion. The relevant part is that the sentences on the OP sound "natural" to any English speaker. As natural today as they did in the 17th Century. And nobody has come up with a counter example that sound as naturally. Wrong! The father of linguistics (Noam Chomsky) demonstrated decades ago that there are rules in grammar that are universal, verifiable and repeatable. Not only that, like Chemistry and Physics... and unlike social sciences like Psychology or History... It's called Transformational Grammar and it can be expressed as formulas. And these formulas apply to ALL the languages in existence, dead or alive (Yes! Even Klingon!) In fact, the OP contains a grammatical structure that is repeatable in every single language without equivocation, and no counter-example exists. But anyway... that's a different topic. So if you are unable to come up with counter-example even in English, my case is made. And it's all that matters.
Well, there is equivocation. The Praha language does not follow Chomsky's rules, at least according to Everett who deems language a social construct with no innate sules. Personally, I am sympathetic to Chomsky's position, but it is not univerdal among linguists.
Not only did I show one, your logical conclusion fails to stand up to historical scrutiny at even a most basic level. But carry on with your asinine belief. I’ve long ago given up trying to wise up chumps
This thread is not about historical scrutiny. It's about grammatical scrutiny. Which you obviously can't rebut. Therefore my point is made. If you have a point to make about historical scrutiny, the proper thread is this one listed below. http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ Don't try to derail this one. It's against forum rules! However, if your "historical scrutiny" doesn't stand up to the real facts in history, I can understand why you refuse to even attempt to rebut any of the points I make on the OP of that thread. But that still doesn't give you license to derail this one. Thanks for playing....
Science is universal, verifiable and repeatable. By definition, that excludes linguistics. Linguistics is the science of language, and linguists are scientists who apply the scientific method to questions about the nature and function of language. Linguists conduct formal studies of speech sounds, grammatical structures, and meaning across all the world's over 6,000 languages. Again, the fact that linguistics uses the scientific method does not make it science. The number of languages that cannot be translated by online translators and the like that employ algorithms refutes your claims. Your claim is also refuted by the number of dead languages that can neither be translated/understood or compiled and the fact that dead and living languages and dead/living language families cannot be properly placed nor is their origin known.
