Quote:
Originally Posted by philbertpk
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
But ill be dammed if they didn't write the ability for the people to revolt if ever needed into the Constitution. The right to bare arms is based on the thought that a well armed populace was the best way to deter the government from stepping on the rights on citizens not so that as many people as possible could keep guns to kill redcoats. You under informed Marxist. Go back to commy land Pinky.
|
You be dammed and damned too.
I cannot speak to constitutional law, but I can speak to grammar and sentence structure which anyone should acknowledge was probably more intimately studied and practiced in the 18th century than it is today.
The document which we call The Constitution was constructed on sets of conditional clauses, reasons and explanations.
The preamble, the thesis statement if you will, the sentence that sets the grounds for everything that follows: We the People of the United States , (the who part of the statement), in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, (the why part of the statement), do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America (the what part of the statement). That would mean that everything that follows MUST support the WHY part of the statement – Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty.
Then skipping to the second amendment which so many like to flaunt and debate. First, it must support the original statement: Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty. Secondly, in reading it, it in itself is another conditional statement: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State (the why part of the statement), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed (the what part of the statement). The second part of the statement cannot stand without the first and the first does not state, in order to ensure personal safety, in order to hunt or in order to shoot 20 defenseless first graders.
We as individuals, as a community and as a nation need to reexamine if our obsession with our supposed personal right to bear arms is in the spirit and language of the constitution both in the second amendment but maybe more importantly, in the preamble: to promote Union, Justice, Tranquility, Defense, Welfare, and Liberty.
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]
[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]