Sherry Chandler » Scalia’s Short Arms Inspection
Scalia’s Short Arms Inspection
Well the Supremes have revoked the protections the Second Amendment afforded the American people from the dangers of an unregulated militia.
Several years ago I read a study of Thomas Jefferson’s ideas and I came across the truism that the early framers of the Constitution & Bill of Rights were thoroughly schooled in the Law, and in Colonial America that meant they were extensively trained in Latin composition. I have noticed that writers like Chaucer, Shakespeare and Sterne who have such training often write as if they were translating from the Latin.
So when I see a phrase such as “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” I recognize that peculiarity of Latin grammar, the Ablative Absolute. Such critters are adverbial phrases which directly modify the verb in the main clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” [emphasis inserted] Many a dangling participle has been aborn by writers trying to employ an Abl. Abs. in English. It follows that an unregulated militia would have its gun-totin’ rights severely curtailed in the interests of the safety of the State.
Scalia aspires to the distinction of being a Strict Constructionist. He needs to brush up on his history and grammar first. People who deploy dangerous armaments such as handguns and legal opinions need a thorough grounding in the basics lest they go off half-cocked.
I own a firearm or three and I also had the unhappy adolescent experience of shooting a goat in the leg through carelessness. The safety on my .22 was not very, so I learned to be extra careful. Anyone who wants to carry a firearm or even keep one in the house for protection needs some thorough training in safety and marksmanship. That is the true meaning of “well-regulated.”
Possibly related posts:
Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.
6 Comments
1. koshembos replies at 27th June 2008, 10:23 am :
The first amendment guarantees freedom of speech while the interpretation of the second amendment guarantees the freedom to shot lethal weapons. Of course, the Scalia-like interpretation does not allow tanks, missiles and laser beams to every citizen despite being reasonable extension arms.
Every culture has an extrapolation institute of some sort or another that takes ideas of bye gone years and extrapolate them to the future. The Catholic church supports Darwinism, but doesn’t support yet cloning. When the first Jewish woman flow the space shuttle, she saw sunrise every 90 minutes which constitutes a day and therefore had to celebrate the Sabbath on the 7th sunrise. A top rabbi had declared that Sabbath in space follows new rules.
Only the American culture has substantial support of creationism and gun tauting. That is too bad, time is leaving us behind with idiotic concepts that have no basis in reality or backing in the spirit of the sophisticated constitution.
2. sherry replies at 27th June 2008, 10:27 am :
Dick Cheney, it seems, could have used some lessons in gun safety. Perhaps since he had “other obligations” that kept him from military training in the use of fire-arms, he should be prohibited from shooting wing-clipped quail and acquaintances.
3. mike lovell replies at 27th June 2008, 12:56 pm :
“Well the Supremes have revoked the protections the Second Amendment afforded the American people from the dangers of an unregulated militia.”
I guess I’m not quite following you on this one. I don’t see how protections or powers were revoked, other than from government officials who wish to restrict or outright ban my lawful possession and usage of a firearm at will. I’m sure there is a greater point within your post here, however certain wordage has gone beyond my immediate comprehension. I think I need a layperson’s interpretation, if it’s not too much trouble.
4. Poppysmatus replies at 27th June 2008, 1:47 pm :
The 2nd amendment ties gun ownership to actual or potential participation in a state militia and such firearms as may serve in such capacity. I am not against gun ownership but it puts a burden on the owner to be responsible and the state has an interest in assuring such responsibility. Scalia has chosen to ignore the most important clause in this amendment. In 1939 the Supremes decreed sawed-off shotguns illegal precisely because they could serve no purpose in a well-regulated militia.
5. Harry replies at 28th June 2008, 3:16 am :
Since the constitution is not actually the Word Of God, a discussion about gun control and gun culture in the C21st society would seem more productive than a discussion about C18th grammar.
6. sherry replies at 28th June 2008, 8:02 am :
But, Harry, according to Scalia et al., the Constitution is as the Word of God: nothing can be added, no inferred interpretation can be made. Thus, we have no “right to privacy,” for example, because that is not explicitly mentioned in the text. Thus, too, I think, Poppysmatus’s argument from 18th C grammar.
Otherwise, I agree with you completely. I have read that Canadians have more guns than do citizens of the United States. They just don’t as often kill one another with them.
Leave a comment