Jan 31 2013: And as I stated earlier, if there is a condition on the right there must be a conditional conjunction joining the two clauses. There is none, so the prohibition is unconditional. And I know what an appositive is, and it doesn't set a condition. And I also know that a nominative absolute is not linked by a conjunction to its adjacent clause, exactly what we have in the Second Amendment. The "militia clause" only states a fact -- it doesn't set a condition. It explains why the right shall not be infringed, and that makes it an adverb. Adverbs don't modify nouns or noun pharses, like "the right of the people to keep and bear arms." And in this case the commas are irrelevant.
It's pretty pathetic that you gun banners have to come up with your own version of grammer to twist the amendment to your liking.
Jan 30 2013: Sorry, that's incorrect. The right is "of the people." Note the norman genitive. The right belongs to the people. And Look up nominative absolute -- you'll see I'm correct. The construction is parenthetical and modifies the adjacent clause. If you believe the right is conditional, show me the conditional conjunction.
Jan 30 2013: Okay, I will address the full Second Amendment. In its entirety: "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."
Now, if the right were conditional, the sentence would be in the conditional mood and the two clauses would be joined by a conditional conjunction. Since there is none, the prohibition in the active clause is unconditional. The right shall not be infringed (note the mandative mood).
In fact the Second Amendment is in the form of a nominative absolute -- fairly common wording for legislation of the time. The dependent introductory clause of this construction is parenthetical, i.e., it can be removed without altering the meaning of the sentence. In this case it works as an adverb, modifying "shall not be infringed" because it explains why the right shall not be infringed. It doesn't set a condition for the right, and it doesn't allow "regulation."
So for everyone who slept through English class, it seems pretty clear to me. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?
TEDCred score: 0.00 TEDCred reflects your contribution to the TED community.
A comment on Conversation: Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
It's pretty pathetic that you gun banners have to come up with your own version of grammer to twist the amendment to your liking.
A reply on Conversation: Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
A comment on Conversation: Solving gun violence in the US in today's insane political climate requires a solution that makes it painless for everyone.
Now, if the right were conditional, the sentence would be in the conditional mood and the two clauses would be joined by a conditional conjunction. Since there is none, the prohibition in the active clause is unconditional. The right shall not be infringed (note the mandative mood).
In fact the Second Amendment is in the form of a nominative absolute -- fairly common wording for legislation of the time. The dependent introductory clause of this construction is parenthetical, i.e., it can be removed without altering the meaning of the sentence. In this case it works as an adverb, modifying "shall not be infringed" because it explains why the right shall not be infringed. It doesn't set a condition for the right, and it doesn't allow "regulation."
So for everyone who slept through English class, it seems pretty clear to me. What part of "shall not be infringed" don't you understand?