Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Gun Control Now - Fact Driven Rant [View all]X_Digger
(18,585 posts)11. Commas and semi-colons when there *were* no rules of grammar at the time?
That's weak sauce.
No, the right isn't a function of the militia, it's the reason the right is protected.
The founding fathers had no problem saying what they mean. If they'd meant it to be a right of the militia, or of militiamen, they'd have said so.
Here's another contemporaneous (to their time) example: "The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish sentiments on any subject.." -- Rhode Island's constitution, Article I, Section 20.
That construction- "{reason}, {statement}" was more common then than it is today.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
52 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
You seriously thing they wouldn't have protected the very method they'd just used?
Lizzie Poppet
Dec 2012
#40
I believe you have to take it within the context of the language of the amendment
Toronto
Dec 2012
#7
All are valid exercises of the right, yes. (protection of self, family, home, state)
X_Digger
Dec 2012
#19