Opinion about gun control?

[Trinick!]

The second amendment entails the people's right to have a well-regulated militia and that right's inability to be infringed. It does not refer to any right of citizens to individually posess a gun. It's not a constitutional right to bear a gun, but it is a right to maintain a militia, specifically a well-regulated one.

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.

[Ad Bot]

[Kalphiter]

A well regulated militia, [...], [which is the right of the people to ....], [this right] shall not be infringed.

A well-regulated militia, necessary to the security of a free state, is the right of the people to keep and bear arms; that right shall not be infringed.

[Trinick!]

A well regulated militia, [...], [which is the right of the people to ....], [this right] shall not be infringed.

You're loving handicapped if you think you're right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_keep_and_bear_arms

[Kalphiter]

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.

Using the text from the second amendment, please tell me what the antecedent of "the right" is and what exactly it refers to.

The English is definitely difficult but there's only one way to interpret it.

[Trinick!]

Using the text from the second amendment, please tell me what the antecedent of "the right" is.

It doesn't matter what the antecedent is, it literally says right there "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and your point was that it doesn't refer to individual rights but it does.

The English is definitely difficult but there's only one way to interpret it.

That's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Look up semantics.

[Kalphiter]

It doesn't matter what the antecedent is, it literally says right there "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and your point was that it doesn't refer to individual rights but it does.

If we assume "the right" does not refer to anything, the sentence grammatically falls apart; they would have to be two sentences which can only be done by adding some words to the first half.

[Trinick!]

If we assume "the right" does not refer to anything, the sentence grammatically falls apart; they would have to be two sentences.

How is this relevant? If we assume that "does not refer to anything" does not refer to anything in your statement, the sentence gramatically falls apart too. This happens if you remove meaning from most words in a sentence, words aren't added into sentences to be superfluous.

[Kalphiter]

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.

The part with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is surrounded by commas, consequently and grammatically it has to refer to something else. This is why I am asking you what it refers to, because it's pretty clear it's not standalone.

[Bisjac]

I do think we should get rid of civilians having automatics.

well no mass shootings that have taken place have used automatics.

[Trinick!]

The part with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is surrounded by commas, consequently and grammatically it has to refer to something else. This is why I am asking you what it refers to, because it's pretty clear it's not standalone.

Well, first off, grammatical conventions change over time, that sentence would be invalid in an essay written in 2012 because it's simply not grammatically correct anymore. Second, I'm not saying that the right has nothing to do with militias, but the fact that it's for militias does not change the fact that it is a constitutional right for the people to keep and bear arms.

[grunterdb1951]

It appears both Trinick and Kalphiter both have good points, but there's a major maaajor flaw. No one really gives a stuff about rights or not.

[Sir Blocksalot]

Guns will be guns.

Crazy people will be crazy.

Can't really stop that, we could ban crazy people though...

[Trinick!]

No one really gives a stuff about rights or not.

No, that's not true. Our entire government is set up to value rights above all else.

[Ben Grapevine]

No, that's not true. Our entire government is set up to value rights above all else.

LOL

[Doomonkey]

Arguing about interpreting the second amendment:

Please realize that the Supreme Court has the final say when interpreting the Constitution. Please realize that they have decided that the individual right to posses a firearm is unconnected with service in a militia and is guaranteed by the second amendment.