(05-04-2021 12:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-04-2021 11:57 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-04-2021 11:27 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-04-2021 11:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-04-2021 10:06 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  The FF seemed to employ weird grammatical stuff which points to the possibility that a strict interpretation of the grammar in the 2nd Amendment is tricky.

Basically all of the reading that I've done on this topic suggests that experts have labored over the true intentions of the authors of the 2nd Amendment somewhat endlessly. It seems a lot less cut-and-dry than you suggest.

I guess the verbs 'keep' and 'bear', and the noun phrase 'the people', and the verb phrase 'shall not be infringed' seems to be "tricky" going for some. cest le vie.

I guess. You seem to be the ONLY one (even the constitutional law experts that I've read) who seem to feel that this is straightforward. Even the Supreme Court justices who have addressed this issue would not seem to agree with this assessment.

Im not the one dancing an Irish jig over 14 very plain words. 12 of them one syllable.

Many of the words arent really even in play.

I mean, there really isnt any issue over the words 'the', 'of', 'the', 'to', 'and', 'shall', 'not', or 'be'.

Im not the one with a hangup over the really tough words to decipher -- like 'right', 'people', 'keep', 'bear', 'arms', and 'infringed'.

Perhaps if I really want to run a progressive really confused I should liberally sprinkle the words 'right', 'people', and 'infringed' in that thing I want to muddy up because those words seem to have an ability to be insta-obfuscated to them.

Or maybe I'll toss in a prefatory clause to make them think there is another verb in there.

Which of those words seem unclear to you, and thoroughly hard to glean a meaning from?

The wording of the amendment is confusing overall WRT to "well-regulated militia".

Again... most experts seem to struggle with this so I feel like I am reasonable company and maybe I'm not a complete idiot because it doesn't seem clear to me.

So you see any verb that modifies or acts on 'militia'? I guess providing a rationale in a sentence is tough for some. Is there anything conferred on a militia there? Is there anything commanding that only militia should be armed? I'm sorry, it isnt that tough --- it is only tough when one wants to obfuscate for whatever reason they want to obfuscate or run from very simple words and very simple word construction. Coupled with the comments on specifically arming 'the people', it is very plain.

And actually many experts dont struggle with this. The words of the founding fathers provide a pretty clear picture.

What portions of those quotes are tough for you? In short, in the founder's viewpoint the common people should be armed.

Pretty tricky and devious things those prefatory clauses can be....