I do, vaguely. I'm fortunate that, as a good monkey with highly-developed imitative skills, I've always read a lot and been able to absorb what feels right as opposed to actually understanding why it is--when younger, it allowed me to place highly on my college aptitude tests, bypassing freshman English and going right into composition classes.
Had I not, I'm sure my eyes-glaze-over ADD (something that hadn't been invented yet back then, but boy, do I have it bad when something bores me) would have derailed me on the basics--I actually wonder how I'd do if I had to take one of my old fourth grade grammar tests today, and don't do so with confidence. I think that's one reason why I have trouble with foreign languages--they start you out with equivalent principles, and when you start talking infinitives and past participles and predicative adjuncts, hell, I was staring out the window when they talked about that stuff in English--I'll be damned if I'd know what to do with the frickin' things in French.
Anyway, W3, who is smarter than me, or at least more disciplined and mature, calls our attention to a diagram of the Second Amendment that he found while "running rabbit trails looking for other information."
Don't ask me if it's right.
It does remind me of another deconstruction, a rather brilliant one, I thought....
Is it recess yet?
3 comments:
I did my own several years ago: Guns
I would differ with the professor in only one regard. My research into language has lead me to the conclusion that the phrase "well regulated" has nothing to do with rules and regulations (as I one understood) and everything to do with proper function.
Here is an example. My wife recently inherited a very nice floor clock. When we brought it home, it seemed to run slow. After a bit of tinkering I finally got it to keep good time. After two weeks it is keeping very good time. It is functioning well and so is clearly properly adjusted thus can rightly be termed "well regulated". Just as a "well regulated" clock keeps good time, a "well regulated" militia would require an armed citizenry. In fact it would require militia members to possess military grade weaponry. Indeed, a militia whose members' ownership of firearms was limited to only sporting arms would be the antithesis of "well regulated".
Here is my understanding of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment:
Because a properly function Militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms - especially military grade Arms - , must not be infringed.
Now if we could only get the members of the Supreme Court to figure out that "shall not be infringed" means just that - SHALL NOT be infringed! I see no room for any "reasonable regulation" or any other such nonsense.
I've been, for years now, pointing out that there's a period immediately following the word "infringed". That period was not placed there by accident.
[W3]
Post a Comment