Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Is the first phrase of the second amendment a nominative absolute?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Harvey K." data-source="post: 3087379" data-attributes="member: 43415"><p>Indeed it is a nominative absolute, the English adaptation of the Latin ablative absolute. In this case, it gives a reason about the statement in the "operative clause" -- "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". </p><p></p><p>The gun-grabbers would try to twist the meaning to "The only reason for the right to exist was to provide a militia, an outmoded idea now that we have a standing army and police forces."</p><p></p><p>In reality, the reason stated in the "Militia clause" is the reason why the government would not want to "cut its own throat" by undermining the militia, which was drawn from the armed populace. No standing army implied that the militia was the primary defense force for the security of all states in the Union, and the Union itself. Disarm the people, and the militia concept collapses.</p><p></p><p>If we accept the gun-grabber view, then instead of a nation founded on the principle of free men with innate rights, establishing a government to protect those rights, we have the absurdity of a "right of the people" which only exists so long as the state finds it useful for the people to have that right.</p><p></p><p>Of course, the gun-grabbers would not let that same concept of "rights exist at the convenience of government" apply to any other right.</p><p>(Or would they?)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Harvey K., post: 3087379, member: 43415"] Indeed it is a nominative absolute, the English adaptation of the Latin ablative absolute. In this case, it gives a reason about the statement in the "operative clause" -- "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The gun-grabbers would try to twist the meaning to "The only reason for the right to exist was to provide a militia, an outmoded idea now that we have a standing army and police forces." In reality, the reason stated in the "Militia clause" is the reason why the government would not want to "cut its own throat" by undermining the militia, which was drawn from the armed populace. No standing army implied that the militia was the primary defense force for the security of all states in the Union, and the Union itself. Disarm the people, and the militia concept collapses. If we accept the gun-grabber view, then instead of a nation founded on the principle of free men with innate rights, establishing a government to protect those rights, we have the absurdity of a "right of the people" which only exists so long as the state finds it useful for the people to have that right. Of course, the gun-grabbers would not let that same concept of "rights exist at the convenience of government" apply to any other right. (Or would they?) [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Is the first phrase of the second amendment a nominative absolute?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom