Dave’s right. While the whole thing is petty and no doubt ideology driven, the fact is that the shop owners know the law and need to stick to the letter of it. Carelessness isn’t a defense.

Duh, because they didn’t break the law as the whole premise of the lawsuit is false. The fact that one person is interested in the product is no cause for the store owner to suspect that it’s a straw purchase.

So they stuck to the letter of the law. What more is there to understand?

Thus, a well-regulated militia is one that could be counted on to appear at muster, with weapons and ammunition sufficient to its purpose, and do so without fail, every time it was required.

Exactly Corey. In fact look at the battle of Lexington. The militia lined up shot and reloaded in volley’s. That’s what they were thinking.

Militia, of course, was “all able-bodied white property-owning males between 17 and 45″ or somesuch

US Code: TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are–
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

But Don, let me ask you something. You make no bones about President Bush being a fascist on this site. You’ve called him a dictator and worse. If Bush were to actually become a dictator and were to try and force his will on Americans using violence and such who do you think would be the ones fighting against him?

Sorry, but your question is so ridiculous it’s hard to know where to begin. Hell, you’ve made it clear that you want Dubya to have unlimited dictatorial powers, so what do you care?

Most gun nuts seem to think that common sense gun laws means total and complete disarmament of the knuckle-dragging masses. It does not. It means:

1) mandatory liciencing of gun owner to insure that said owner knows how to operate his/her weopon.

2) mandatory registration and paperwork on each weapon so that if it is stolen/lost/used in a crime there is a paper trail fro law enforcement to follow.

And what are the chances that Dubya will try to take over the nation by force? And what are the chances that such an action can be successfully repelled by you and a .22? I mean, really now—what kind of idiotic Red Dawn fantasy world are you living in? I prefer to live in the real world. You, clearly, do not.

If German citizens had a second amendment protecting private gun ownership do you think Hitler could have come to power? Maybe, but it would have been a lot harder.

If if if. Why not stick to facts in the real world instead of these flights of alternate-history fantasy?

“I live in the real world” my ass…

Moreover, New York City is a textbook example of the failure of exactly the kind of gun control laws you commend. They tried registration, and of course it didn’t work.

As a New Yorker I can assure you you don’t know what you’re talking about. How about some proof?

They then tried confiscation, and of course it didn’t work.

Complete and utter bullshit. A contemptable lie. What “Confiscation” are you talkin’ ’bout, Willis?

So now they’re trying to intimidate their neighbors into adopting their failed policies.

No, we’re trying to keep red-state guns in the red-states, instead of up here drilling holes in the locals.

Really, kid…buy a fucking clue.

I certainly understand the ‘well-regulated militia’ phrase, although you obviously don’t.

Arguing with a gun nut is like being trapped in a Lewis Carroll story:

`When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’

Your pal,

Alice

Don, the simple fact is that Hitler used laws exactly like those you suggest to disarm his people. It is also a fact that when Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto realized that they were about to be sent to Treblinka in 1943, they did get about half a dozen guns and fought the SS for over a month. Had they retained even a few of the thousands of pistols confiscated in Berlin alone prior to the war, the history of the Holocaust and the 2nd World War might have been very different.

Moreover, New York City is a textbook example of the failure of exactly the kind of gun control laws you commend. They tried registration, and of course it didn’t work. They then tried confiscation, and of course it didn’t work. So now they’re trying to intimidate their neighbors into adopting their failed policies.

And in doing so, yes, the rights of the people are being infringed in many ways.

Dave: I just can’t wait for your trenchant analysis of “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Any nits to pick there?

Don, you might want to learn the history of your city. Fact of the matter is that the Sullivan Act of 1911 provided that only the politically connected could get a handgun, and that often meant the very criminal elements that got the act passed. In 1967, a registration law was passed for long guns, and in 1991, law 78 was signed by Mayor Dinkins and confiscation of long guns did begin.

Also, at the tender age of 37, I probably am no longer a kid. Your accuracy rate: 0%.

You also might do well to remember that gun fanatics in the red states have a lower rate of homicide than liberal anti-gunners in the blue states. In other words, people don’t shoot at you if they think you might be shooting back.

“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.”

You know, people are always critical of “Grammar Nazis,” but so much of the confusion over the 2nd Amendment is caused by the atrocious sentence construction. Jefferson needed a “Grammar Nazi” of his own–thinking of all the problems we could’ve solved!

I see. So you’re against learning from history.

Predictable.

And you’re still living an a fantasy-land, I see.

How sad.

Don: The early battles of the Revolutionary War were fought by militias, most notably the Battle of Bunker Hill. Those militias were made possible by the widespread gun ownership among the general population, thus the provision in the Second Amendment.

We agree there, Dave!

I think the 2nd Amendment is a dangerous anachronism and should be repealed and replaced with common-sense gun legislation.

It’s an 18th Century approach to a 21st Century problem.

Like most lefties, you really want to destroy the Constitution.

Paranoid fantasies are a symptom of a much larger problem, bob. Please see your doctor ASAP.

Rather, just as Latin does not depend on word order, the writings of the Founders do not, either.

This has nothing to do with word order.

It’s not a question of various kinds of phrases

This has everything to do with “various kinds of phrases.” Specifically, an absolute phrase.

your example is merely a comma splice accepted in most languages.

No. Find me one competent writer from the past 1000 years who has used a comma to separate the noun phrase from the participle phrase in an absolute phrase. No one does, because it makes absolutely (get it?) no sense.

we simply have one phrase, modified by the second, modifying the subject, leading to the predicate.

No. We have one phrase (the absolute phrase “A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State”) that modifies the subject, followed by a predicate. The comma after “Milita” is absurdly superfluous and rids the sentence of clarity.

Robert Perry wrote earlier:

Rather, just as Latin does not depend on word order, the writings of the Founders do not, either.

This comment is so ludicrous, so completely divorced from the actual discussion at hand, it makes me seriously wonder if you have any idea what this debate is even about.

Especially when combined with this:

your example is merely a comma splice accepted in most languages.

The example I highlighted is NOT a comma splice. It’s not even close. Do you even know what a comma splice is, Robert Perry? Based on your comments, no. Let me show you some:

* It is getting cold, I don’t have a jacket.

* I went to the store, they were out of milk.

* The hurricane destroyed our ship, we spent three days on a raft.

See? Comma splice: Joining two independent clauses with just a comma. It’s a grammatical error–now. You DO see comma splices in earlier literature–Shakespeare is peppered with them.

But the Second Amendment doesn’t contain one. The reason for this is obvious: The Second Amendment contains ONLY ONE INDEPENDENT CLAUSE (“the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”) As I’ve said several times in this thread, the 2nd Amendment opens with an absolute phrase, NOT an independent clause (furthermore, even if the opening lines WERE an independent clause, the “comma splice” would be the comma after “State,” not the one after “militia,” which is what I discussed in my example). Comma splices are, by their very definition, impossible in sentences containing a single independent clause, as the Second Amendment does. You’re talking about an “error” that can’t possibly exist–it’s like accusing a basketball player of “Pass Interference.”

You do not maintain a sufficient grasp of the grammatical and rhetorical issues to make this debate purposeful. You do not know what a comma splice is, you do not know what a clause is, you don’t know what an absolute is–I think and hope (for the sake of our schools) you did not study grammar past high school, if that far.

Because the DOJ—like you—believes in unlimited firepower for any knuckle-dragger who wants it.

So, you’re finally beginning to understand are you, Don? Good for you. I DO believe in unlimited (albeit, legal) firepower for any knuckle-dragger who wants it. Just as I believe in free speech for any idiot no matter how stupid his/her opinion, and I believe in the right to vote for anyone no matter how uninformed they are, and I believe in freedom of religion for all those Two-Seed-In-The-Spirit-Predestination-Baptists, ad infinitum.

Regards…

Don: Your retreat to personal attack simply indicates your lack of substantive argument.

Of course the second amendment isn’t about grammar. It’s also not about history. It’s about liberty–which no one has without the means to enforce it.

I vehemently oppose gun control; in fact, I oppose any law that restricts individual freedom–including DUIs, for example. My fear–which has partially come true over the years–is that leftists will abuse the bad grammar and say the Second Amendment does NOT provide us with the right to bear arms.

Again, what started this whole diversion was my point that grammar IS important. Madison’s (or was it Jefferson’s?) lazy writing in the 2nd Amendment has allowed the government to violate our rights. Many people have died because of gun control–because of poor grammar. It IS an important subject; we MUST be careful about how we say and write things.

I don’t know, Rob. I agree that gun control laws, in general, are very stupid, but still, “the law is the law.” If the gun shop owner is not following the law, regardless of the external circumstances (ie, the state is intentionally targeting him), he should be punished.

I think laws prohibiting tobacco products to minors are silly, but if I sell a pack to a 16-year-old–even if that 16-year-old is working as part of a “sting” operation with the government–I get punished. I don’t see why gun owners deserve a special exemption from following the laws of a democratic society.

Heather: Once again, Dave misses the point. The Second Amendment is about history, not grammar.

Heather: Absolutely, although any population could learn from the more general lessons you cite. I was focusing on the specific history leading up to the Constitution. The more the merrier.

Don: “In your world “repealed” and “destroy” are the same thing!

Not at all. The Second Amendment, while technically an Amendment, is really an integral part of the Constitution, called “The Bill of Rights”. Subsequent amendments are for specific issues, but the Bill of Rights represent founding principles. “Repealing” the Second Amendment is, therefore, a direct attack on the Constitution. The Volstead Act was a mistake, and should never have been passed in the first place. It is an example of our system being able to correct a mistake. The Bill of Rights isn’t a mistake, except in your ideology. Therefore, my use of the work “destroy” is accurate. Not only that, but the efforts to subvert the Second Amendment are obviously destructive. I don’t recall any efforts to repeal the Second Amendment, btw, so that would be a fantasy on your part, right?

I guess repealing prohibition destroyed the constitution!”

See above.

“Main Entry: 1nit
Pronunciation: ‘nit
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English nite, from Old English hnitu; akin to Old High German hniz nit, Greek konid-, konis
1 : the egg of a louse or other parasitic insect; also : the insect itself when young
2 : a minor shortcoming“

Don: ” I don’t think it allows for unregulated, unfettered, and unlimited firepower with no oversight whatsoever.

What part of “…shall not be infringed.” don’t you understand?

You clearly think that giving every goddamn idjitNot everyone is like you, Don. A little projection there from you. Most gun owners(about 95%) are never involved with crime, so your insult is inaccurate. all the armor-piercing bullets and shoulder-fired missles he wants is good idea. I think it’s a suicidally bad idea.If the police do their job, and keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, no problem. Remember, only law-abiding citizens obey the laws, so laws are ineffective in preventing crime.

Instead of harrassing law-abiding citizens, the police should concentrate on the criminals. Owning a gun is not a criminal act. It’s our constitutional right.

Dave: When you take history into account, rather than one author’s grammar, it becomes very clear. Keep trying to pick that nit, but gun ownership by the general population is one of the founding principles of America, and for good reason.

Robert:

Can you prove a single thing you’ve claimed?

Jolly good, old bean! As long as we can keep it, eh?

I decided my example of a properly punctuated absolute clause (that was written before the Constitution)would be from your favorite essay of all time, Rob. Enjoy!

Jonathan Swift writes in “A Modest Proposal”:

“The number of souls in this kingdom being usually reckoned one million and a half, of these I calculate there may be about two hundred thousand couple whose wives are breeders…”

Absolute phrase

You see it? “A Modest Proposal” was written in 1729, and even then writers did not put a comma between the noun and the participle in an absolute phrase. If they had, the sentence would read:

The number of souls in this kingdom, being usually reckoned one million and a half, of these I calculate there may be about two hundred thousand couple whose wives are breeders…

He didn’t write it like that, because it was improper and unclear. Jefferson did not follow this advice; thus, the 2nd Amendment is improper and, far more importantly, very unclear.

I’m sure, given more time, I could find examples of this back to the KJV or Shakespeare. Absolute phrases are very common, and the punctuation rules are very easy to follow.

What I’m doing is not the same as criticizing Shakespeare for using double negatives or double superlatives (Marc Antony’s “This was the most unkindest cut of all!” from Julius Caesar), because Shakespeare was simply following the established rules of his time. Jefferson was not.

Dave: You linguistic analysis of the Second Amendment is breathtaking, but you still didn’t deal with the reality of it, which is that an armed citizenry was an integral part of forming the militias that began the American Revolution. Therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed is the historical reason, not the well-regulated militia, which is the outcome of the people keeping and bearing arms. Without that right to keep and bear arms, we would be having this discussion, because there would have been no United States of America.
That’s how important it is.

Rob,

Some stats. And some perspective.

Doctors in U.S. – 700,000
Accidental deaths per year by doctors – 120,000

(from U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services)

Number of guns in U.S. 80,000,000 (yes-eighty million)

Number of accidental gun deaths (all age groups) 1,500. Statistics – FBI.

Number of deaths per capita by doctors 0.171
Number of deaths per capita by guns 0.000188

Things that make you go Hmmmmm.

Remember – guns don’t kill people. Doctors kill people.

Dave, you’re superimposing 20th Century grammar rules (formulated in part to cope with dumbed down students from government schools) on 18th century writing. When you read (I’m assuming you will) things like the Federalist Papers and such, you’ll see that a group of writers who all learned Latin do not adhere to this. Rather, just as Latin does not depend on word order, the writings of the Founders do not, either.

It’s not a question of various kinds of phrases; your example is merely a comma splice accepted in most languages. In modern English, we’d call Edwards’ example “incorrect” and substitute a semicolon. That doesn’t make his punctuation atrocious, but rather merely appropriate for that time.

And again, in this case, we simply have one phrase, modified by the second, modifying the subject, leading to the predicate. Nothing complicated whatsoever about it–at least to those who remember that what we now call the “rules” of spelling and punctuation had not been developed at that time.

If these gunshow owners actually broke federal law, though, then why are they being sued by the City of New York rather than charged by federal prosecutors?

Because the DOJ—like you—believes in unlimited firepower for any knuckle-dragger who wants it. If you think federal gun laws are being enforced you’re living in a dream world. the suit seeks to FORCE the DOJ to do it’s damn job.

Don: “I think the 2nd Amendment is a dangerous anachronism and should be repealed and replaced with common-sense gun legislation.”

Thanks for making my point about lefties wanting to destroy the Constitution!

Dave is wrong about “grammar nazis.” While the use of commas to separate clauses in a sentence is not easily understood by most modern Americans thanks to government schooling, that sort of sentence construction is actually quite typical for the time, and is quite easy to diagram.

For starters, “shall not be infringed” is the verb. That leaves “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” as the subject, and the first two clauses simply give a rationale for “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Until the mid-20th century, this is how this amendment was consistently understood.

Don: Typical leftie lying. The “well-regulated militia” was made possible by a reservoir of ordinary citizens whose right to keep and bear arms would not be infringed. Get it?

Let me get this straight… This law in New York is supposed to make sure gun shop owners can read minds – that they’re supposed to refuse a sale because they’ll know, once a gun leaves their store, that the person who bought it (with a cleared screening) is going to give it to someone else, “lose” it and report it stolen, or commit a crime themself???

That law is bad.

Wow. This thread is getting heated.

The fact is, like I stated above, if those gun shop owners had paid attention to detail on those applications the sleazy little set-up wouldn’t have worked. You can bet that, in some cases where the owners caught the little dog and pony show in time, it didn’t.

Is the whole thing wrong headed? Sure it is. Is this liberal anti-gun politics? You betcha. But…if you own a gun shop PAY ATTENTION. There are people out there who will ruin your life to make a political point.

Dave’s right. While the whole thing is petty and no doubt ideology driven, the fact is that the shop owners know the law and need to stick to the letter of it. Carelessness isn’t a defense.

All gun laws are a violation of the Second Amendment, which makes them unconstitutional. Read the Second Amendment, and you will see.

His analogy is not appropriate in this case. A more approporate analogy would be if an 18yo bought the smokes and there happended to be 16yo standing in line with him. How does the attendant know who will be the final consumer of this product? Can he legally refuse the sale?

I knew my years as a gas station clerk would come back to help me. I absolutely can refuse the sale. What would happen a lot is a situation like this:

Teens comes in, asks for a 2 packs of Marb lites. I ask for ID. Teens says it’s in his car. Different, older kid comes in five minutes later. He asks for two packs of Marb lites. I put 2 and 2 together and refuse the sale.

According to my employer (who may have been lying), yes, the merchant can be held resopnsible in a situation like that had I actually sold the older kid the cigarettes.

If he completes the sale, is he the one responsible if the 16yo ends up with the smokes? Why do we make the merchant responsible if their customer breaks the law after they leave his establishment?

You ever heard of bartending? The bartender is partially responsible if Joe Blow drives drunk and kills someone after a night at “Dangerous Dave’s!”. It might not be fair (I don’t think either scenario is; then again, I don’t think we should face State punishment for DUIs), but it’s the law.

And according to Michael Bloomberg, what these gun dealers are doing is against the law. I’m not well-versed on the subject, and the author of that article sucks, but if they did break a federal (or state law), they need to face the consequences. We can lobby to change them later.

Why do we make the merchant responsible if their customer breaks the law after they leave his establishment?

electnixon,

We do so because the merchant presumably is the one with the deep pockets, and because we are loathe to hold individuals responsible for their actions… articularly when those individuals have already been cast as victims. The 16 year old in your example is too young to appreciate the seriousness of his actions, and likely illiterate in any case so even the warning on the package is of little importance.

Likewise the gun purchaser, who certainly shouldn’t be held to acocunt for the mean and violent environment in which he lives. Better we should go after to ones who profit from the sale(s). If it wasn’t for their lust for profit at the expanse of others, there would be no problem at all.

The person who completes the required forms, does so as the prospective purchaser, and it is that individual to whom the dealer is legally selling the gun.

While I agree that the lawsuits ought to be on very shakey grounds legally, we’ve just seen a substantive demonstration that there are judges who, like their liberal compatriots, are far more interested in the end result than they are in abiding by the process perscribed to get there. Standing? Factual demonstration of wrongs alleged? Precedents? Phooey!! Off with their heads!

I mean, really now—what kind of idiotic Red Dawn fantasy world are you living in? I prefer to live in the real world. You, clearly, do not.

I know the idea of a dictatorship taking over the U.S. seems unlikely, yet unprecedented things have happened time and again throughout history. There was a time that the idea of Rome being sacked by barbarians was considered impossible, yet it happened. Heck, the people living in Germany in the early 1930′s probably didn’t think a dictator could be put in power there either, yet it happened.

If German citizens had a second amendment protecting private gun ownership do you think Hitler could have come to power? Maybe, but it would have been a lot harder.

I live in the real world, Don. The real world where tyrants try to use force to do everything from stealing my home entertainment system to pushing their ideology on entire nations. My only defense against this is my personal right to use weapons to defend myself and my property.

It’s sad that you don’t get this, but hardly surprising.

1) mandatory liciencing of gun owner to insure that said owner knows how to operate his/her weopon.

2) mandatory registration and paperwork on each weapon so that if it is stolen/lost/used in a crime there is a paper trail fro law enforcement to follow.

Neither of these two points are at issue in the article above, so what exactly is your complaint here?

Or maybe people just like exercising their consitutional rights.

Hood, the worst part is this from the article:

The city contends that federal law prohibits licensed dealers from selling firearms to someone when the dealer has a reasonable belief that the weapon is being sold to someone other than the buyer.

It’s not even a New York law invovled. The City of New York is suing these gun shops because they believe the shops violated their interpreation of federal law.

If federal law was being broken why didn’t the feds investigate/prosecute? Maybe because the law wasn’t being broken?

I’d like to know what statute the city of New York is basing their case on.

Very true, Dave.

I’m just not sure how feasible it would be to go in and modify the amendment to make it more clear. We’ve already got folks like Don who don’t think the 2nd amendment even allows for personal gun ownership.

Some of the archaic wording and punctuation used in the Constitution has caused a lot of confusion and controversy in the past. It would be nice if we could go back and update a lot of the language, though that’s probably a pipe dream as few people seem to be able to agree on what the intent of the provisions in the constitution are.

You and I, for instance, vehemently disagree on what the 4th amendment’s protection of life without due process of law means.

Davey, you seem to be applying modern rules of grammar to piece of writing over two centuries old. I’m not sure that’s fair.

I think that if we need assistance in determining what the meaning of the 2nd amendment is we need look no further than the intent of the authors, who (according to their contemporary writings and statements) clearly favored the idea of a nation of armed citizen soldiers.