• ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

          In the above sentence, who has the right to keep and eat food, “the people,” or “a well balanced breakfast?”

            • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              So if you skip breakfast you don’t deserve the right to food? No lunch or dinner? Snacks ist verboten?

              It clearly says the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed. You know you’re wrong.

              • blazera@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                The hell is this weird strawman. Im not arguing against food im telling you how a sentence is written. As written, a balanced breakfast is the entire reason people have the right to food.

              • SCB@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                You wrote a dumb shit sentence because the militia is the cause of the clause that follows in this stance, and in your example a breakfast is not the cause for keeping food but rather breakfast food.

                You made a bad example and declared it victory lol

                • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  It’s not a bad example, it’s gramatically the exact same, and instead of admitting you’re wrong you’re choosing to stamp your feet like an obtuse child. You’re free to do so, but everyone else is free to read your shame.

                  Edit: wait, different person. You’re choosing to stamp your feet on behalf of another* like an obtuse child, 'scuse me.

                  • SCB@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    You’re posting in a public forum home slice.

                    If you’re intent on a private conversation, DMs are right there.

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Your right to bear arms is not infringed by specific controls.

        You have a right to freedom of religion but local codes still come into okay for sacrifices/burnt offerings/etc.

    • Throwaway@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      1 year ago

      Is part of the dependent clause. Its reasoning.

      If you paid attention in English class youd know this

          • blazera@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            14
            ·
            1 year ago

            How convenient, the words that dont matter are the ones you dont want to matter

            • transigence@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Let me try to explain:
              The 2nd Amendment has two clauses, a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The operative clause is the one that secures the right, and the prefatory clause informs it. However, not being the operative clause, it’s ultimately not anything from which rights are derived, nor restricted. The bill of rights wasn’t written to restrict the rights of the people.
              The prefatory clause is, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…,” which informs the reader as to why the latter exists. So, you can argue until you’re blue in the face about how “well regulated militia” was intended, but ultimately, its immaterial as it’s not part of the operative clause.
              “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This is the operative clause and the only one you really need to be concerned about. The people have the right to keep and bear arms, and it shall not be infringed. That is very easy to understand. It’s hard to like if you are a violent criminal and prefer that your violence and violations of the rights of others go uncontested and unprevented, and you don’t want to get shot. For everybody else, this is not only perfectly acceptable and necessary, it’s intuitive.

              • blazera@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                13
                ·
                1 year ago

                Its still not empty words, it is intent, which we supposedly have a history of using when interpreting the constitution for modern cases.

                and you don’t want to get shot.

                I dont think America is the place to be if you dont want to get shot. Did you write this thinking we have a good track record or something?

    • CatWhoMustNotBeNamed@geddit.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yawn, it’s clear you don’t know how to read literature from the period. There’s plenty of explanation of the phrasing, indeed by the writers themselves in contemporary missives. But you don’t really care, you already have your ideology.

      Go read any Jane Austen and you’ll learn. Even better, the Federalist Papers, or the Adams/Jefferson letters.

      • sin_free_for_00_days@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Or more specifically, Federalist #29, which argued that the US should not have a standing military. THAT was the reasoning behind 2A. Of course our forebears learned pretty quickly that was a dumb ass hill to die on, and we have a huge standing military. The reasons for the 2A have been buried in progress, yet scared neanderthals still feel the need to cower with their guns in fear that the big bad world will touch them.

        • CatWhoMustNotBeNamed@geddit.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Thanks for finding which paper it was… I have a copy but didn’t feel like finding it and finding the right paper. Call me lazy 🤷‍♂️

          And in the end, they codified what they saw as a natural, inborn, individual right. That wasn’t by accident - Jefferson was very intentional in the words he chose (and they argued over, properly). Knowing the language had to be clear and concise, this is what resulted. It’s pretty clear if you’ve read anything from 1600 onward.

          Some of how the writing of the time (and place, Britain) flows is, I suspect, partly an influence of French language that some also knew - “twenty and four years” is clear French construction, not English at all. Keeping in mind that before Shakespeare, the “English language” such as it was, was considered beneath “proper” Brits. Shakespeare marks the beginning of that change, so the French language influence carried on for a long time among the upper classes as a distinction.

          It’s pretty interesting to see this same kind of complex construction (from our perspective) in period writings, but also in many science papers today, where complex ideas are strung together in paragraph-long sentences in an attempt to capture the detail and nuance. Medical journals are particularly guilty of this.

        • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          yet scared neanderthals still feel the need to cower with their gun

          I’d argue the scared neanderthals are the ones pants-shittingly terrified of imagine objects.

        • transigence@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Keeping contemporary weapons is not cowardice, it’s just smart. Intentionally disarming yourself is colossolly stupid. Pretending that the world isn’t dangerous is mental illness.