Comments | egeria61: District of Columbia v. Heller; Or, Why Commas Matter

egeria61

District of Columbia v. Heller; Or, Why Commas Matter

Jun 27, 2008 00:09

Historic moment, here, people! I wonder what the rest of the world thinks of our individual right to bear arms. I got vertigo today, over the oddness/particularities of American culture. Usually I just take it for granted that our culture is pretty much "normal" (whatever that's supposed to mean). But my grandpa has a whole room in his basement ( Read more... )

commas

Comments 6

(The comment has been removed)

egeria61 June 27 2008, 19:32:40 UTC

Sweet! I got it kinda-sorta in the ballpark. I can see why people are surprised by the activism of the judges. I think that if you have to take a microscope to the phrasing of an amendment, it spells T-R-O-U-B-L-E. Just because their interpretation works when you diagram the sentence, doesn't mean that they aren't actively changing how we've traditionally associated the right to bear "arms" (or bayonets--hhehehe) with militias. T-R-O-U-B-L-E.

(The comment has been removed)

egeria61 June 28 2008, 15:35:25 UTC

Hehe! :D

zaleti June 30 2008, 12:57:44 UTC

Wrote this at about 6am, with next to no sleep, doing bracing linguistic analysis instead of reading the glut of smut that's appeared on adama_roslin. So I hope it's coherent....

grammatically shaky... ambiguous...Hmm... [ I'm deliberately clueless about the case so that my interpretations will be unaffected. ] By modern English standards, there is a superfluous comma in the first version. However, I keep getting stuck on the fact that the verb "infringed" in the 'matrix' clause can only go with "right". You can't infringe a militia, not in standard usage. But the "militia" noun phrase cannot be left floating. Linguistically, it seems there's basically nothing in it: the interpretation of v1 should be the same as v2 ( ... )

zaleti June 30 2008, 13:01:33 UTC

*winces*
Ooh, damn, that was long. Dissertation ahoy! Sorry... :O

egeria61 July 2 2008, 14:07:58 UTC

LOL! Ooh, damn, that was long. *hugs you* Ok, first off, I'm really grateful that you DID take the time to write a dissertation on this, because I was wondering about that "version 1" of the amendment. When I looked at it after writing this entry, I was like: it's not just SHAKY, it doesn't even make SENSE. So, good to have confirmation on that, and good to know that there aren't two competing versions with different meanings floating around out there. I agree that our founding fathers could very likely have valued their guns first, and the reasons for having them second (thus making the reasons for owning them subordinate). As chaila put it, it's that libertarian streak in them, which we Americans have inherited (for better or worse). This ruling leaves me with conflicted feelings. Usually I'm all for civil rights: for instance, I hate the "Patriot Act" (just another instance of putting that "goldmine of patriotism" to use). And I'm an individualist (how can one NOT be, in this culture?). (Seriously, I don't like double ( ... )

egeria61 July 2 2008, 14:10:45 UTC

I am so never letting you live down the "my foot" comment. You will be reminded of it at random points in time, this being the first. Hehee! I occasionally say that, too, so don't worry, I'M LAUGHING WITH YOU. LOL. I AM EASILY AMUSED THIS MORNING. CAN YOU TELL? wEEEEEEEE! *back to dissertation planning* *rubs toe in the sand* *headdesk*