Admin’s upset about something, not sure what. “No surprise that the New York Times is against the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decision this week. But how can they say it ‘disregarded the plain words of the Second Amendment’?”
“Do we really have to do this?” says Spence.
“Let’s take a look at that amendment.”
“Which says: ‘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.’ What’s the first thing any copyeditor would do?”
“Start getting rid of commas.”
“Exactly. But evidently the founders didn’t have a good copyeditor. If they had, it would look like this:
‘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.’ The meaning is plain, all right, but exactly the opposite of what the Times wants. ‘A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State’ is a subordinate clause expressing cause. In other words, because a well regulated Militia is necessary yada yada. The main clause says ‘the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.’ It doesn’t say the militias have the right to keep and bear. It’s the people. You can’t have the tail of a subordinate clause wagging the dog of the main clause.”
I opened my eyes. Tails wagging dogs? Admin hasn’t been himself lately. Poor guy. Maybe working too hard. I gave myelf a nice big stretch, the kind where my paws quiver at the end. Ah! Does it get any better than this?
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 30th, 2010 at 9:17 am and is filed under Chet The Dog. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.