(But I won't do that)
So what is “that”? “It’s the line before every chorus,” explained Loaf. “There’s nine of them, I think.
The problem lies because Jimmy likes to write, so you forget what the line was before you get to ‘I won’t do that.'”
(Some of the things the song says he won’t do: forget the way you feel right now; forgive himself if you don’t go all the way tonight; do it better than he does it with you, so long; and stop dreaming of you every night of his life.)
On the other hand.....................
“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 happened to the first part?!
The 2nd amendment is one of, if not the most, debated Amendments in the United States Constitution. Most noteworthy, until the late 1960s, restrictions on the 2nd Amendment were not questioned. The NRA itself, in the early 20th Century, not only favored restrictions they publicly announced them. The completely changed their tune in the late 1960s.
The Amendment has actually been changed in the past 20 years. Those that fully support the Amendment have erased the first part from the collective memory.
Think about it, when you hear someone (that fully supports this right) quote the Amendment, they only include “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms…” Every so often they will throw in the last part about infringed when they are trying to make a point. They rarely, if ever, mention the very first part that includes the very important phrase “A well regulated Militia.” They do this for a very good reason. It completely destroys their argument that every man and woman in the United States has a right to own a gun.
The simple reason for this is because the 2nd Amendment does not actually give citizens a right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment guarantees a citizen the right to bear arms if they serve in a militia. It is right there in the Amendment.
Take a look at the Bill of Rights for a moment. One theme that should pop out to you is that the language in the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Amendments is not vague. To put it another way the wording is not confusing. Every part of the Amendments is laid out in such a way that is easy to understand. Except, somehow, the 2nd Amendment.
This is the main reason why I do not believe that the Amendment is left vague or confusing. It is really simple and straightforward.
Let me re-arrange the wording to help out:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms for a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.
Does it make more sense now? Despite the NRA’s attempts, the two sections of the Amendment are not meant to be separated, 'cause linguistics. If the Founder’s had wanted the two sections to work independently of each other they would have included a very important word. And. Take a look.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, AND, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
= new reply since forum marked as read