There are just too many unanswerable questions in the case of the Colorado theater shooting … one that I keep going back to is why did two of the deadliest shooting sprees in the nation’s history happen so close to each other. Unlike any other place I know of out west, the front range area of Colorado seems the spot where modern society begins to clash with the wild west of yesterday, where our cultural mythology tells us the heroes (or anti-heroes, depending on your point-of-view) would bust into the saloon and either challenge someone to a duel or simply shoot up he joint. Based on population alone, one would think more massacres would occur in urban areas simply based on sample size alone … but according to this list it seems all too many of them have happened where the old west and the new west collide.
Few of the liberties guaranteed to Americans in the Bill of Rights are absolute, and the Second Amendment certainly isn’t one of them – we no more have the right to possess rocket launchers than we do have the right to yell fire in a crowded movie theater. But is this the right time to have a national debate about gun control, as Bill Kristol suggests Democrats should do? The AP reports that both Obama and Romney “have softened their positions on gun restrictions over the years.”
Ian Donnis has a fascinating interview with Bob Walsh of NEA-RI on the Rhode Island Public Radion airwaves this morning … here’s his post from Friday, and here’s hoping he posts the audio from the interview too. Walsh says the state got bad legal advice and should have negotiated with unions about pension cuts like Mayor Angel Taveras did in Providence.
Whether or not the state or municipality have been better at funding public schools in Woonsocket, the simple fact is there isn’t enough money there to properly educate the kids. The Projo reports that teachers haven’t gotten raises in four years and we know that property taxes were raised as much as the General Assembly would allow during that time period … so, given that the objective is to educate students not assess blame, what do we do to ensure that Woonsocket students get the education they deserve?
“Take Two Tomatoes and Call Me in the Morning” – ecoRI reports Woonsocket and West Warwick farmers’ markets that are giving prescriptions for fresh vegetables.
Interesting, from Barrington Patch: “Michael Messore, Barrington’s new superintendent, is married to the head of the foreign language department at the high school. So, Messore would be directly involved in negotiating a new contract with the teachers’ union that would have an impact on his wife’s compensation.”
It seems to me he should recuse himself from these negotiations. Thoughts commenters?
Anthony DeRose, chairman of the Democratic LGBTQ Caucus, is profiled in GoLocal today … here’s hoping he’s successful in his goals for this election season.
The difference between the state pension negotiations are twofold (i) unlike Providence, the state cannot threaten to file for bankruptcy; and (ii) the unions do not think there is a pension crisis. It is anot a coincidence that Providence struck a deal soon after it announced that is was planning file for chapter 9. Without those two motivations, the state unions have no pressure to reach a deal with the state, especialy if the state cannot alter benefits by statute.
“It seems to me he should recuse himself from these negotiations. Thoughts commenters?”
This is just wrong on so many levels. The worse part being that no one in Barrington saw this as a problem.
i even think that a public representative at the local or state level should;t be negotiating anything with a union. They are elected by the public/people to represent the people and not the unions, why are they more often than not representing the people and pushing for the union (specially in RI)
“Few of the liberties guaranteed to Americans in the Bill of Rights are absolute, and the Second Amendment certainly isn’t one of them …”
You say that, but the Constitution doesn’t actually read that. I certainly don’t read any qualifications in those sentences. Perhaps you could point them out for us?
“ I certainly don’t read any qualifications in those sentences. ”
”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.”
That was easy.
Here’s the sentence with no qualifiers: “The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
See the difference? One sentence has a qualifying clause; the other does not. Unfortunately for you, the sentence with the qualifier is the one the states ratified.
And unfortunately for you, the Supreme Court ruled that it is a prefatory clause, not a qualifying clause. Therefore, it has no legally restrictive effect on the right to bear arms.
The distinction between prefatory and operative clause made by Scalia is pure legalese. The Supreme Court does not rule on grammar.
The first clause is a qualifier of the second–literally, by definition, as a matter of language. To say that it is not is to practice sophistry.
The distinction was made by Scalia and four other members of the Supreme Court, giving a majority and therefore legally binding opinion. The Supreme Court, and every other court in the United States, does regularly examine grammar as an integral part of statutory construction. The ruling in this case was that the prefatory clause does not restrict or otherwise qualify the operative clause as a matter of U.S. Constitutional law. You are, however, free to rage and insult the Court all you want, which is also legally protected according to a Supreme Court ruling.
Indeed, the Court has interpreted the qualifying clause in this way. This interpretation neither removes the qualifying clause from the Constitution, nor does it change its grammatical character.
Further, the Court’s interpretation leaves us with the following meaning of the Amendment:
“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; but the fact that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State is not the reason that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”
“You are, however, free to rage and insult the Court all you want”
Thanks!
Why is it that I can’t purchase a bazooka, land mines, or artillery? Clearly “arms” has been interpreted with qualifications. One might argue that while the framers were referring to the personal firearms used by the militias at that time, those would no longer be adequate in rebellion against a state. Militias like the Guard now have modern artillery, etc. Shouldn’t I be able to therefore keep and bear artillery? After all, landmines don’t kill people. People kill people.
You are correct - the right to bear arms has been interpreted as having reasonable restrictions on it, but the restrictions do not stem from the “militia” prefatory clause. So you don’t need to be in a militia or doing militia-like activities or using militia-like arms to enjoy the right. The right is for everyone.
Turbo,
What limit (aka qualifier) does the statement ”A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State” place on a person’s right to bear arms?
“What limit (aka qualifier) does the statement”
You mean you admit there’s a qualifying clause now?
“place on a person’s right to bear arms?”
Specifically? Beats me. Bob said the Second Amendment is not absolute. You asked for a qualifier in the Constitution, implying that the lack of any such qualifier means the Second Amendment is absolute–which was really great, because the Second Amendment is the one with the most obvious qualifying clause.
Generally speaking (note how I am qualifying my statement with this prefatory clause), the Second Amendment allows for the people to bear arms in a manner that provides for the security of the State. So, the test would be: does this person’s weaponry make the State more secure?
In other words, the Amendment speaks to State, rather than individual security.
“Specifically? Beats me. [...] the Second Amendment is the one with the most obvious qualifying clause.”
I asked what limit does the 1st clause of the 2nd Amendment place on the 2nd clause. You say you don’t know, but then claim the 2nd Amendment has the most obvious qualifying clause.
My understanding was the idea of the founders was to have more of a citizen militia, like a National Guard I suppose, than a full-time military. Therefore in order to secure the State, the State couldn’t legally infringe on a person’s right to protect himself (which in turn can be used to protect the State).
“ You say you don’t know, but then claim the 2nd Amendment has the most obvious qualifying clause.”
Correct. I can’t say what specifically the clause should do, in terms of waiting periods or licenses or what have you, but the qualifying clause in the Second Amendment is obvious.
Compare the Second to the First, which has no such qualifying clause or to the Third or the Fourth, which have more complicated sentence structures.
“Therefore in order to secure the State, the State couldn’t legally infringe on a person’s right to protect himself ”
In the Second Amendment, I see nothing whatsoever about the right of an individual to protect himself.
It’s possible that an individual might use his arms to protect himself from some danger specific to him, but that is beside the point, a side-effect.
The point is that it is necessary for people to protect the State.
You have it backwards, in other words. You think protecting the State is a secondary effect of allowing individuals to protect themselves. But there’s simply nothing in the Amendment that supports this interpretation.
To put it another way, you see two threats, where the Amendment sees only one. The Amendment speaks to threats faced by the State. You’re talking about threats to the State and threats to individuals. The notion that threats to individuals weighed on the Second Amendment is something you’re just making up.
The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law…” This has since been incorporated against the states by the Supreme Court, but you just told us that you don’t care how the Supreme Court rules. So does the wording matter or not?
Regarding the Second Amendment, the militia was the people. There was no formal registration or state or colonial selection process for militia service at the time of the founding. The Second Amendment recognizes this by identifying it as a right of “the people.”
All of this is purely academic, of course, but I enjoy a good Constitutional discussion now and then.
“So does the wording matter or not?”
What are you talking about?
I said the First has no qualifying clause, and it doesn’t. The Second Amendment does.
I have the uneasy feeling that you don’t know grammar very well. You may want to try diagramming a few sentences and then revisit your post.
“All of this is purely academic, of course, but I enjoy a good Constitutional discussion now and then.”
By your definition, this is trolling.
“I have the uneasy feeling that you don’t know grammar very well. You may want to try diagramming a few sentences and then revisit your post.”
You’re hilarious, but I review briefs and correct grammar for a living. Would you like to proof my comments in this thread and have me proof yours? I’ve already identified four grammatical errors in your posts in 60 seconds of review. I regret to inform you that punctuation is not your friend.
“I review briefs and correct grammar for a living”
No, you don’t.
“I’ve already identified four grammatical errors in your posts in 60 seconds of review.”
No, you haven’t.
“Would you like to proof my comments”
“This has since been ”
“So does”
“You are correct - the”
“So you don’t ”
“And unfortunately for you, the”
And best of all:
“The Supreme Court, and every other court in the United States, does”
Conjugation is not your friend.
Plus, you have no idea how clauses work, as evidenced by your misunderstanding of my comment about the First Amendment.
Plus, you are now–beyond any shadow of a doubt–trolling, according to your own definition of the term.
Those sentences are not grammatically incorrect. You’re only revealing your own ignorance.
“So does”, “So you don’t ” “And unfortunately for you, the” - It is permissible to begin a sentence with “so” or “and,” and commas are not necessary (or desirable) for introductory words or short phrases.
“This has since been” – There is nothing grammatically wrong with this. I’m not sure what problem you have with it.
“You are correct - the” - This is a permissible use of a dash. Dashes are optional and may be used instead of commas.
“The Supreme Court, and every other court in the United States, does” – The commas in this case indicate that the clause is being used as an aside. The verb “does” is correctly singular because it refers back to the singular noun “Supreme Court.”
My job title has the word “editor” in it. I, in fact, do this for a living. You vastly overestimate your own knowledge and abilities. Please stop embarrassing yourself.
My turn:
“The distinction between prefatory and operative clause made by Scalia is pure legalese.” – The word “clause” should be plural. Or alternatively, you need to add an article to the sentence.
“…which was really great, because the Second Amendment is the one with the most obvious qualifying clause.” – Incorrect use of a comma.
“In other words, the Amendment speaks to State, rather than individual security.” – Another incorrect use of a comma.
“Compare the Second to the First, which has no such qualifying clause or to the Third or the Fourth, which have more complicated sentence structures.” – Missing comma after the word “clause.”
“It’s possible that an individual might use his arms to protect himself from some danger specific to him, but that is beside the point, a side-effect.” – Incorrect use of hyphen.
“To put it another way, you see two threats, where the Amendment sees only one.” – Another incorrect use of a comma.
Tell me again about how *I* have no idea how clauses work?
“commas are not necessary”
Yes, they are.
Especially here: “And unfortunately for you, the”
You’ve set off the phrase “unfortunately for you” with a final comma, which requires that you set it off with an initial comma. As things stand, you’ve presented “And unfortunately for you” as a single element, which it cannot be.
“This is a permissible use of a dash.”
Looks like a hyphen. And you need to close the clause with a dash.
“There is nothing grammatically wrong with this.”
Dryden would disagree.
“The commas in this case indicate that the clause is being used as an aside.”
1) “ and every other court in the United States” is not a clause. I don’t know what your problem with the word ‘clause’ is, but you really need a review.
2) There’s no such thing as an aside, technically speaking, but, if you want to remove a phrase from the grammatical structure of a sentence, you must use parentheses.
3) You didn’t use parentheses. You made a compound subject, and it requires a plural.
“My job title has the word “editor” in it.”
No, it doesn’t.
But, if it did, you should be fired.
“Yes, they are.”
No, commas are not always necessary for introductory words or short phrases. They are at the discretion of the writer in many cases. I’m reading a George R. R. Martin novel at the moment, and I could quote you half a dozen examples from nearly any page in the book. Please research this issue further. You are wrong.
“Looks like a hyphen.”
It’s a dash. Do you not know what a dash is?
“And you need to close the clause with a dash.”
At the end of the sentence? You aren’t making any sense.
”Dryden would disagree.”
If that were the case, then Dryden would be wrong. Why don’t you explain to me how it is wrong? You can’t.
“There’s no such thing as an aside, technically speaking, but, if you want to remove a phrase from the grammatical structure of a sentence, you must use parentheses.”
This is not true. Asides are a well-understood concept in grammar, and commas can be used for asides. There are too many supporting references to list, so here is the first Google result:
www.kentlaw.edu/academics/lrw/grinker/LwtaCommas.htm
” Use two commas to set off an appositive or an aside in the midst of a sentence.”
“Correct Use with an Aside: The pretrial phase of the litigation, like all pretrial work, lasted longer than the trial itself.”
You should write to the author to inform him that he is dead wrong in your view. And to the dozens of other grammar websites saying exactly the same thing. Again, please research this issue further.
” You made a compound subject, and it requires a plural.”
It’s not a compound subject. It’s a singular subject: the Supreme Court. It gets a singular verb. You are misunderstanding how asides are you used in grammar (see above link).
After you write to the above author and explain to him your unique take on grammar, you should write to the Princeton Review as well and explain to them all the ways in which their Grammar Smart Guide to Perfect Usage is wrong. The book explicitly agrees with me on nearly every one of these points.
“The word “clause” should be plural. Or alternatively, you need to add an article to the sentence.”
Seems that you’ve never heard of the zero article. I’m saying Scalia’s analysis is wrong as a general matter.
“ Incorrect use of a comma.”
??? To set off two clauses? Not even remotely.
“Missing comma after the word “clause.””
True!
“Incorrect use of hyphen.”
No, “side-effect” is perfectly correct, if old-fashioned.
“Another incorrect use of a comma.”
To separate two clauses? I think not.
“Tell me again about how *I* have no idea how clauses work?”
You don’t. You think “and every other court in the United States” is a clause.
“Seems that you’ve never heard of the zero article.”
I’m familiar with it. You just aren’t using it correctly. You are referring to two types of clauses, so the noun needs to be plural.
E.g., “Molly can’t decide between large and small dog.” – This is wrong, and calling it a “zero article” doesn’t resolve the grammatical problem.
The sentence, like so many of your sentences, (<— aside) is extremely awkward as well, but I didn’t focus on style in my review.
“??? To set off two clauses? Not even remotely.”
” To separate two clauses? I think not. ”
You think all clauses need a comma between them? To think that you accused me of not understanding how clauses work!
”You don’t. You think “and every other court in the United States” is a clause.”
I didn’t say that. I said that it’s an aside, which is it.
Excuse me, I see that you are correct that I did incorrectly refer to the aside as a type of clause in the course of my explanation about asides. My use of the term was inaccurate, but the original sentence is still grammatically correct. Commas can be used to indicate asides regardless of whether an aside is a clause or not.
“No, commas are not always necessary for introductory words or short phrases.”
They are in the places I noted above.
“At the end of the sentence? You aren’t making any sense.”
At the end of the clause: “correct - the right to bear arms has been interpreted as having reasonable restrictions on it, but”
Should be: “it–but”.
“Asides are a well-understood concept in grammar”
It’s not a technical term. But your link provides a useful definition: “An aside tells us something about the noun, but is not essential to defining the noun.”
This definition does not cover the phrase you used.
Nor does your link’s definition of ‘appositive’ cover the phrase you used: “An appositive is a word or phrase that describes a noun it follows.”
This is because the phrase you used is neither an aside, nor an appositive, but a second subject.
Nor is it a clause, as you have also tried to suggest.
“The Supreme Court, and every other court in the United States,”
Does “and every other court in the United States” tell us something about the Supreme Court?
No. It is not an aside by the definition in your link.
Does “and every other court in the United States” describe the noun it follows?
No. It is not an appositive by the definition in your link.
How does “and every other court in the United States” work in your sentence? It serves as the second in a list of courts that do a particular thing.
The meaning is: 1) The Supreme Court regularly examines grammar as an integral part of statutory construction. 2) every other court in the United States regularly examines grammar as an integral part of statutory construction.
You are using a single predicate for both subjects. There is no aside. There is no appositive. There is no other possible interpretation of your (incorrect [note the parenthesis!]) sentence.
“After you write to the above author and explain to him your unique take on grammar, you should write to the Princeton Review”
Sure. I’ll send along your sentence! And your every misuse of the word ‘clause’!
Your intransigence on this point is most excellent. I’m really enjoying watching you dig yourself into a hole on this one.
You’ve tried clause, aside, and appositive, and you have failed with each–and by the definitions you provided with the last two!
How about, instead of sending your boners to the author of the link you provided, we send them to your (imaginary) boss?!?
“You are referring to two types of clauses”
Yes. And it is perfectly acceptable to construct the comparison in that way, using an ellipsis. It’s like ‘I prefer the prefatory to the operative clause’, only with the zero article.
“You think all clauses need a comma between them?”
You think full punctuation is a solecism?
“Excuse me, I see that you are correct that I did incorrectly refer to the aside as a type of clause in the course of my explanation about asides. ”
Indeed, you did. You also provided a definition of ‘aside’ that does not cover “and every other court in the United States”.
Well, 0 for 2 ain’t bad!
We’re clearly at the rapidly diminishing returns portion of the conversation, to which every argument with you inevitably leads, so I will conclude with a few clarifications and then leave you to your (confused) thoughts:
- Dashes do not need to be used in pairs. My use of the dash was correct because I was not using it to indicate an aside. Dashes can be used instead of commas to give sentences a more natural or immediate feel.
- The definition covers my use of an aside. It lets the reader know, in an aside, that the Supreme Court is not the only court that regularly examines grammar in statutory construction. If it were a compound subject, then the punctuation would not be correct. The punctuation is consistent, however, with an aside, which does not compound the subject of the sentence.
- In multiple instances, you used a comma when a dependent clause followed an independent clause. This is not, as you claim, “full” punctuation; this is incorrect punctuation.
E.g., “We bought ice cream because it was hot outside.” – Putting a comma before “because” would be wrong because the second clause is dependent.
- Since you’re so big on requiring evidence to back up statements, why don’t you show me your proof that I don’t review and edit legal documents for a living? Anything beyond a bare assertion will be sufficient.
“Dashes do not need to be used in pairs.”
They do when you return to the sentence you interrupted.
“ It lets the reader know, in an aside, that the Supreme Court is not the only court that regularly examines grammar in statutory construction.”
No. If you had written ‘like every other court’ or ‘along with every other court’, then you would have an argument.
You wrote “and”, and that is where you screwed up. I know it. You know it.
“and every other court” cannot modify anything [my emphasis].
Here’s an example:
Your mom, and your sister, go to the bus station to make some extra money.
Your mom, and your sister, goes to the bus station to make some extra money.
The first is correct, the second is not, and there is no way you can argue otherwise, but arguing otherwise is exactly what you are doing!
“If it were a compound subject, then the punctuation would not be correct. ”
I love it when you start to admit I’m right, but still won’t go all the way out of sheer obstinacy. I love it!
Even better, there is an argument to be made that, even though the subject is compound, the punctuation remains correct. This other argument is wrong, too, but it at least recognizes, correctly, that you composed a compound subject.
Your argument that the sentence does not have a compound subject at all is staggeringly wrong. It really is remarkable!
”Putting a comma before “because” would be wrong because the second clause is dependent.”
Nope. That’s a stylistic distinction. But I am glad you finally looked up the meaning of the word ‘clause’!
“why don’t you show me your proof that I don’t review and edit legal documents for a living?”
You can make arguments from your own authority or you can post anonymously. You can’t do both.
You have this weird problem that causes you to think people know who are when you’re hiding your identity–and even causes you to think you’re some kind of contributor to the sites you post anonymously on.
The phenomenon’s sort of a variation on the animal in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy that believes if you can’t see it, it can’t see you.
Here’s the thing: when you post anonymously, nobody knows who you are. It’s kind of the point of anonymity, really.
But, hey, if you want to present proof that you actually do what you say you do, be my guest!
Given the quality of your arguments here, I think that would work out really well for you!
FYI:
owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/598/01/
“A dependent marker word is a word added to the beginning of an independent clause that makes it into a dependent clause… Some common dependent markers are: after, although, as, as if, because, before, even if, even though, if, in order to, since, though, unless, until, whatever, when, whenever, whether, and while.”
“Correct: … I like this class because it is very interesting.”
It’s not a “stylistic distinction,” unless grammatical inaccuracy is your “style.”
“It’s not a “stylistic distinction,” unless grammatical inaccuracy is your “style.””
What?
The discussion you linked to treats the comma splice, the connection of two independent clauses by a comma and nothing else. The comma splice is irrelevant.
For one thing, the comma splice is a matter of style, because it is sometimes acceptable; for another, it has nothing to do with the question of whether to set off an independent clause from a dependent one with a comma.
I know that it’s common for you to link to stuff you haven’t read ( we’ve seen you trip all over yourself in this way before), but you are really losing it here.
The link you provided says absolutely nothing about the actual topic at hand. There is nothing under the list of dependent marker words–or anywhere on the page–that refers to the question of setting off a dependent clause with a comma.
Here’s what happened:
1) You frantically googled commas and dependent clauses.
2) You skimmed over the page you linked to.
3) You spotted a sentence that did not make use of the comma in question under the ‘Correct’ rubric.
4) You assumed that the author had marked the sentence ‘correct’ for not having a comma.
You misread the article! You simply linked to an instance of someone choosing not to use the comma, not a discussion of whether the choice is grammatically necessary.
You need to calm down. Take a chill pill.
Here’s a good and long discussion of the use of a comma before ‘because’: languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=3338
Relax. Spark up a jay. Read the post. Learn something.
I’m always the first to caution that there are no hard-line rules in grammar, but you generally need some sort of justification to go against the commonly accepted guidelines. A dependent clause should not receive a comma in front of it unless there is some legitimate reason for doing so, such as indicating a pause, setting off a list, or clarifying meaning. No justifications apply in your sentences, so using a comma is unnecessary, distracting, and poor practice.
I wasn’t going to bring this up at first, because it is more of a general and stylistic comment, (<– the comma is justified before “because” in this case because it clarifies meaning) but your writing is overly long, verbose, awkward, repetitive, and poorly organized. As a real-world editor, I advise you to work on brevity and organization of your thoughts. In other words, nobody wants to read all that s**t; cut out all the arrogant fluff and get to your point.
I love how much you hate being wrong!