Posted on 04/05/2012 5:28:56 AM PDT by evilrooster
In Part 1, the most commonly overlooked defense of the 2nd Amendment was presented. By using the finite and immutable laws of English grammar, we demonstrated that the people do, in fact, have a right to keep and bear arms. Also, we rediscovered the lost art of diagramming sentences and mentioned the roles that gorillas and pizza may play in 2nd Amendment discussions. If you haven’t read Part 1, please do so. It can be found here: http://conservativeoutcry.net/content/2nd-amendment-dummies-part-1
After conclusively proving to your liberal friend that, grammatically, the right to keep and bear arms is not, as he claims, a right reserved by only the militia, he will give you the same vacant stare that can only be matched by the vacant stare of Kim Kardashian, deep in thought, attempting to unravel the hidden mystery behind the existence of shoe laces. Any mention of a prepositional phrase or an adverb is enough to lose the attention of all liberals and, unable to form coherent thoughts on their own, you must assist them.
In that spirit, if “A well-regulated Militia…” is grammatically irrelevant to the individual right to gun ownership found in the 2nd Amendment, doesn’t the inclusion of this phrase make the 2nd Amendment rather awkward?
Yes, it does.
Then why is it there?
The fact that one ever enters into a discussion of the 2nd Amendment by noting the inherent and fascinating qualities of nominative absolutes is proof that the 2nd Amendment was written just a wee bit on the clunky side. It was written as if two separate thoughts were simply pieced together by, not having any a duct tape at hand, a comma. To explain this Constitutional irritant, it is necessary to view the context in which the 2nd Amendment was conceived and written. It then becomes apparent that the 2nd Amendment is, in fact, two separate thoughts held together with the linguistic equivalent of duct tape.
2. A Little Context Explains Lot
In the summer of 1776, the colonies were not only in open rebellion against the British Crown, they had gone so far as to consider themselves independent. The colonies, now sovereign states, began creating their own state constitutions. In September, 1776, the newly created Constitution of Pennsylvania included the following in its Declaration of Rights:
“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
In 1777, Vermont adopted its Constitution. Chapter I, Article 15 stated:
“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”
Hmmm… sounds vaguely familiar. In an attempt to avoid any notion that they were plagiarists, the good people of Vermont apparently removed a comma from the original Pennsylvania Declaration. Other states also adopted this very same language, with or without the comma. It was, therefore, not unusual for states to assert “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state.”
This is definitely worth repeating. It was not unusual for states to assert “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state.”
Massachusetts adopted its Constitution in 1780 and took the Pennsylvania model and, in a creative breakthrough worthy of Lady Gaga wearing a meat dress to the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards, inserted the words “keep” and “and” into its Declaration. The result of this modification read:
“That the people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defense.”
Virginia did not express the right of the people to either keep or bear arms in its Constitution. That particular right, at the time, was simply assumed by Virginians to be so self-evident that including it was unnecessary. Unfortunately, we all know what happens when you assume… Instead, Virginia focused its Constitutional wordsmithery on its militia:
“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State.”
A well-regulated militia, keep and bear arms, free State… this seems to be leading somewhere…
A number of years later, after the War for Independence had concluded, the Constitution of The United States of America was written. It was exciting! It was magnificent! It was a grand and sweeping document! It was revolutionary!
It also made a lot of people very unhappy.
The very unhappy people wanted the inclusion of a Bill of Rights to further limit the powers of government. They refused to ratify the Constitution unless they were promised a Bill of Rights. A number of states wanted the right of the people to bear arms included as one of these rights. Others, notably Virginia, wanted the rights of the states to maintain their own militias affirmed in the soon-to-be amended Constitution. Others, such as North Carolina, wanted both.
This was when the framers went looking for scissors and duct tape.
The actual legislative history of the 2nd Amendment is rather lengthy and somewhat boring. It does show, however, that the framers liked the idea of cutting and pasting. The Readers Digest version of the evolution of the 2nd Amendment starts with the Virginians actually taking a stab at it during their ratifying convention. They started with the Pennsylvania model, added the Massachusetts changes, and, of course, included the Virginia model. The Virginia ratifying convention gave us:
“That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper natural and safe defense of a free state.”
James Madison’s original version of this suggested Amendment, brought to the floor of the House on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress was:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
Clearly then, there are three separate ideas being expressed by Madison. The first is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The second is that a well-regulated militia is needed. The third idea was left on the cutting room floor.
The first Congress cut and pasted together many versions of the Amendment. Once they cut everything Madison wrote about the “religiously scrupulous” we have:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country.”
Change the order in which the ideas are presented:
“A well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Finally, the Senate changed the wording, but not the intent, of the first part and left us with the 2nd Amendment:
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
As noted previously, the first part of the sentence, grammatically, has no impact on the second part of the sentence. That is because the first part of the sentence has nothing to do with the second part, conceptually. Two separate ideas, one originating in Pennsylvania and the other originating in Virginia, have been chopped up and the two remaining pieces have been connected by a comma. Yes, it is a bit cumbersome but the intent of each idea contained within the 2nd Amendment is clear when one puts it all into context.
First, a militia, composed of the body of the people, is necessary to the security of a state.
Second, the people have the right to keep and bear arms for self defense and for the defense of the state.
There was nothing new in either of these assertions. Each had existed for years in the several states’ Declarations of Rights and in state constitutions. These existing rights were recognized, albeit in a somewhat abbreviated format, to give us the 2nd Amendment.
This is the point in the conversation where a gun-grabbing leftist begins to twitch uncontrollably before loudly asserting that all of this is wrong and again claims “the people” in the 2nd Amendment clearly refers to a “well-regulated militia” in the Constitution and that nothing, especially this sorcerer’s black magic trick of rational thought, disproves this.
Next, this leftist talking point staple will be shown to be far from logical. Stay tuned.
Why would the founders have made the second any different?
That statement represents a huge flaw in your understanding of America's constitution.
The Bill of Rights DID NOT grant rights to individuals. The Bill of Rights protects the individual's inherent rights from interference by the government. e.g. Congress shall make no laws.
My point was that the Second Amendment isn't about militias.
But go ahead and anally nit-pick. It suits you.
Your post caught my attention because it involved the 2nd Amendment. I found it interesting and compelling. Compelling enough to cause me to read part one.
In part one you discussed the grammar of the 2nd Amendment yet you labeled my calling attention to your grave error in understanding the Constitution as anal nit picking. I strongly recommend you take up the practice of nit picking when discussing Americas history.
Any discussion regarding America's Constitution should include a great deal of nit picking, anally or otherwise.
The reason it is important to me and I think it should be important to you is because there is a socialist agenda afoot in America.
Americas Constitution presents several obstacles to the advancement of socialism. The major obstacle to overcome is the belief in Americas founding documents. Our founding documents declare we have unalienable rights from our creator, not government. The socialist agenda would rather you believed that our rights were granted by the government. If you can be influenced to believe that your rights were granted by government it will that much easier to take them away from you.
The second major obstacle is that America is not a Democracy. Socialism cannot achieve a foothold in a country ruled by laws and not by the majority.
I am quick to correct anyone anywhere and at any time that asserts America is a Democracy. There was a time when I was much younger when we could refer to American Democracy with the full understanding that the Constitution guaranteed all states Republican form of Government. Allowing this inaccuracy to prevail while the progressives push their socialist agenda on America is a mistake.
Did you know the neither the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution contain the word democracy? In addition, none of the fifty states Constitution contains the word Democracy.
I ask that you join me in nit picking every aspect of Americas history, Americas founders, and Americas founding documents.
Whatever.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.