Let’s take a look at the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution:
“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.”
Conveniently, those folks who are opposed to any kind of reasonable measures to ensure guns don’t end up in the wrong hands forget the first four words of the Second Amendment.
Bullseye.
A key word to me is the word “keep”. You cannot keep what you are not intitled to have. It does not say have the right to purchase. If you are deemed eligible and allowed to obtain a gun than you can keep and bear the gun.
But the other side hangs their hat on the “shall not be infringed” part. And the courts have tended to fall on that side, too. And what most people tend to not realize is that it’s the accumulation of case law over the years rather than the literal text that guides court decisions today. Even Justice Scalia has said that none of the Amendments in the Bill of Rights are absolute and impenetrable.
“Even Justice Scalia…”
The same Scalia who talked about “cafeteria Catholics.”
The same Scalia who talked about the importance of “original intent?”
The same Scalia who talked about the importance of “strict construction,” about “not legislating from the bench?”
That was all you heard up until 9/11. Then the “Bill of Rights,” went out the window.
The single greatest “infringement” on the Second is the gun/ammo dealers’ greed. So they can sell more, they want to allowing firearms in the hands of the mentally ill and others who can not use them responsibility.
Defend the Second, not the NRA.
Hey, I didn’t say he wasn’t a funny guy.
The writers were classicly trained in Latin, the second ammendment uses a common latin structure, the ablative absolute – where two seemingly unrelated statements are combine to create a single thought.
ABLATIVE ABSOLUTE
One of the most common uses of present and perfect participles in Latin is a
construction called the Ablative Absolute.
The ablatives of a participle and a noun (or pronoun) are used to form a
substitute for a subordinate clause defining the circumstances orsituation in which
the action of the main verb occurs. The ablatives are only loosely connected
grammatically to the remainder of the sentence, hence its name absolute
(absolütus = free or unconnected).
An Ablative Absolute with a perfect passive participle was widely used in
classical Latin to express the cause ortime of an action:
Hïs verbïs dictïs, Caesar descëdit. With these word having been said, Caesar departs.
Acceptïs litterïs, Caesar descëdit. With theletter having been received,Caesar departs.
Leöne vïsö, fëminae discessërunt. With thelion having been seen, the women departed.
Equally common was an Ablative Absolute with a present active participle:
Leöne adveniente,fëmina discëssit. With thelion approaching,the woman left.
On occasion, another noun may take the place of the participle in the Ablative
Absolute construction:
Caesare duce vincëmus. With Caesar asleader, we shall conquer.
Note: The noun (or pronoun) expressed in the Ablative Absolute is never the subject of
the sentence. If we wish to say “When she was departing, the woman saw the lion”, we
cannot use the Ablative Absolute, because the subject of each clause (“she” and
“woman”) is the same. Instead, a simple participle must be used: Fëmina discëdëns
leönem vïdit.
Because the participle in an Ablative Absolute retains its verbal force, it may
govern its own direct object:
Duce militës vocante, hostes fügërunt. With the general calling hissoldiers,theenemy fled.
Mike,
The proper reading of the amendment is:: “A well regulated militia shall not be infringed.”
The noun and modifying participle in the ablative case are not disconnected as Scalia would have it. They are “loosened from” and “independently bracketed.” But they are not separate. The ablative absolute is always self-contained, and its components are always contingent one upon the other.
Madison’s original text reads:
“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.”
The modified House version:
“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to bear arms.”
The modified Senate version agreed to by the House:
“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.”
Note: The Senate’s revision contains three commas, thus three subordinate clauses and one independent clause. The operative clause is a “well-regulated militia.”
The much discussed “missing comma” is irrelevant. None of the states adopted a singularly grammatically correct version of the Amendment. Some adopted texts with a single comma, some with four, some changed the orthography. Scalia’s interpretation of irrelevance, however, is incorrect on every count. “Militia” cannot be severed from “the right of the people.”
It is all so obvious and easy to understand with or without my Marquette and seminary Latin; having no standing army, the second amendment WAS a call to arms to repel an invading foreign threat. But fast forwarding two hundred plus years, the need for a second amendment has been replaced by an active military, a national guard, and the reserves.
For the NRA and their employer, the gun makers, the second amendment is used to support a false argument of fear which results in satisfying the greed of a private industry and its lobbyist.
It is an epic fraud upon the public enabled by the cowardice of our elected representatives.
I agree PJ – you said it much better than I could.
More points to consider: the “right to keep and bear arms” is not a natural right, but rather among the rights of social compact. It was never categorized with the “great rights,” as Madison put it, such as liberty of conscience, freedom of the press, and trial by jury. Nor was it considered a structural necessity for upholding a republican democracy, but rather as an appeasement to minority intransigence which threatened to prevent the new government from moving forward.
Five state ratifying conventions put forth formal amendment proposals pertaining to what would become the Second Amendment. Only one even vaguely hinted at bearing arms in a context other than military, and that point was never entertained by Congress. Never once was the idea of protecting the ownership of firearms for purposes unrelated to the militia ever considered by Congress. Not once.
The five proposals, to wit:
New York:
“That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state.”
North Carolina:
“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.”
Rhode Island:
“That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except in time of war, rebellion, or insurrection; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in cases of necessity; and that, at all times, the military should be under strict subordination to the civil power; that, in time of peace, no soldier ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war only by the civil magistrates, in such manner as the law directs.
Virginia:
“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 defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit.”
New Hampshire: “That no standing army shall be kept up in time of peace, unless with the consent of three fourths of the members of each branch of Congress; nor shall soldiers, in time of peace, be quartered upon private houses, without the consent of the owners.”
State proposals aside, there were pre-existing state constitutions to consult and model. For instance, Pennsylvania’s 1776 declaration:
“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.”
Defense outside a military context, and hunting for sport or sustenance were all options that could have been debated, seriously considered and included in the Second Amendment. They weren’t. The reason they weren’t is because the “right to keep and bear arms” was only ever a right within the contexts of military and militia. The Second Amendment protects no other purpose for gun ownership.