Thanks much! Have a good one! On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 8:54:02 AM UTC-5, MJ wrote: > > At 08:44 AM 7/21/2017, you wrote: > > We obviously have very different interpretations of how and why the Second > Amendment was written the way it was. I'll leave it at that. > > > ROTFLMAO! > > February 01, 1998 > > *Reading the Second Amendment *Sheldon Richman > > "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.” -- > Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution > > Is this sentence so hard to understand? Apparently so. Even some of its > defenders don’t like how it is worded because it allegedly breeds > misunderstanding. > > But the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is indeed a well-crafted > sentence. By that I mean that its syntax permits only one reasonable > interpretation of the authors’ meaning, namely, that the people’s > individual right to be armed ought to be respected and that the resulting > armed populace will be secure against tyranny, invasion, and crime. Someone > completely ignorant of the eighteenth-century American political debates > but familiar with the English language should be able to make out the > meaning easily. > > My concern is not to demonstrate that what the amendment says is good > policy, only that it says what it says. No other fair reading is possible. > > > *The Competing Interpretation *Before proceeding, let’s understand the > competing interpretation. As the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern > California put it, “The original intent of the Second Amendment was to > protect the right of states to maintain militias.” Dennis Henigan of > Handgun Control, Inc., says the amendment is “about the distribution of > military power in a society between the federal government and the states. > That’s all they [the Framers] were talking about.” As he put it elsewhere, > “The Second Amendment guaranteed the right of the people to be armed *as > part of* a ‘well regulated’ militia, ensuring that the arming of the > state militia not depend on the whim of the central government” [emphasis > added]. > > This interpretation is diametrically opposed to the view that says the > amendment affirms the right of private individuals to have firearms. The > ACLU, HCI, and others reject this, arguing that the amendment only affirms > the right of the states to maintain militias or, today, the National Guard. > These competing interpretations can’t both be right. > > The first problem with the militia interpretation is that the amendment > speaks of a right and, of course, the amendment appears in the Bill of > Rights. (Powers with respect to the militia are enumerated in Articles I > and II of the Constitution.) No other amendment of the original ten speaks > of the States having rights. Nowhere, moreover, are rights recognized for > government (which in the Framers’ view is the servant) but denied to the > people (the masters). Henigan and company are in the untenable position of > arguing that while the Framers used the term “the people” to mean > individuals in the First (the right to assemble), Fourth (the right to be > secure in persons, houses, papers, and effects), Ninth (unenumerated > rights), and Tenth (reserved powers) Amendments, they suddenly used the > same term to mean “the States” in the Second. That makes no sense. > > More important, the diction and syntax of the amendment contradict > Henigan’s argument. If the Framers meant to say that the States have a > right to organize militias or that only people who are members of the > militia have a right to guns, why would they say, “the right of the people > to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? The Framers were intelligent > men with a good grasp of the language. As we can see from the Tenth > Amendment, they were capable of saying “States” when they meant States and > “people” when they meant people. They could have said, “The right of the > States to organize and arm militias shall not be infringed,” though that > would have contradicted Article I, Section 8, which delegated that power to > the Congress. (Roger Sherman proposed such language, but it was rejected.) > Or, they could have written, “The right of members of the state militia to > keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” though that would have > contradicted Article I, Section 9, which forbids the States to “keep Troops > . . . in time of Peace.” They didn’t write it that way. They wrote “the > people,” without qualification. (The Supreme Court said in the 1990 case > *U.S. > v. Verdugo-Urquidez* that “the people” has the same > meaningindividualsthroughout the Bill of Rights.) > > But, say the gun controllers, what of that opening phrase, “A well > regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”? Here’s > where we have to do some syntactical analysis. James Madison’s original > draft reversed the order of the amendment: “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.” Perhaps this version > makes Madison’s thought more clear. His sentence implies that the way to > achieve the well-armed and well-regulated militia that is necessary to the > security of a free state is to recognize the right of people to own guns. > In other words, without the individual freedom to own and carry arms, there > can be no militia. As to the term “well regulated,” it does not refer to > government regulation. This can be seen in Federalist 29, where Alexander > Hamilton wrote that a militia acquired “the degree of perfection which > would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia” by going > “through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary.” > > > *What the Syntax Tells Us *How do we know that the “well regulated > militia” is defined in terms of an armed populace and not vice versa? The > syntax of the sentence tells us. Madison and his colleagues in the House of > Representatives chose to put the militia reference into a dependent phrase. > They picked the weakest possible construction by using the participle > “being” instead of writing, say, “Since a well regulated militia is > necessary. . . .” Their syntax keeps the militia idea from stealing the > thunder of what is to come later in the sentence. Moreover, the weak form > indicates that the need for a militia was offered not as a reason (or > condition) for prohibiting infringement of the stated right but rather as > the reason for enumerating the right in the Bill of Rights. (It could have > been left implicit in the Ninth Amendment, which affirms unenumerated > rights.) > > All of this indicates the highly dependent and secondary status of the > phrase. Dependent on what? The main, independent clause, which emphatically > and unequivocally declares that the people’s right to have guns “shall not > be infringed.” (Note: the amendment *presupposes* the right; it doesn’t > grant it.) > > Let’s go at this from another direction. Imagine that a Borkian inkblot > covers the words “well regulated militia.” All we have is: “A [inkblot] > being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to > keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” To make an intelligent guess > about the obscured words, we would have to reason from the independent > clause back to the dependent phrase. We would know intuitively that the > missing words must be consistent with the people having the right to keep > and bear arms. In fact, anything else would be patently ridiculous. Try > this: “A well-regulated professional standing army (or National Guard) > being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to > keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That sentence would bewilder > any honest reader. He’d ask why such unlike elements were combined in one > sentence. It makes no sense. It’s a non sequitur. > > Imagine the deliberations of the Committee of Eleven, the group of House > members to which Madison’s proposed bill of rights was referred. Assume > that one member says, “We should have an amendment addressing the fact that > the way to achieve the well-regulated militia that is necessary to the > security of a free state is for the national government to respect the > right of the States to organize and arm militias.” “No,” replies another > member. “The amendment should reflect the fact that the way to achieve the > well-regulated militia that is necessary to the security of a free state is > for the government to respect the people’s right to bear arms.” If both > members were told to turn their declarative sentences into the imperative > form appropriate to a bill of rights, which one would have come up with the > language that became the Second Amendment? The question answers itself. > > The Committee of Eleven reversed the elements of Madison’s amendment. But > that, of course, did not change the meaning, only the emphasis. In fact, > the reversal made it a better sentence for the Bill of Rights. As adopted, > the amendment begins by quickly putting on the record the most important > reason for its inclusion in the Bill of Rights but without dwelling on the > matter; that’s what the weak participle, “being,” accomplishes. The > sentence then moves on to the main event: “the right of the people to keep > and bear arms.” The Framers correctly intuited that in a Bill of Rights, > the last thing the reader should have ringing in his mind’s ear is the > absolute prohibition on infringement of the natural right to own guns. > > I am not suggesting that the Framers said explicitly that the militia > reference should go into a dependent participial phrase so that future > readers would know that it takes its meaning from the independent clause. > They didn’t need to do that. To be fluent in English means that one intuits > the correct syntax for the occasion and purpose at hand. Much knowledge of > a language is tacit. We have to assume that the Framers knew what they were > saying. > > > *What Language Experts Say *This analysis is seconded by two professional > grammarians and usage experts. In 1991, author J. Neil Schulman submitted > the text of the Second Amendment to A. C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of > the Office of Instruction of the Los Angeles Unified School District and a > former senior editor for Houghton Mifflin, and Roy Copperud, now deceased, > the author of several well-regarded usage books and a member of the *American > Heritage Dictionary* usage panel. Brocki and Copperud told Schulman that > the right recognized in the amendment is unconditional and unrestricted as > to who possesses it. > > Asked if the amendment could be interpreted to mean that only the militia > had the right, Brocki replied, “No, I can’t see that.” According to > Copperud, “The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, > nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others > than the people.” As to the relation of the militia to the people, Schulman > paraphrased Brocki as saying, “The sentence means that the people *are* > the militia, and that the people have the right which is mentioned.” On > this point, Copperud, who was sympathetic to gun control, nevertheless > said, “The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for > maintaining the militia.” > > It is also important to realize that, as a matter of logic, the opening > phrase does not limit the main clause. As the legal scholar and philosopher > Stephen Halbrook has argued, although part one of the amendment implies > part two, it does not follow that if part one doesn’t obtain, part two is > null and void. The sentence “The earth being flat, the right of the people > to avoid ocean travel shall not be infringed” does not imply that if the > earth is round, people may be compelled to sail. The Framers would not have > implied that a right can properly be infringed; to call something a right > is to say that no infringement is proper. As another philosopher and legal > scholar, Roger Pilon, has written, the amendment implies that the need for > a militia is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for forbidding > infringement of the right to have firearms. The sentence also tells us that > an armed populace is a necessary condition for a well-regulated militia. > > > *Superfluous Commas *A word about punctuation: most reproductions of the > Second Amendment contain a plethora of commas: “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 according to the American > Law Division of the Library of Congress, this is not how the amendment was > punctuated in the version adopted by Congress in 1789 and ratified by the > States. That version contained only one comma, after the word *state*which, > by the way, was not uppercased in the original, indicating a generic > political entity as opposed to the particular States of the Union. If the > superfluous commas have confused people about the amendment’s meaning, that > cause of confusion is now removed. > > One need not resort to historical materials to interpret the Second > Amendment, because it is all there in the text. Nevertheless, it is > appropriate to point out that history supports, and in no way contradicts, > that reading. Gun ownership was ubiquitous in eighteenth-century America, > and the Founding Fathers repeatedly acknowledged the importance of an armed > citizenry. They also stated over and over that the militia is, as George > Mason, the acknowledged father of the Bill of Rights, put it, “the whole > people.” Madison himself, in Federalist 46, sought to assuage the fears of > the American people during the ratification debate by noting that an > abusive standing army “would be opposed [by] a militia amounting to near > half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.” That would have > comprised the entire free adult male population at the time. There’s no > question that at the center of the American people’s tacit ideology was the > principle that, ultimately, they could not delegate the right of > self-defense to anyone else and thus they were responsible for their own > safety. > > Perhaps the deterioration of American education is illustrated by the high > correlation between the number of years a person has attended school and > his inability to understand the words “the right of the people to keep and > bear arms shall not be infringed.” It is more likely, though, that those > who interpret the Second Amendment to preclude an individual right to own > guns are driven by their political agenda. Whichever the case, they do > themselves no credit when they tell us that a simple, elegant sentence > means the opposite of what it clearly says. > > > https://fee.org/articles/reading-the-second-amendment/ >
On Friday, July 21, 2017 at 8:54:02 AM UTC-5, MJ wrote: > > At 08:44 AM 7/21/2017, you wrote: > > We obviously have very different interpretations of how and why the Second > Amendment was written the way it was. I'll leave it at that. > > > ROTFLMAO! > > February 01, 1998 > > *Reading the Second Amendment *Sheldon Richman > > "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.” -- > Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution > > Is this sentence so hard to understand? Apparently so. Even some of its > defenders don’t like how it is worded because it allegedly breeds > misunderstanding. > > But the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights is indeed a well-crafted > sentence. By that I mean that its syntax permits only one reasonable > interpretation of the authors’ meaning, namely, that the people’s > individual right to be armed ought to be respected and that the resulting > armed populace will be secure against tyranny, invasion, and crime. Someone > completely ignorant of the eighteenth-century American political debates > but familiar with the English language should be able to make out the > meaning easily. > > My concern is not to demonstrate that what the amendment says is good > policy, only that it says what it says. No other fair reading is possible. > > > *The Competing Interpretation *Before proceeding, let’s understand the > competing interpretation. As the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern > California put it, “The original intent of the Second Amendment was to > protect the right of states to maintain militias.” Dennis Henigan of > Handgun Control, Inc., says the amendment is “about the distribution of > military power in a society between the federal government and the states. > That’s all they [the Framers] were talking about.” As he put it elsewhere, > “The Second Amendment guaranteed the right of the people to be armed *as > part of* a ‘well regulated’ militia, ensuring that the arming of the > state militia not depend on the whim of the central government” [emphasis > added]. > > This interpretation is diametrically opposed to the view that says the > amendment affirms the right of private individuals to have firearms. The > ACLU, HCI, and others reject this, arguing that the amendment only affirms > the right of the states to maintain militias or, today, the National Guard. > These competing interpretations can’t both be right. > > The first problem with the militia interpretation is that the amendment > speaks of a right and, of course, the amendment appears in the Bill of > Rights. (Powers with respect to the militia are enumerated in Articles I > and II of the Constitution.) No other amendment of the original ten speaks > of the States having rights. Nowhere, moreover, are rights recognized for > government (which in the Framers’ view is the servant) but denied to the > people (the masters). Henigan and company are in the untenable position of > arguing that while the Framers used the term “the people” to mean > individuals in the First (the right to assemble), Fourth (the right to be > secure in persons, houses, papers, and effects), Ninth (unenumerated > rights), and Tenth (reserved powers) Amendments, they suddenly used the > same term to mean “the States” in the Second. That makes no sense. > > More important, the diction and syntax of the amendment contradict > Henigan’s argument. If the Framers meant to say that the States have a > right to organize militias or that only people who are members of the > militia have a right to guns, why would they say, “the right of the people > to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”? The Framers were intelligent > men with a good grasp of the language. As we can see from the Tenth > Amendment, they were capable of saying “States” when they meant States and > “people” when they meant people. They could have said, “The right of the > States to organize and arm militias shall not be infringed,” though that > would have contradicted Article I, Section 8, which delegated that power to > the Congress. (Roger Sherman proposed such language, but it was rejected.) > Or, they could have written, “The right of members of the state militia to > keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” though that would have > contradicted Article I, Section 9, which forbids the States to “keep Troops > . . . in time of Peace.” They didn’t write it that way. They wrote “the > people,” without qualification. (The Supreme Court said in the 1990 case > *U.S. > v. Verdugo-Urquidez* that “the people” has the same > meaningindividualsthroughout the Bill of Rights.) > > But, say the gun controllers, what of that opening phrase, “A well > regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state”? Here’s > where we have to do some syntactical analysis. James Madison’s original > draft reversed the order of the amendment: “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.” Perhaps this version > makes Madison’s thought more clear. His sentence implies that the way to > achieve the well-armed and well-regulated militia that is necessary to the > security of a free state is to recognize the right of people to own guns. > In other words, without the individual freedom to own and carry arms, there > can be no militia. As to the term “well regulated,” it does not refer to > government regulation. This can be seen in Federalist 29, where Alexander > Hamilton wrote that a militia acquired “the degree of perfection which > would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia” by going > “through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary.” > > > *What the Syntax Tells Us *How do we know that the “well regulated > militia” is defined in terms of an armed populace and not vice versa? The > syntax of the sentence tells us. Madison and his colleagues in the House of > Representatives chose to put the militia reference into a dependent phrase. > They picked the weakest possible construction by using the participle > “being” instead of writing, say, “Since a well regulated militia is > necessary. . . .” Their syntax keeps the militia idea from stealing the > thunder of what is to come later in the sentence. Moreover, the weak form > indicates that the need for a militia was offered not as a reason (or > condition) for prohibiting infringement of the stated right but rather as > the reason for enumerating the right in the Bill of Rights. (It could have > been left implicit in the Ninth Amendment, which affirms unenumerated > rights.) > > All of this indicates the highly dependent and secondary status of the > phrase. Dependent on what? The main, independent clause, which emphatically > and unequivocally declares that the people’s right to have guns “shall not > be infringed.” (Note: the amendment *presupposes* the right; it doesn’t > grant it.) > > Let’s go at this from another direction. Imagine that a Borkian inkblot > covers the words “well regulated militia.” All we have is: “A [inkblot] > being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to > keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” To make an intelligent guess > about the obscured words, we would have to reason from the independent > clause back to the dependent phrase. We would know intuitively that the > missing words must be consistent with the people having the right to keep > and bear arms. In fact, anything else would be patently ridiculous. Try > this: “A well-regulated professional standing army (or National Guard) > being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to > keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That sentence would bewilder > any honest reader. He’d ask why such unlike elements were combined in one > sentence. It makes no sense. It’s a non sequitur. > > Imagine the deliberations of the Committee of Eleven, the group of House > members to which Madison’s proposed bill of rights was referred. Assume > that one member says, “We should have an amendment addressing the fact that > the way to achieve the well-regulated militia that is necessary to the > security of a free state is for the national government to respect the > right of the States to organize and arm militias.” “No,” replies another > member. “The amendment should reflect the fact that the way to achieve the > well-regulated militia that is necessary to the security of a free state is > for the government to respect the people’s right to bear arms.” If both > members were told to turn their declarative sentences into the imperative > form appropriate to a bill of rights, which one would have come up with the > language that became the Second Amendment? The question answers itself. > > The Committee of Eleven reversed the elements of Madison’s amendment. But > that, of course, did not change the meaning, only the emphasis. In fact, > the reversal made it a better sentence for the Bill of Rights. As adopted, > the amendment begins by quickly putting on the record the most important > reason for its inclusion in the Bill of Rights but without dwelling on the > matter; that’s what the weak participle, “being,” accomplishes. The > sentence then moves on to the main event: “the right of the people to keep > and bear arms.” The Framers correctly intuited that in a Bill of Rights, > the last thing the reader should have ringing in his mind’s ear is the > absolute prohibition on infringement of the natural right to own guns. > > I am not suggesting that the Framers said explicitly that the militia > reference should go into a dependent participial phrase so that future > readers would know that it takes its meaning from the independent clause. > They didn’t need to do that. To be fluent in English means that one intuits > the correct syntax for the occasion and purpose at hand. Much knowledge of > a language is tacit. We have to assume that the Framers knew what they were > saying. > > > *What Language Experts Say *This analysis is seconded by two professional > grammarians and usage experts. In 1991, author J. Neil Schulman submitted > the text of the Second Amendment to A. C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of > the Office of Instruction of the Los Angeles Unified School District and a > former senior editor for Houghton Mifflin, and Roy Copperud, now deceased, > the author of several well-regarded usage books and a member of the *American > Heritage Dictionary* usage panel. Brocki and Copperud told Schulman that > the right recognized in the amendment is unconditional and unrestricted as > to who possesses it. > > Asked if the amendment could be interpreted to mean that only the militia > had the right, Brocki replied, “No, I can’t see that.” According to > Copperud, “The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, > nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others > than the people.” As to the relation of the militia to the people, Schulman > paraphrased Brocki as saying, “The sentence means that the people *are* > the militia, and that the people have the right which is mentioned.” On > this point, Copperud, who was sympathetic to gun control, nevertheless > said, “The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for > maintaining the militia.” > > It is also important to realize that, as a matter of logic, the opening > phrase does not limit the main clause. As the legal scholar and philosopher > Stephen Halbrook has argued, although part one of the amendment implies > part two, it does not follow that if part one doesn’t obtain, part two is > null and void. The sentence “The earth being flat, the right of the people > to avoid ocean travel shall not be infringed” does not imply that if the > earth is round, people may be compelled to sail. The Framers would not have > implied that a right can properly be infringed; to call something a right > is to say that no infringement is proper. As another philosopher and legal > scholar, Roger Pilon, has written, the amendment implies that the need for > a militia is a sufficient but not a necessary condition for forbidding > infringement of the right to have firearms. The sentence also tells us that > an armed populace is a necessary condition for a well-regulated militia. > > > *Superfluous Commas *A word about punctuation: most reproductions of the > Second Amendment contain a plethora of commas: “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 according to the American > Law Division of the Library of Congress, this is not how the amendment was > punctuated in the version adopted by Congress in 1789 and ratified by the > States. That version contained only one comma, after the word *state*which, > by the way, was not uppercased in the original, indicating a generic > political entity as opposed to the particular States of the Union. If the > superfluous commas have confused people about the amendment’s meaning, that > cause of confusion is now removed. > > One need not resort to historical materials to interpret the Second > Amendment, because it is all there in the text. Nevertheless, it is > appropriate to point out that history supports, and in no way contradicts, > that reading. Gun ownership was ubiquitous in eighteenth-century America, > and the Founding Fathers repeatedly acknowledged the importance of an armed > citizenry. They also stated over and over that the militia is, as George > Mason, the acknowledged father of the Bill of Rights, put it, “the whole > people.” Madison himself, in Federalist 46, sought to assuage the fears of > the American people during the ratification debate by noting that an > abusive standing army “would be opposed [by] a militia amounting to near > half a million of citizens with arms in their hands.” That would have > comprised the entire free adult male population at the time. There’s no > question that at the center of the American people’s tacit ideology was the > principle that, ultimately, they could not delegate the right of > self-defense to anyone else and thus they were responsible for their own > safety. > > Perhaps the deterioration of American education is illustrated by the high > correlation between the number of years a person has attended school and > his inability to understand the words “the right of the people to keep and > bear arms shall not be infringed.” It is more likely, though, that those > who interpret the Second Amendment to preclude an individual right to own > guns are driven by their political agenda. Whichever the case, they do > themselves no credit when they tell us that a simple, elegant sentence > means the opposite of what it clearly says. > > > https://fee.org/articles/reading-the-second-amendment/ > -- -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "PoliticalForum" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
