comma usage in 2A... I'm confused

[BigG]

The words "well regulated" seem to get caught in some craws once in a while.

Today you would say "properly functioning." There is no great mystery to this language and any confusion in interpretation is absolute obfuscation on the part of those who want to neutralize the 2nd amendment.

To ensure a free state remains, a properly functioning citizens' reserve army must be maintained. They will keep, maintain, and carry arms as necessary at their own expense.

 

[Robert Hairless]

BigG, spot on!

I don't mean to derail or clog this discussion but it might be helpful for people to understand today that our Constitution and the first ten amendments to it were products of the Age of Reason. Reason, balance, and moderation were keys to the advanced thinking of that era.

One analogy used then was between the universe and a clock, both of which had to be "well regulated." So we must go from our understanding the rules of the known (the clock) if we want to understand the rules of the unknown (the universe).

What they knew, of course, were mechanical clocks. The most accurate of those clocks had a "regulator" mechanism to ensure their accuracy by "regulating" their speed to make them reliable timekeepers. If a clock were to run faster or slower at times it would be unreliable and useless for its purpose. They needed to be "well regulated" to function reliably for that purpose. The Constitution and especially the first ten amendments to it should be seen as the "regulator" on the federal government--or, in other words, as something like this:

It's surprising to me that some people who comment on the Second Amendment don't seem to understand that its purpose, like those of the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights was to ensure that the powers of the federal government were restricted in the areas that national governments traditionally abused. The controlling idea behind the Bill of Rights was to increase public confidence in the federal government by guaranteeing that it could not do such things as disarm the people in order to concentrate power into its own hands instead of in the people's hands or that of their surrogate, their States.

The people who wrote and passed the Second Amendment had intimate experience with federal governments that held power over the people. They had just fought a revolutionary war against such power. No one wanted to risk creating another such government. They recognized that the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which already existed, had the benefit of allowing the states to raise a "well regulated militia" against a federal government gone out of control.

People in that day and for long thereafter knew the language and the concepts. Neither needed any explanation. As BigG has just said, "There is no great mystery to this language and any confusion in interpretation is absolute obfuscation on the part of those who want to neutralize the 2nd amendment."

You know everything that the anti gun people want and everything they want to do? That's what the Second Amendment was designed to prevent.

Thanks, BigG. If what I've said confuses anyone, ignore what I said and stick with what he said.

 

[BigG]

Robert Hairless: You are exactly right.

I was just pointing out that the reason there is difference of opinions on the meaning of these amendments is because it is profitable to some interests.

The assertion by some on these boards that the drafters were uneducated or didn't know what they were writing is untenable. All I am saying is "if you honestly do not understand the meaning of 2 Amendment, you need to get remedial reading comprehension help up to the adult level." It is not mystical hocus pocus language but straight English, no higher than 8th grade.

The little joke I recall gives a good insight: The poorest guy in town is a lawyer in a town with only one. Once another lawyer moves to town they make each other rich by taking opposite views on every issue and filing lawsuits.

 

[shield20]

The copy in the National archives has three commas, versions that were sent around to the states for ratifcation had only 1.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss12.html
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsj&fileName=001/llsj001.db&recNum=93 (1st congress 1st session)

"Art. IV. 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."

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag...field(NUMBER+@band(rbpe+00000600))&linkText=0
Actual images of the documents show both instances.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag...field(NUMBER+@band(rbpe+21200200))&linkText=0

It makes no diffference in the meaning of the amendment.


The 2nd amendment was added because the Constitution gave the new congress several powers over the existing state militias - including the power to provide for arming them. While Article 1/8/16 was meant to help ensure a uniform (and more effective) militia, the dangers of granting this power to congress could be easily seen.

The people knew this could lead to them as easily being DISarmed, and so reiterated and further protected the personal right already guaranteed them by that article - the right to arms; Rep Thomas Scott of Pennsylvania [re: the proposed article that became the 2nd]: objected that the [religous] exemption would mean that "a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the Constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms, and in this case recourse must be had to a standing army". In The Miltia Act of 1792, congress 1st provided for the arming of the militia just as it had always been - the people would arm themselves.


The militia clause in the 2nd is very important to the right articulated, as this declares another primary reason why THE Militia of the several states is/are mandatory & necessary (besides for the reasons already listed in the original Constitution - "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions"), and so protects the people's right to "every terrible implement of war" - to military arms in common use (including M16s, BARs, etc.).

"Well-regulated" was certainly understood at this time, as the term was used even before the bill of rights by super-federalist Hamilton "to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia".

 

[shield20]

p.s. anyone who questions the meaning of the 2nd amendment based on commas spends too much time studying English, and not enough time studying History. Just the info that is out there concerning the BOR debates in the 1st congress shows exactly what its intent was (i.e. just what it says), and why.

 

[TCB in TN]

And you'd be wrong. The Founders knew the difference between a well-regulated militia and merely a well-armed citizenry.

I agree, well-armed citizens are prepared to defend themselves against intruders, a well-regulated militia is prepared to step in and defend themselves and the rest of the citizenry from a tyranical governement or any other force who were to threaten the freedom of our nation.

 

[saltpepperPA]

The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate, reads:
“ A well regulated Militia under Cory James Bennett being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. ”

The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:
“ A well regulated militia lead by Cory James Bennett, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ”

Both versions are commonly used in official US Government publications.

from wikipedia

 

[Aguila Blanca]

I only see two extra 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.

With the commas removed, and the language updated to reflect how we speak today:

Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Suspended rodent is correct. I'm old enough to have lived through two different grammatical rules regarding commas: When I was a young lad, the rule was "When in doubt, put it in." The current rule in American English is, "When in doubt, leave it out."

I see the difference regularly as a result of working (electronically) with a couple of foreigners who learned English from speakers of "English," as opposed to "American." I find that their tendency is to fill up each sentence with so many commas that the reader doesn't have any clue what refers to what, or which clause belongs with which.

Getting back to the immediate topic, there have been several grammatical analyses of the 2nd Amendment that conclude the extraneous commas don't affect the correct reading of it at all. Which is consistent with the fact that the discrepancy arose immediately; the versions distributed to the states were hand-written transcriptions, yet some had commas and others didn't. This factoid alone suggests that the writers at the time didn't place a lot of importance on the commas.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

And you'd be wrong. The Founders knew the difference between a well-regulated militia and merely a well-armed citizenry.

I agree, well-armed citizens are prepared to defend themselves against intruders, a well-regulated militia is prepared to step in and defend themselves and the rest of the citizenry from a tyranical governement or any other force who were to threaten the freedom of our nation.

You're still missing the point of "well-regulated." Anyone can be well-armed. That just means spending a pile of money on lots of expensive weaponry. "Well-armed," however, does not necessarily mean "well trained." The well-regulated phrase in the clause doesn't directly refer to the purpose of having a militia (although that was understood as the purpose of maintaining a milita). "Well-regulated" meant well-trained, which goes beyond merely being well-armed to include actually knowing how to use the arms with which one is well-armed, and how to use them effectively as a militia rather than as a bunch of individual cowboys with expensive toys.

 

[BigG]

regulated is an old fashioned word that means managed or drilled (as in military drill).

You can read the old manuals that say regulation of a firearm. I.e., how to load and clean.

 

[Ieyasu]

You can read the old manuals that say regulation of a firearm. I.e., how to load and clean.

and posted previously:

To ensure a free state remains, a properly functioning citizens' reserve army must be maintained. They will keep, maintain, and carry arms as necessary at their own expense.

BigG, well-regulated modifies militia, not arms. As shield20 and Aguila Blanca have already posted, a well-regulated militia is one that is well disciplined and trained. It signifies more than merely a citizenry with loaded and clean firearms as your posts seem to imply.

 

[Beatnik]

don't mind the commas so much as the usage of the letter "f" in lieu of the letter "s"... or as they would say

It's not an f, it's an alternate form of s (no cross bar). It goes back to handwritten texts, and happened in other languages, too.
Alternate forms still happen today, as in:
a = a, and
I = I
The funny S just died out.

Nothing else constructive to add, except this: if we judge law by what it currently means to us, then when everything goes 100% Spanish here, the entire BOR gets thrown out, doesn't it?

 

[BigG]

Ieyasu I am merely demonstrating the meaning of the word "regulated" in my post about regulating a firearm, as an example from contemporary 17th Century literature. With all due respect, you seem to be one who needs remedial comprehension as you even quoted my post simplifying the 2A, which indicates I knew regulated modified militia I called it "properly functioning citizen's army."

 

[Ieyasu]

With all due respect, you seem to be one who needs remedial comprehension as you even quoted my post simplifying the 2A, which indicates I knew regulated modified militia I called it "properly functioning citizen's army."

Yes, you wrote a "simplified" version:

To ensure a free state remains, a properly functioning citizens' reserve army must be maintained. They will keep, maintain, and carry arms as necessary at their own expense.

However, that simplified version is incorrect. The 2A did not command the citzenry to 'maintain and keep arms as necessary at their own expense.' The Militia Act of 1792 required citizens to obtain arms, but an enacted law is different from a constitutional provision. It would have been just as constitutional if the federal government had providied enrolled citizens with arms.

Further a reserve army is not synonymous with a militia.

And from the above quote it wasn't quite clear to me that your definition of a properly functioning militia included the well-disciplined and trained part. If that's what you meant, great.

 

[BigG]

Sure, I did not mean to offend you, I wondered why you entered the conversation without understanding what you were talking about?