I have seen the origonal Bill of Rights...the 2nd Amendment has only TWO commas!

[Blain]

Just to let everyone know, I have seen with my own eyes the original Bill of Rights. I saw it in the Providence Place Mall in Rhode Island when it was on display for 2 days. Originally, all 13 states were sent their own Constitution and Bill of rights for safe keeping, and one was kept in DC for the nation (making 14 copies total). However, Rhode Island is the only state that occasionally puts theirs out for public display (this is a shame, as these documents belong to the people and deserve to be seen).

Though putting this document on display is somewhat hurtful to its longevity (every hour exposed to light destroys its life by one day, or something to that effect), the document is going to fade away eventually no matter what so might as well let the public enjoy it occasionally. Naturally, photography was not allowed.


The first thing that struck me was just how large this document was! It seemed to be roughly 3.5- 4 feet wide and around 4.5 - 5 ft long!

It was breathtaking! Laying there was the history of our very nation. Containing all those prohibitions against government that protect the rights we hold so dear.

However, I noticed something quite shocking. The amendment II was written a bit differently than what the typed out BoR document, which was being handed out, had listed.

I carefully read my most treasured amendment in all its original glory.

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.

The original bill of rights only had TWO commas in its second amendment where as the handout contained three!

What a shocking discrepancy!

I brought this up to the attention of the government official who was overseeing the document along with an armed security guard (glad to see that they think so much of our precious document to protect it with only one guard in a place that traffics several thousand people hourly).

The official was shocked at what I told him about the 2nd amendment; he himself had to take a closer look to observe the obscurity for himself.

It was a bit amusing as he said to me,

"Well, you are talking about a discrepancy regarding the most controversial amendment; I'll have to check this out. This is quite important"


Dumbfounded as well, he didn't really know why it was different than the printed out copy, though he tried to defend the altercation. He told me that he believes in the right of the individual to keep and bear arms and that he thought the third comma gave the right even more of an emphasis.

"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."

The official also then claimed that there was new research which showed not many people in America had owned guns as once thought, because, they were so very expensive at the time. I told him that that book was found to be un-factual and that I would send him some information proving so. To which he responded again,

"But really, how would people have had so many guns? They were so expensive that they had to include ownership of them in their will."

It wasn't too long after that statement that the other person who had been looking at the bill of rights (the father of a family of 3) chimed in and chastised the official. Telling him basically that he wasn't fooling anyone, and that he knew the official was anti gun.

"I know what you think" he grumbled. To which the official replied that he had never voted against anyone’s right to K&BA and that the problem with Rhode Islanders was that they were too quick to judge other people.

Anyway, I had a chat with the father for a bit about the 2nd amendment and our rights in general and how important it all was. It was very interesting to note that in a mall with several thousand people in it at anyone time, there was almost no one congregated around the bill of rights. It drew very little attention.

What does that tell you about the American people's knowledge and respect for their rights?

 

[Kaylee]

I never really got the whole "comma" thing.. I don't see how it changes the plain meaning of the text one way or another.

Did you give the official the "Bel-LIES treatment"?

-K

 

[C.R.Sam]

There was a thread covering the comma situation on thefiringline.com .
It was postulated that there were multiple hand written copies distributed simultaniously. Some 2As had two commas and some had four commas.

Some heavy duty students of grammer have broken the 2nd down and it seems that whichever the comma count....the upshot is that the rights of the individual SHALL not be infringed.

As to large amounts of firearms not showing in recorded wills...
One reason is that us old farts start passin em down the line when time gets short. Or, a spouse or tight friend has been told to take em before the vultures arrive. Also, fairly common in a will..."My all to (whoever)".

Sam

 

[Blain]

Heh, the single guard who was there was armed (as upposed to just an unarmed mall security guard). Though it would have been funny if the only guy guarding that precious document was unarmed.

C.R., he wasn't saying that people WEREn'T passing guns down through their will, he said that guns were such expensive and treasured items that they were protected quite rightously in wills and such.

 

[gun-fucious]

spelling and punctuation were much more Laissez Faire in ye olden daze

The "extra" comma seems to have been codified sometime in the 1900s

QUESTION ON THE COMMA IN THE 2nd A
http://www.sas-aim.org/letterweek/052101.htm
Dear SAS,

I have a question, and perhaps someone at your organization can answer it. You quote the Second Amendment on your web site as follows: "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." Often, even at other places on your site, I see a comma placed after "arms". I have a photo of the original Bill of Rights, and it has no comma. Where did the comma come from and why is it used so often? The answer may be of interest and importance to your members.

Thanks,
Alec


S.A.S. responds..._

The various versions with one, two, or three commas have been created as a result of several unrelated problems. There is nothing wrong with the SAS site showing the Second Amendment written in several ways, because the contemporary representations of the Bill of Rights also appeared in several different versions. The really important question is whether those slightly different versions have different meanings. The answer is that all versions, whether they have one, two, or three commas, support our position. Anyone who seriously studies the vocabulary, syntax, grammar, political philosophy, legislative debates and the subsequent legal decisions can only conclude that the Second Amendment is an individual right.

The anti-self-defense people often bring up the issue of the commas during debates. They don't like the proper meaning of the Second Amendment which recognizes and protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so they often try to confuse the audience (see the 2nd Amendment Law Library for law reviews on the 2nd Amendment). They will typically claim that our individual rights spokesperson is misinterpreting the Second Amendment because we are using the inaccurate "single comma" version instead of the "real" version with three commas--or, if our spokesperson is using the three comma version, then the gun ban fanatics will claim that the single comma version is more accurate! The other side doesn't really care which one is right, so long as they can confuse the voters by claiming we are wrong.

The best way to handle these "real meaning" opponents is to propose the following questions, "You claim that you know the "real" number of commas and therefore, the "real" meaning. Why don't you explain the difference between the two interpretations, and how the different commas make that difference? Please show us exactly how the difference in commas changes the meaning. What, you don't know what mechanism changes the meaning? Then how do you know that you are right?" Then follow up with Point 3, below, and ask them for a rearranged version of the Second Amendment that makes more sense, without throwing out anything.

1. First, we should ask why there are different versions of the original documents and their contemporary copies and prints. The most fundamental problem is the fact that the spelling and grammar of that era was idiosyncratic due to lack of dictionaries and standardized grammar rules. Anyone who has read many documents of that era will find several very different ways to spell common words and personal interpretations regarding the placement of commas ("pauses") and other punctuation. Many writers also used the Germanic "f" representation of the English letter "s", as you can easily see in the first line of the Bill of Rights. If you would like to see a recent expert analysis of the grammar and syntax of the 2nd Amendments, read an interview with Roy Copperud.

2. Does any of this change the meaning of the 2nd Amendment so that it only applies to the National Guard? No, unless you delete several words. However, established rules of Constitutional interpretation require that every word in the Constitution has meaning, and that no words are superfluous. Therefore, you cannot just ignore or throw away the words that get in the way of your "preferred" interpretation. The 2nd Amendment with only one comma after "state" is the most commonly seen version. It is obviously divided into an initial present participial phrase (which explains, but does not limit) and a core sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", which can stand by itself. In such a case, it is obvious that the "right" is possessed by "the people", not by any "militia" analogs such as the National Guard. Furthermore, the 3 comma version does not change any of the meaning; it is simply overpunctuated. The reasons for this are described in Point. 3, below.

3. What happens to the meaning if we accept the versions with the extra commas (one or two extra)? Actually, nothing! Using the most heavily punctuated version (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.) you can perform a simple test. Separate each of the four segments and then rearrange them in every possible sequence, and you will find only one arrangement that uses all the words (see Rules of Interpretation, in #2 above) AND seems even remotely coherent. (For comparison, try some combination such as, "Shall not be infringed, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, a well-regulated militia."--total gibberish!) Naturally, the only combination that makes any sense is the arrangement that already exists. Conclusion: our Founders were not as stupid as the anti-self-defense zealots would like the public to believe. Or perhaps the anti-self-defense fanatics already know this but just want to use this claim in order to confuse and deceive the voters.

4. Finally, remember that many documents of that era were hand-written and hand-copied or typeset using the primitive printing technology of the day, so it is not unusual to see several slightly different versions that were sent out to various places from the point of origin. You can see a photo of one of the versions of the Bill of Rights (the one adopted by Congress in 1789, containing 12 rather than the 10 amendments as eventually ratified by the states in 1791) at the National Archives Bill of Rights.

Randall N. Herrst, J.D.
National Research Coordinator
The Center For The Study Of Crime
Study Crime (should be running by May 20)
[email protected]

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=101817

 

[CatsDieNow]

You can decide for yourself with the high-res scans here. Looks kinda like a smudge to me.

Photoshop is helpful for adjusting the contrast levels - someone at the .gov needs some scanning lessons.

 

[Quartus]

The comma count is a red herring - neither construction changes the meaning in the least. It is clear in the doucment (whether 2 commas OR 3) and it is clear from other writings of the time.


However, one arm or two DOES make a difference to the guard!

 

[Marko Kloos]

Linguistically, the presence or absence of that disputed comma is irrelevant. it does not change the meaning of the sentence in the least.

As to the "meaning of the Second Amendment" debate, here's an illustrative quote:

"'A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed.'

I would ask you to try to argue that this statement says that only pepperoni pizzas can keep and cook tomatoes, and only well-crafted ones at that. This is basically what the so-called states rights people argue with respect to the well-regulated militia, vs. the right to keep and bear arms."

– Bruce Tiemann

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Blain, I hate to poopoo on your rant, but you did NOT see the original BoR but one of the original COPIES. I fail to understand how you are claiming to have seen the original and then note it is one of the copies. There is only ONE original and the rest are copies. RI's is a copy, one of the original copies.

As noted very well in gun-fucious' post, versions of many of the documents of the day were far from exact. While a few pantographs might have been around (T. Jefferson used one for penning letters and having a copy to keep) that would make one exact copy of the original, beyond that, it was a matter of clerical script copying and unfortunately clerical errors would get introduced. Generally, a given individual might make similar copies, but each person making copies would introduce their own language and writing issues into the transcribed documents. In short, you can't count on the copies to be 100% accurate representations of the original and so arguing from a copy is fraught with problems.

 

[Desertdog]

There is only ONE original and the rest are copies.

Agreed, only one original.
Which one is the original and is there any way that someone can get a TRUE copy of the ORIGINAL so this debate can be finished?

I don't know if the number of commas make any difference.
IMHO, I think it would be best, if a true 2nd Amendment case makes it to the SCOTUS, that they could show a copy of the original constitution to the judges.

At lease then we know they have a chance to read what they are supposed to go by, none of this checking what the Europeans are doing.

 

[Don Gwinn]

The comma change you describe doesn't change the meaning of the sentence one way or the other. It is more correct with two commas than with three, but only because it would have a better flow that way if read aloud.

 

[DeputyVaughn]

It's been a while since I've had an English grammar class, but, I believe the comma count would be vital to whether or not the Second Amendment is even a sentence. With three commas, there is not a phrase in the sentence that could stand alone as a sentence. The Second Amendment would just be a string of phrases separated by commas with a period at the end. For the Second Amendment to be a sentence, one of the phrases has to be able to stand alone as a sentence. If the Second Amendment is not a sentence, then it is meaningless and not good law.

Scott

 

[Byron Quick]

20 th century grammar rules did not apply in the 18th century when the document was written. I wonder why this is so?

Therefore, your argument about it's grammar is not only inapplicable but also irrelevant.

When did the arbitrers of "good law" make the rule that the grammar must be impeccable by the standards of the late 20th century? Did they make it retroactive? What's the penalty for having a 100 year old law that does not conform to present grammar rules?

 

[Don Gwinn]

Most laws then and now were and are written in abominable English. The founding fathers did a remarkable job of using plain and "readable" English in the Constitution, but that's the exception, not the norm. Reading the average state's modern gun laws, for instance, will give you a headache in short order.

(The founders also shared the common 18th-century habit of Capitalizing important Words, more or less at Random.)

 

[Leatherneck]

more or less at Random.

TC
TFL Survivor

 

[Sheslinger]

It does not make a difference...

Grammatically, if "being necessary to the security of a Free State" was not in there, there should still have been a comma after "Militia", because, as we learned in school, if you replaced that comma with an "and", the meaning of the sentence would not change (which defeats the argument that the meaning of the 2nd is that only organized militia should have arms). It needs two commas because of the type of descriptive statement that "being necessary to the security of a Free State" is. The third comma after "arms" is incorrect grammatically but I can see why some people use it to say that "the right of people to keep and bear arms" is then a description of "well-organized militia" and is not a stand-alone right.

I don't think it matters one way or the other. We know what the meaning and intent of the 2nd was.

Sheslinger