Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

I read the 2nd... and the third and the fourth..

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Guy B. Meredith, Jan 16, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Guy B. Meredith

    Guy B. Meredith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,292
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    Going through old papers I found a set of copies of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and others I had picked up on a visit to DC. This is the first time I have REALLY read the Bill of Rights.

    Firstly I was shook up to note that the 2nd amendment is actually the 4th and thought I had been sold a bogus item, but then noticed the first two originals were not ratified.

    Then I took a look at the comma usage. I have seen this as part of the 2nd amendment debate, but have never thought to compare the usage in the 2nd with the usage in the others. After reading the others it appears that there is either no standard of use (spelling was not standard either) or a different standard from current use.

    My take is that the commas are mostly irrelevant when translated to current usage and the 2nd should be read with a comma only after the word 'State'. The time spent on discussing the commas seems pointless leaving the definition of milita the only point of argument and writings from the period seem to seal that one simply enough.

    Amendment II with original 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 current usage:

    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.

    A look at other early amendments and comma usage:

    Amendment III

    No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
     
  2. Harve Curry

    Harve Curry Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,756
    Location:
    Black Range of New Mexico
    Like this:
     
  3. Guy B. Meredith

    Guy B. Meredith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,292
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    Yes. Again spelling was not standardized, nor capitalization I think.
     
  4. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    22,101
    As I generally use commas to replicate the pauses found in verbal communication, as well as to separate clauses in a sentence, I rather think, that neither is incorrect, and that copious use of punctuation, is to be desired.
     
  5. Guy B. Meredith

    Guy B. Meredith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,292
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    Re: "...that copious use of punctuation, is to be desired." :scrutiny:

    Only if you want to leave a legacy of legal battles over intent... :uhoh:
     
  6. Graystar

    Graystar Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    1,756
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    I always thought the commas were strategically placed for dramatic reading out loud.
     
  7. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    22,101
    do you really, honestly believe that comma placement is the reason the 2A has been misinterpreted?

    please.



    if the 2A said "Neither the Fed or State or local government shall under any circumstances prohibit or even discourage any citizen from the purchase, sale, transportation or use of any firearms or ammo or tanks or grenades or missiles or any other weapon, regardless of age, religion, sex, criminal record, etc."

    we'd have the exact same laws we have today because The People don't have the mental or testicular fortitude to do otherwise.

    Don't blame it on the friggin commas. :)
     
  8. Guy B. Meredith

    Guy B. Meredith Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    2,292
    Location:
    Salem, Oregon
    Some arguments do use the commas as a means to read differing meanings. I've never thought the old style punctuation indicated anything, but was baffling. Nice to have one less point of argument for the anal retentives.

    The capitalization is more likely to be a point as those who use the capitalization in the current sense would insist that the capitalization indicates that Militia is a body superior to the common militia and State is the political organization rather than individuals.
     
  9. LooseGrouper

    LooseGrouper Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Messages:
    225
    Sometimes I wonder if we are not better off due to what some see as ambiguity in the 2nd. If the text were really that cut and dry, it might scare enough sheeple to get a Prohibition-type peice of stupidity through the necessary wickets. Then we'd be stuck begging for priviledges instead of defending our rights. Seems to me that it is an important distinction. Then again, a Creator-endowed right does not cease to have meaning just because it ain't written on a peice of paper.

    LG
     
  10. xd9fan

    xd9fan Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    1,858
    Location:
    Under tyranny in Midwest

    I disagree with a ambiguity "protection" angle. People forget that if we do not like how clear/unclear the 2ndA is (or any Amendment for that matter) ...we do have the 9th and 10th to help us just place an 11thA and make the intent cystal clear.

    The problem is that america today has changed so much....its a mere shadow of its old glory. Today the Bill of Rights would NEVER get passed. America is too socialist. And the ambiguity "protection" angle proves it because people that believe this line of thinking are scared that if we really believe in the Individual Rights side of the2ndA arguement...that others (including both parties of Govt .....because after all the Bill of Rights ARE ANTI GOVT!!!) will find it "too outdated....too extreme....uncivilized. And try to kill it. The mistake in this fear is that socialists already find the Bill of Rights too outdated....too extreme.....too uncivilized and are trying to kill it anyways.......Because the BofR "gets in the way" of Govt trying to "help" you and keep you "safe".


    But then Loose I agree with you that : "Then again, a Creator-endowed right does not cease to have meaning just because it ain't written on a peice of paper."

    But the problem with this statment of logic is that "the people" do believe this anymore and the parties know it.

    In time God knows how long....this country will fall like Rome....because we are loosing liberty and self govt.
    What are peoples first answer to a problem....any problem??? "Well the Govt needs to blah blah blah..." "Not we, my street or my friends or I need to...." but the Govt.



    Taliv: LOL awesome!!
     
  11. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    The use of commas still isn't standardized. The gods willing, it never will be.

    Defining language down to the least, last microscopic nit is an enterprise better left to the French.
     
  12. Wllm. Legrand

    Wllm. Legrand member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    219
    One of my majors was English, but I would welcome the definition of the word "infringed" from the audience.

    I've always believed that the first point in any substantive conversation was to have all parties agree on what the words used actually mean. Otherwise you find you are arguing about different things, rather than disagreeing on one specific issue.

    Frankly, I can't see any definition of the word "infringed" that doesn't point to the conclusion that the huge majority of laws concerning gun ownership and acquisition are unconsitutional on their face.

    But what would I know. I only read the documents and understand what they mean to say.
     
  13. tellner

    tellner member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    2,104
    Location:
    Oregon
    See "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" (as in "A Panda is an animal that...").
     
  14. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,085
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    The commas reinforce the notion that the militia clause is dependent upon the right of the people.

    The capitalization in the original is a hold over from English's mother, German. Dutchies capitalize nouns, even in the middle of the sentence. Darn Dutchies, even have different words for things.:D
     
  15. BigG

    BigG Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    7,081
    Location:
    Dixieland
    Ja wohl! Methinks El Tejon is right, as Germans capitalize Nouns all the time and use the funny double "S" that looks like an "f" and an "s". You can see that in some of the olde federal documents, like where they spell, for example, progress, "progrefs.
     
  16. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,085
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    Big G, just keep that between me and you. The fact that some of the Founding Fathers had trouble with English could set off alarm bells in the Border Guard section.:D
     
  17. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    22,101
    yeah, i heard the founding fathers spent a lot of time in france... you gotta wonder about them

    ;)
     
  18. MudPuppy

    MudPuppy Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,529
    Location:
    UK and Texas
    Ronald Reagan got it right.
     
  19. MrTuffPaws

    MrTuffPaws Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,511
    Location:
    Az
    Huh? Never heard this before. Can you post the text of the first two? I am interrested in hearing them. I can't seem to find them on line.
     
  20. progunner1957

    progunner1957 member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2004
    Messages:
    831
    Location:
    A wolf living in Sheeple land
    The Second Amendment has been misinterpreted for the convenience of socialist gun banning politicians.

    The Second Amendment and Bill of Rights were ratified in 1791. The "National Guard" came into exsistence 130 years larer.

    From this, we can come to the following conclusions -
    1: When they wrote and ratified the Second Amendment, The Founders were not referring to an institution (the National Guard) that was at that time nonexsistent.

    2: In referring to the citizen's right to arms, George Mason said, "What is the Militia? It is the whole of the people. To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." He wouldnot have made that statement if he were referring to the National Guard - which (again) did not exsist at the time.

    3: The American Revolution was fought over the Brit's attempt to disarm the colonists. To say that the colonists would then turn around and disarm themselves defies logic and fact.
     
  21. bowline

    bowline Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    114
    Location:
    Tennessee
    You're asking the wrong questions

    Hypothesis - No law which restricts, regulates, or taxes firearms of any type was drafted to control crime.
    Supporting arguments;
    - The 1934 NFA was written to provide hundreds of treasury agents, previously employed enforcing Prohibition, with something to do in the wake of Prohibitions' repeal.
    - The 1968 GCA was drafted and passed with the assistance of firearms manufacturers, the intent being to restrict the war-surplus firearms which threatened their profits.
    - The 1994 Crime Act (what an apt name!) provision that prohibited the manufacture of 'high capacity' magazines was pushed by one William Ruger, a noted manufacturer of revolvers.
    Notes - of the 3 classes of firearms owner, (Citizen, Criminal, and Agents of the State), only 1 is actually affected by laws which regulate, restrict or prohibit, or tax firearms.
    - The only laws shown to restrict criminal behaviour are those which regulate sentencing of criminals, largely through prohibiting recidevism by keeping the criminal in prison.
    Conclusion - Those who restrict, prohibit, or otherwise infringe gun ownership do not have crime control as their true goal. They know this. We know this. They deny it, because to admit their actual goal is to suffer defeat. They associate crime with firearms in order to continue the masquerade of 'reasonable restrictions'.

    Arguments over the structure, grammar, and meaning of the Second Amendment are akin to the misdirection used by any good magician. Those who want to regulate guns understand the amendment quite well, but as long as they can get you to argue over a clear and concise amendment, you are on the defensive. You are attempting to use logic and statistics to convince them of the obvious. They are perfectly happy to deny facts in order to continue this debate, which is (for them) infinitely preferable to a debate on suitable punishment for willful, malicious theft of a constitutionally guaranteed right.
    Its' like debating with a bank robber who insists he is merely making a withdrawal. As long as you are debating with him he can continue the robbery. Its' only when you present an argument which does not respond well to debate that you get him to stop stuffing the money in the bag.
    It is, for example, non-productive to argue the finer points of banking when the other fellow holds a shotgun.
    The politicians who are pushing for 'gun control' are simply trying to ensure that they are the ones holding.
    Gun control does not prevent crime - it prevents punishment.
     
  22. hugh damright

    hugh damright Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    825
    I think everyone knows that, but some folks believe that the State Militias evolved into the NG, which I suppose has a grain of truth, but misses the whole point. The intent of State Militia is majoritarianism - if only a select group were armed then they might take over, but an armed people can ensure majority rule. In other words, Virginians have the right to take over Virginia, the NG does not.


    I think Mason's view differed from the consensus. For instance, Mason wanted the Constitution to be ratified by a popular vote ... and I would expect such a person to say that the militia was the whole people. But just as I do not recognize the right of the NG to take over Virginia, neither do I recognize the right of the whole US to take over Virginia. If Virginia is a free State, then, by definition, it is controlled by Virginians - and that is the very thing that the Militia was intended to secure.


    Yes! And further, it defies logic and fact to think that the Colonists would have fought off their own British Army just to turn around and create an American Army or even a National Militia. Instead, they declared that a standing army is dangerous to liberty, and that the proper/safe/natural defense of a free State is the people, trained to arms, and organized into capable militia.

    Of course, the US was delegated the power to call forth the State Militias, but the point is that they were State Militia, a concern that was addressed in Federalist #29:

    "What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the sole and exclusive apportionment of the officers? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia." - Federalist Paper #29
     
  23. hugh damright

    hugh damright Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    825
    I am amazed to read that our Founding Fathers were unable to master capitalization and punctuation. I think they were much better educated than we are, and they could have probably written the Constitution in Latin with proper capitalization and punctuation if they had wanted to.

    * * * * * * * * *

    One thing on my mind lately ... one of the original amendments which failed, but was a hot topic, had to do with representation. I won't bother to look up all the numbers, but the point I want to make is that it was considered critical that we have a representative for every 30,000 or so, but today I think that number has grown to where we have one rep for every 600,000 or so. Hmmm ...

    * * * * * * * * *

    I have found that reading the requests for the original amendments and for the Bill of Rights shows them in a different light ... for instance, until I read the State Ratification documents, I didn't know that the States considered a Bill of Rights to be one issue and original amendments were considered to be a separate issue.
     
  24. El Tejon

    El Tejon Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    18,085
    Location:
    Lafayette, Indiana-the Ned Flanders neighbor to Il
    hugh, the educational standards were different, thus the Germanic influence on the English language.
     
  25. hugh damright

    hugh damright Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    825
    Well ... I think it would be one thing to question if their style of using capitalization as a form of emphasis is archaic ... but quite another to suggest that they hadn't mastered the English language!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page