hugh damright
Member
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2005
- Messages
- 825
I have noticed a few things about the way that the Second Amendment is read which I would like to comment on. Of course, I am not suggesting that anyone here is purposely changing the Second Amendment to fit their view, but chances are that if you bother to study the Second Amendment then you have often been presented with a modified version.
First, there is the matter of grammar, punctuation, and capitalization. Some people have removed commas from the Second Amendment, which seems kind of disrespectful to me. I think this is done with the intent to belittle the first clause, which regards the collective defense of a free State, and then spin the first clause to just be some introductory or subordinate clause there just to lead up to the second clause.
Also, in the first clause, the word "State" is often changed to have a lower case "S", as if the word "State" doesn't mean "State" as in my State of Virginia.
Then the meaning of the second clause is interpreted in a couple of special ways, such as by construing the word "people" to mean "persons", as if the intent is that every individual must be armed no matter what their criminal past or mental state. And then the part about "shall not be infringed" is taken so out of context that it is assumed that all gun laws, state and federal, must be unconstitutional.
I think it's important to remember that the amendments were drafted by Madison, who had a federalist/nationalist intent of a BOR that would limit the States and federalize individual rights ... but Madison's intent failed, and we got a BOR which only limited the federal government. Since the Amendments were drafted by Madison, and since Madison's intent failed, I think perhaps too much is made of the way the amendments are worded. I think the easiest thing to do is to read the BOR and see Madison's intent of a national (rather than federal) document, to see a bill of civil rights rather than political rights.
I have noticed that if I look at other examples, such as the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, that it would take more than a few grammatical reconstructions to spin away its meaning:
And I will close with the Second Amendment, with punctuation and capitalization as provided by the national archives at http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html:
First, there is the matter of grammar, punctuation, and capitalization. Some people have removed commas from the Second Amendment, which seems kind of disrespectful to me. I think this is done with the intent to belittle the first clause, which regards the collective defense of a free State, and then spin the first clause to just be some introductory or subordinate clause there just to lead up to the second clause.
Also, in the first clause, the word "State" is often changed to have a lower case "S", as if the word "State" doesn't mean "State" as in my State of Virginia.
Then the meaning of the second clause is interpreted in a couple of special ways, such as by construing the word "people" to mean "persons", as if the intent is that every individual must be armed no matter what their criminal past or mental state. And then the part about "shall not be infringed" is taken so out of context that it is assumed that all gun laws, state and federal, must be unconstitutional.
I think it's important to remember that the amendments were drafted by Madison, who had a federalist/nationalist intent of a BOR that would limit the States and federalize individual rights ... but Madison's intent failed, and we got a BOR which only limited the federal government. Since the Amendments were drafted by Madison, and since Madison's intent failed, I think perhaps too much is made of the way the amendments are worded. I think the easiest thing to do is to read the BOR and see Madison's intent of a national (rather than federal) document, to see a bill of civil rights rather than political rights.
I have noticed that if I look at other examples, such as the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, that it would take more than a few grammatical reconstructions to spin away its meaning:
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, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
And I will close with the Second Amendment, with punctuation and capitalization as provided by the national archives at http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experience/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html:
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.