The 2nd's fragment

[.cheese.]

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.

let's forget about discussing the two versions of this (the capitalization issue - which IMO is trivial)

My question is, those who oppose gun ownership try to argue that it relates to maintaining a militia, however we (those who are pro gun-ownership) point out that comma separating the two statements, as well as the history of why it was probably included.

My questions is this:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

That doesn't seem to be worded as a condition to the bearing of arms, but what exactly it means I don't understand I must admit. It's a fragment. It doesn't set some condition for the right to bear arms, but it doesn't seem to do anything else either.

Anybody understand this first part of the 2nd fully?

Sorry if this is a dumb question.

 

[Duncan223]

The first part means that trained and supervised group of armed people is needed to protect a free Country - the USA. The trained and supervised group of common citizens are the militia. Some argue that the militia of the day has becom our modern military. I disagree. There was an army back in the day, as well as civilian volunteers/militia to fill in where the army was unable to do so.


Also of importance is the location of the comma breaking the sentence into two sections. There is only one comma in the sentence and the use of the comma clearly states that "the People" and not the government, have the right to keep and bear arms.




In addition to the debate on capitalization, there is also a debate on the number of commas.

The second SHOULD read: "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." (note, only one comma)

 

[Dr. Dickie]

It does not set the conditions, but it does give a strong reason.
That is, the founders say the need for the common man to take up arms to defend his home, his county, his burg, his state. Therefore:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

Remember, at the time this was written, nobody thought of themselves as Americans, it was the United STATES of America. It was supposed to be a collection of States, that created a weak centralized Federal government to handle things that would have been crazy to let each state handle on its own (national treaties, interstate commerce, etc.).
Since they were apposed to a standing army, the men folks of each state needed to be counted on to be prepared to defend said state. Since defense is necessary to keep the state free.
For that reason (just one of many, but one they knew was at the top of the list back then), the people could not be denied their right to keep and bare arms, as they needed to remain proficient at arms.
It was not a condition, just the most obvious reason (again, one of many).
They never imagined that anyone would want to take away arms, except to try to enslave the people.
All of the above is my opinion, take if for what it is, no more.

 

[El Tejon]

It is a statement of purpose just like the statement of purpose in the First Amendment. Think of it like this: the militia is to spring forth from individuals, young and old, men, women, boys, keeping and bearing their private arms of every description. The armed body of the people is the incubator of the militia. Please note that statement of purpose does not define a right.

A good case to read to understand this is Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243 (1846). Note that before the Civil War many state courts were applying the Second Amendment to the states. "The language of the second amendment is broad enough to embrace both Federal and State governments."

Here is the Nunn opinion: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wbardwel/public/nfalist/nunn_v_state.txt

 

[JWarren]

English major here.

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 part in bold is a subordinate phrase, IIRC. The subordinate phrase modifies the main phrase (the one that holds the subject). It this case, the main phrase is preceding the subordinate phrase.

Therefore, the part in illalics is being modified:

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.

Now arguing the implications of that syntax is a whole new ball of wax.

John

 

[.cheese.]

I didn't know there was an additional argument on the second comma.

Interesting.

 

[.cheese.]

See the way I kinda read it is that the second part: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is essentially a second sentence.... but the problem is that the first part if cut off there, isn't a sentence by itself.... how it modifies the second part though, I don't really get.

Why didn't they just put, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, being necessary to the security of a free State and that of a well regulated Militia."

doesn't that seem to make more sense? Or does that change the meaning?

 

[Duncan223]

yup... here's a couple of links about the comma debate


http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39388c210c1b.htm
http://www.arms2armor.com/2ndamendment/2ndamendment.htm

(from Wiki)

Commas in the Second Amendment

There is some question as to whether the Second Amendment contains a comma after the word "militia," and a parallel debate as to whether the presence or lack of this comma influences the overall meaning of the Amendment. In the twentieth century, it became unusual to separate a subject and verb or verb and object with a comma. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, commas were used to indicate rhetorical pauses; in the twentieth century, commas were generally used to differentiate between restrictive and nonrestrictive modifiers. This practice continues in the early twenty-first century.

On March 4, 1789, the completed, hand-written Bill of Rights was approved by the first Federal Congress, and attested to (signed) by Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and John Adams, the Vice-President of the United States and President of the Senate, as well as the Clerk of the House and the Secretary of the Senate. In this original signed document, now held by the National Archives, the commas were present. Some of the later type-cast printings of the Constitution, such as those in the National Annals, delete the commas from the Second Amendment.

The U.S. Government is inconsistent in the use of the comma in publications. The Statutes at Large (the official permanent record of all laws enacted) does not include the comma. The Government Printing Office (GPO) has produced versions both with and without this comma.

A second comma, after the word "State," is generally seen in printed versions. It is not controversial.

The third comma, after the phrase "to keep and bear arms," is also an example of changing customs. It is generally seen in contemporary reprints of the Amendment, but it would not appear if the Amendment had been drafted and enacted recently.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Correct

It does not set the conditions, but it does give a strong reason.

...and there is precedence of this elsewhere in the Constitution - namely, Article 1, Section 8, Clause (8), where Congress has power to grant patents and copyrights to authors and inventors "...by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;..."

Note: This is also precedence of a right being protected in the original body of the Constitution.

Woody

It is way past time we in this country got back to arming ourselves the way our Founding Fathers so wisely saw fit to insure us the impunity to do so in the Constitution. B.E.Wood

 

[davera]

A more modern way to phrase the same thing

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.

Added because to the beginning and dropped a single comma.

 

[shield20]

There is a GREAT paper on this exact subject - as soon as I can find the link again I will post it.

Bottom line - DO NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE of seperating the 1st clause from the 2nd! (I have done this plenty!)

-The Militia of the several states is 1 of only 6 permanent 'bodies' identified in the constitutition
- the Militias pre-date the constitution, and are constitutionally REQUIRED to exist
-the DUTY and RIGHT of the people is to serve in the Militia, the Preamble shows this to be important, because among the six purposes of the Constitution set out there, atleast 3 parallel the mission of the Militia - to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
-the arms in common use by the military ARE the exact arms the Constitution says we SHALL have because of being members of a state Miltia
-The Constitution is every American's reason, license, and requirement to be armed. And therefore the notions that whole classes of firearms suitable for Militia can be banned or that huge geographical zones can be carved out in which individuals can be prohibited from exercising and performing their constitutional rights and especially duties IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
- ANY attempts to control guns controls the miltia, and so IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. LAWS trying that ARE NOT LAWS - they don't exist
legally.
- registration HAS BEEN PROVEN to lead to confiscation, which would disable the rights of the people and harm the purposes of the militias, SO ARE UNCONTITUTIONAL
- government storing arms of the Miltia is unconstitutional because the tyrant may hold they keys
- the Constitution not only imposes on the President the duty to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," but also requires Congress to make available to his own command a most potent means to perform that duty, THAT IS THE MILITIA.
-the Constitution guarantees "the security of a free State" for every State--and, collectively, for the United States--through "calling forth these Militia" whenever necessary to secure "a Republican Form of Government" for each State and "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions"
-the Miltias of the several states ARE NOT FEDERAL, and ARE NOT TROOPS, those are accounted for elsewhere in the Const.
- the right enumerated IS PERSONAL because the people in the miltias provided there own arms, and were fined INDIVIDUALLY for not being properly equipped (unless they were too poor)
...


I have not seen/read anything with regards to how the Dick Act (NG) and Warner Act have usurped the people's role in all this, that is a BIG issue to me.


My take is that the framers purposely gave WE THE PEOPLE such powers because WE ARE IN CHARGE!.


Link:

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin16.htm

 

[FieroCDSP]

Why didn't they just put, "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, being necessary to the security of a free State and that of a well regulated Militia

IF anyone finds a time-machine in their backyard, I need to borrow it.
Could the questionable comma be a smudge on the original document? In the entirety of the Constitution, how many seemingly misplaced commas are there? I find it odd that they would screw up with something that important.

 

[shield20]

Commas? Read a few of the Federalist papers - these guys LOVED COMMAS!

"It is well worthy of consideration therefore, whether it would conduce more to the interest of the people of America that they should, to all general purposes, be one nation, under one federal government, or that they should divide themselves into separate confederacies, and give to the head of each the same kind of powers which they are advised to place in one national government."


"When once an efficient national government is established, the best men in the country will not only consent to serve, but also will generally be appointed to manage it; for, although town or country, or other contracted influence, may place men in State assemblies, or senates, or courts of justice, or executive departments, yet more general and extensive reputation for talents and other qualifications will be necessary to recommend men to offices under the national government, -- especially as it will have the widest field for choice, and never experience that want of proper persons which is not uncommon in some of the States."

 

[ball3006]

It is interesting....

that on this forum, several years ago, I stated that the comma divides the 2nd ammendment into two parts and was bombarded by many saying that I was full of it........then, last week, two judges ruled that the comma does divide the ammendment giving "we the people" the right to bear arms..........The reason for my post years ago, I looked up comma in the dictionary. It had been 40 years since I took an english class and couldn't remember exactly what a comma does......chris3

 

[El Tejon]

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=144

 

[Duncan223]

Suitable for framing:

 

[shield20]

No commas here...
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampag...field(NUMBER+@band(rbpe+00000600))&linkText=0

 

[Outlaw Man]

If the right to keep and bear arms was for the militia wouldn't it read "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?"

Those men weren't afraid to right exactly what they meant. To me, the wording is very clear.

 

[Beatnik]

The crux of the matter, as I see it:

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, commas were used to indicate rhetorical pauses

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)

rhe·tor·i·cal /rɪˈtɔrɪkəl, -ˈtɒr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-tawr-i-kuhl, -tor-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
1. used for, belonging to, or concerned with mere style or effect.

rhet·o·ric /ˈrɛtərɪk/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ret-er-ik] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

The commas aren't there to organize thoughts the way we use them today. They're there basically so the reader can pause. So what happens when you remove all 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."

We can reason through it well enough. Does "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" add or subtract anything? No, it's just making a claim - you need X in order to achieve Y.

So if you ignore that first part for a second, it clearly says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That seems about as straightforward as "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" or "Excessive bail shall not be required".

 

[critter]

Read the constitution and all the ammendments. Every time you come to the word 'people', underline it (especially in the 2nd). Now, I DARE you to find ANY other place where 'people' means ANYTHING other than 'people'.

In EVERY case, just as in the 2nd, it means PEOPLE, people and PEOPLE have the right to keep and bear arms. I ARE PEOPLE and YOU IS PEOPLE. WE can keep and bear arms according to ammendment #2 as well as others.

 

[tomc327]

Isn't that what the first words of the Constitution mean? "We the People"

 

[Zundfolge]

The problem is with this part; A well regulated Militia...

Over the last two centuries the definition and usage of the word "regulated" has changed to mean something VERY DIFFERENT from what the founding fathers meant.

They meant to keep in good working order, not to control by law.

 

[shield20]

It doesn't matter how right WE are about the intent, and why - the antis and tyrants will try EVERYTHING to change the meaning. They NEED us to be unarmed - that is how tyranny works!

Well-regulated = controlled
militia = NG or collective body
being necessary = no longer important
free state = state's rights
right = privilige granted by govt
the people = collective to be controlled
keep and bear = store in an armory or vault
arms = muskets, for sporting use, ONLY
shall not = "meets government interest"
be infringed = limited like free speech

:banghead:

 

[EricTheBarbarian]

i was under the impression it only said we can have sporting firearms for hunting. and none of those evil high capacity magazines

 

[hugh damright]

The way I understand it, a "State" is a body of people under one government, i.e. Virginians are a State. And a "free State" is a body of people with free government. In a free State, no King or aristocracy rules over the people ... the people of a free State are ruled only by laws which are consented to by the people, either by some majority or by the representatives of the people. In a free State, sovereignty i.e. the final authority resides in the body of people i.e. the collective i.e. the State. Here are some definitions from Webster's 1828:

STATE - A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of the government.

FREE - In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to the arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord; as a free state, nation or people.

COMMONWEALTH - A commonwealth is properly a free state; a popular or representative government; a republic; as the commonwealth of Massachusetts.



The US is not a free State: It is not a State, nor is it a free government, nor is it a commonwealth. As Webster explained:

COMPACT - the constitution of the United States is a political contract between the States

The US Constitution is a compact between the States, yet it begins "We the People". That's because the States are people. Whether we say that Virginia is a party to the US Constitution, or we say that Virginians are a party, I think the meaning is clear.


So ... what is a militia, and why was it felt that it was necessary to secure free government? I think a good place to start is 1775, when King George had British Troops here, supposedly for our protection, but really to dominate us. The King was violating our chartered rights, the Parliament had declared they had a right to rule over the Colonies in all matters, we had taxation without representation, and so on. Virginians didn't want British Troops here to "protect us". Some States did, because they still had problems with Indians, but the French/Indian wars were over, and Virginians felt like it would be proper for us to defend our own State. In 1775, the July issue of Gentleman's Magazine read:

"In Virginia at a meeting of the delegates of the colony, it has been unanimously resolved that a well-regulated militia, composed of gentlemen and yeomen is the natural strength and only security of a free government, and that the establishment of such a militia is at this time particularly necessary, and that a plan for arming, embodying and disciplining such a number of men as may be sufficient for that purpose should be immediately carried into execution."


In 1776 Virginia created a Declaration of Rights which included:

"That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense 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 be governed by, the civil power."


And in 1788 Virginia ratified the US Constitution while requesting amendments and a BOR including an article stating:

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; 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 are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power. "

And, of course, the US Congress condensed it to read:

"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".


Here is Webster's 1828 definition for militia:

MILITIA - The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades,with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.

So ... the "free State" is Virginians, the militia is Virginians, and the intent is that Virginians control Virginia. The way I think of it, in a free State, power flows from the people, but power can also flow from the barrel of a gun ... so in a free State, the people must be holding the "guns" (by which I mean that the military power must be subordinate to the civil power).