What Does the Second Amendment Really Say?

[Dr. Keith]

Completely. My argument was that you can't say the current situation is clearly different from what the authors intended, if it's not clear what the authors intended.

That is logically true. And I should have been more precise. I can think of two branches of support for my incomplete statement:

a. If you assume that what they meant was somewhere along a spectrum and we have arrived at a very narrow section of that spectrum it seems presumptuous to assume we arrived in the right part.

b. In the alternative, if you assume that it was left vague to get everyone to agree, then we have certainly arrived where some would have liked to have started but maybe not where the majority of them would have been comfortable.

But yes, we can not be certain that this is not what they wanted, since they were unclear. But it does seem odd that if this is exactly what they wanted they could have said so with fewer words.

Not really. I am, for example, extremely disgruntled by the evolution of the Commerce Clause over time. However, I remain convinced that the means by which it evolved are generally the good and proper means provided by our system of government. Which is to say, "democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

Agree completely. And that is why I am not arguing that the law is anything other than what the SCOTUS has held. That is the result of a system I believe in, even if I don't like the results from time to time.

The question put as the topic of this thread is, "What Does the Second Amendment Really Say?"

Is there a context in which you have an interpretation that answers this question?

Yes, I would say it is completely unclear and there is no support in the words of the amendment for completely ignoring either part, but neither is there much help in how to find the balance between them. That is why I wan unable to answer the poll.

But, there are plenty here who will say it certainly means what the courts have come to say it means, so that position is uninteresting to me. I could certainly take that position, but then what would we do? Shake hands, smoke cigars and talk about scotch? No, I'd rather explore the less popular interpretation to further support my core argument that it is unclear. But, we can still shake hands, smoke a cigar and talk about scotch.

Yup. Is that what you think the Amendment really says, though?

I really wasn't trying to evasive, see above.

I'd say it's clearly different only if we clearly know what the words meant at the time of drafting. Which we don't.

Agree in principle as addressed above. Sorry again for the clumsy language.

Well, if you can somehow tie it in to your interpretation of what the Amendment actually says, then it'd be completely on topic.

Hell, I had a completely hypothetical PWD digression into the idea that the Amendment actually says each state must have a militia, and the people of each state have the right to bear all the arms of the infantry, and it was completely on topic.

But I think for that you'd actually have to go out on a limb and let us examine your interpretation. Turnabout is fair play and all that.

Agreed and again, I think the amendment is unclear. It allows for a broad range of interpretations depending on how you balance the two parts. The case law has pushed the second part as more important, but I think it just as possible that it could have gone the other way based on the language.

So, what would this look like? I haven't given it much thought since it is so unlikely, but I can imagine militias regulated at the state level and active members thereof having access to a wider range of weapons for training purposes at least. In some state you would get something akin to the Swiss model where former members would maintain a weapon, but would also be registered as owners. Some states may forego a militia and defer to the federal government. Others may be in between, and I know some would be completely different from what I am imagining.

Hunting and sporting guns would be completely aside from the second amendment. States could decide on their own how to regulate them and I imagine many would go with a registered user model where you simply let the state know that you intend to hunt or shoot targets and the state gives you a license to own guns for that purpose. Others may go with a registered weapon model. Some may decline to regulate such weapons at all. Each state would have their own regulations for this, but there would likely be blocks of states with similar regulations. I would like a registered user model, because as much as I hate the "guns don't kill people" sentiment, I do think the most effective way to reduce gun problems is to regulate the owners, not the weapons.

I'd imagine non-sporting handguns would be a similar situation, but I would hope that some states would put more training requirements on those who want to keep a handgun for self defense purposes.

Finally, I don't think much would change from a practical point of view: it would be easy to own a gun in Texas and most of the West and harder to own a gun in California or New York City. The specifics of that would change immensely, though, and the States would have more flexibility to deal with local issues as they see fit.

Which gets to another point: the Second Amendment is not the only thing keeping my guns safe. Even if the amendment disappeared there will always be places like Texas that will never seriously regulate gun ownership. States that over regulate guns will see an exodus of people who care about guns and I think that will be self limiting. Almost like a market effect, or something.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Thanks for addressing this, Dr. Keith, and apologies for taking so long to respond.

No worries. I'm sure we all have other things to keep us busy during the day. The opposite would be more of a concern, I would think.

Do the 'introductory' clauses in the sentences below restrict the right of the people?

Thanks for being generous on my use of terminology. It would not have been out of line to jump on my sloppy usage there, so I appreciate that you let that go in furtherance of the conversation.

Now to your actual question . . .

A well regulated Militia Finches, being necessary to the security of a free State beautiful to behold, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms use spyglasses, shall not be infringed.

Sure, it could. Why else have it there. What would that look like? Hmm, if the first part restricts the second that would mean that spyglasses used for purposes other than beholding the beauty of Finches would not be protected by this amendment. Which is not to say other spyglass use is illegal, just that this amendment, as written, would not protect those uses.

A well regulated Militia Medical system, being necessary to the security health of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms use first aid supplies, shall not be infringed.

I think this one is the same but it is a bit less restrictive because it is hard to imagine the use or purpose of first aid supplies outside the broad scope of a medical system. In other words, saying that the first part restricts the second part is less meaningful because there are few other uses for such items.

And for each, if the writer intended the second part to be independent of the first it could have been written as such. Either leaving out the first part or making it clear that the second part did not hinge on the first part. And really that is my main complaint: If this is one of the most important parts of the document why is it the least clear? Especially when far more clear examples abounded at the time, as tyr_13 has been kind enough to provide.

 

[Old man]

Thanks for being generous on my use of terminology. It would not have been out of line to jump on my sloppy usage there, so I appreciate that you let that go in furtherance of the conversation.

I wasn't so much trying to be generous, as I was trying to further my own knowledge regarding grammar, so when I couldn't find any definitions of the term you used, I ended up looking at quite a few grammar related sites (hence my delay in posting). Most of them are pretty confusing!

Sure, it could. Why else have it there. What would that look like? Hmm, if the first part restricts the second that would mean that spyglasses used for purposes other than beholding the beauty of Finches would not be protected by this amendment. Which is not to say other spyglass use is illegal, just that this amendment, as written, would not protect those uses.

Anyway, what I found doesn't match your interpretation. For instance, here -
http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/restrictive_clause.htm

A restrictive clause is a clause which functions as an adjective to identify the word it modifies. A restrictive clause is essential for the intended meaning. A restrictive clause is not offset with commas.

and here -
http://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/non-restrictive_clauses.htm

A non-restrictive clause is a clause which is not needed to identify the word it modifies, i.e., it is just additional information. As a non-restrictive clause is not essential to the meaning of a sentence, it is offset with commas.

Now, comma usage may have changed in the past 200 + years, but the 2nd Amendment seems to fit the second definition better than it does the first.

 

[tyr_13]

Now, comma usage may have changed in the past 200 + years, but the 2nd Amendment seems to fit the second definition better than it does the first.

It has, but in a way that makes that second structure you cite more probable. As I showed earlier, the colon, semi-colon, and comma were interchangeable until about the time of the Constitution. They were all in use at the time, but all meant essentially the same thing. In fact several transcriptions of writing at the time replace some of the commas with semi-colons (see the drafts and the Penn Constitution).

 

[Dr. Keith]

I wasn't so much trying to be generous, as I was trying to further my own knowledge regarding grammar, so when I couldn't find any definitions of the term you used, I ended up looking at quite a few grammar related sites (hence my delay in posting). Most of them are pretty confusing!

I first want to apologize. That does not sound fun and I am sorry that my misidentification led to such dreary research. It has been some time since I took a formal English course and I was writing from memory. Again, my apologies.

Anyway, what I found doesn't match your interpretation.

Agreed, that is why when you first noted my usage I said that I meant to say "introductory clause". I think that is more consistent with the both the wording and the comma usage. Sorry if I wasn't more clear about that previously.

Although I would still say that labeling the first part as a clause at all presupposes that there is a grammatical sentence to be labeled.

 

[newyorkguy]

As I showed earlier, the colon, semi-colon, and comma were interchangeable until about the time of the Constitution.

I don't remember you showing that, I remember you stating it.

At the time colon, semi-colon, and comma were all interchangeable. The dash (-) was also used at some time as a colon.

I'm not sure that's historically accurate.

Early seventeenth century writers appeared to use colons, semicolons, and commas interchangably. Their use depended upon pauses for breath rather than the syntactic structure of the sentence. Writers of the late seventeenth century tried to establish precise rules for the use of the comma, semicolon and colon, on the principles that a semicolon indicated a pause twice as long as that for a comma, and a colon indicated a pause twice as long as for a semicolon. Link

What I get from the above is, by the late 1600s -- over one hundred years before the Founding Fathers were writing their documents -- the rules regarding the use of the comma, semi-colon and colon were already being established. If you have a source that refutes that I'd be glad to see it.

 

[tyr_13]

I don't remember you showing that, I remember you stating it.



I'm not sure that's historically accurate.




What I get from the above is, by the late 1600s -- over one hundred years before the Founding Fathers were writing their documents -- the rules regarding the use of the comma, semi-colon and colon were already being established. If you have a source that refutes that I'd be glad to see it.

Huh, I thought I had re stumbled on the information putting it in the end of the 1700's when syntactical punctuation was advocated by Joseph Robertson in 1795. The first recommendation I can find of it was English Grammar in 1640 but didn't think it actually caught on until the 1780's and 1790's*. (Syntactical punctuation is how we use it today, where before it was all to denote a pause in speaking of slightly different lengths. Elocutionary punctuation?)

Note that what Professor Watkins says in your link doesn't actually rule out my understanding. The late 1600's are were writers tried to establish rules, like in Ben Jonson's work, which would technically be mid 1600's. So starting to be established and completed are different ideas.

My understanding could be mistaken.

EDIT: * In the US. Britain was ahead on the changes, but British English had for some time been 'looser' than American English with regards to such rules; any change was bound to go over more easily there.

 

[WildCat]

Evasion noted. I was asking you to define 'human rights'.

Rights every human being should have simply because they're human. In the USA our law is based on people being born with these rights.

If one believes in "rights" I have to ask them if they believe in "the divine right of kings to rule".

And here is the flip side of that idea - human beings only have the rights the King gives them.

Again, I know which I prefer.

 

[newyorkguy]

There is sharp disagreement within Western society about the right to carry a handgun. French law, for instance, is also based on the rights people should have.

However, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, written in 1789, does not confer any right to bear arms at all. It does enumerate the rights the French believe the citizen should have but it makes no mention of the right to own and bear arms. The closest it gets is Article 12:

The safeguard of the rights of man and the citizen requires public powers. These powers are therefore instituted for the advantage of all, and not for the private benefit of those to whom they are entrusted. Link

 

[TubbaBlubba]

There is sharp disagreement within Western society about the right to carry a handgun. French law, for instance, is also based on the rights people should have.

However, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, written in 1789, does not confer any right to bear arms at all. It does enumerate the rights the French believe the citizen should have but it makes no mention of the right to own and bear arms. The closest it gets is Article 12:

No, no, no you don't get get it. The only alternative to America's exact system is North Korea. That's why America's system must never change.

 

[GlennB]

Rights every human being should have simply because they're human. In the USA our law is based on people being born with these rights.

Then you need to define how those "rights" ever became established, and maybe how and why the USA differs from other countries in terms of their Constitutions. Thing is, your only absolute justification for the 2A is that it's an "innate" right.

Meanwhile, the 13th *abolished* slavery which, by your line of argument, means slavery was an innate right up until it was abolished. That's insane - the owning of slaves was never a right just 'because we're human'. D'uh?

The 19th introduced female suffrage so, by your line of argument, it was perfectly "innately correct" that US women be denied the vote until 1920. That's also insane - US women somehow 'earned' the right to vote in 1920, overcoming the "innately correct" prohibition of that right up until that point? D'uh!

The 2A is just as frail as the rest. It's a human construct, made up of fragments of law, philosophy and blokes sitting round aiming to make impressive lists ...

 

[icebear]

Any misunderstanding of the 2'nd amendment is basically a failure to grasp how the English language works.

The amendment says (from memory):

A well ordered 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 first part of the thing (dependent clause) is basically just a motivation; the second part is the law. It could just as easily read:

Due to the known fact that a wet bird never flies at night, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The thing about the right of the people would still be the law. In fact, you could even catch a wet bird in the act of flying at night and take a time-stamped photograph of him flying in the middle of a rain storm and even THAT would not impact the situation. The ONLY way you could legally change the reality of the law would still be to legally change the constitution.

The most major reason for the amendment is to provide the people with a final bulwark against the possibility of government itself spinning out of control and becoming tyrannical. The idea of government controlling or regulating the use of firearms is clearly not consistent with that rational. If somebody is too dishonest or messed up to deal with firearms, he should be in jail or some funny farm.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

And here is the flip side of that idea - human beings only have the rights the King gives them.

Again, I know which I prefer.

So, you agree that rights aren't automatic or god-given?

 

[Belz...]

The amendment says (from memory):

Why go from memory when a 5 second google search will give the exact text to you ?

The first part of the thing (dependent clause) is basically just a motivation; the second part is the law.

And what happens when the motivation for a law is no longer there ?

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

Quote:
The first part of the thing (dependent clause) is basically just a motivation; the second part is the law.

And what happens when the motivation for a law is no longer there ?

I said this upthread but nobody noticed: The US gov't was not built with short term thinking or ideal conditions in mind, but with resilience to survive the very VERY long term, including less-than-ideal conditions unforeseeable by the framers of the Constitution. Conditions today do not require all able-bodies citizens to muster in defense of the Nation, but can you say, conclusively and absolutely, that the US will NEVER need that again? My ability to foresee the future is limited, so I'd rather keep the options option.

 

[tyr_13]

And what happens when the motivation for a law is no longer there ?

Then the law can be changed through the established legal mechanisms. It hasn't been yet and that's probably because there isn't enough support to do so.

 

[newyorkguy]

Conditions today do not require all able-bodies citizens to muster in defense of the Nation, but can you say, conclusively and absolutely, that the US will NEVER need that again? My ability to foresee the future is limited, so I'd rather keep the options option.

No matter what else it does, the Second Amendment never required that all able-bodied citizens must muster in defense of the United States.

Essentially the old state militias are today's National Guard. Every state has one and the federal government can not order them disbanded.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

No matter what else it does, the Second Amendment never required that all able-bodied citizens must muster in defense of the United States.

penalty of 2 internets for misquoting and/or inaccurate reading. I said CONDITIONS.

Essentially the old state militias are today's National Guard. Every state has one and the federal government can not order them disbanded.

"Essentially" does not equal "is."

 

[Belz...]

I said this upthread but nobody noticed: The US gov't was not built with short term thinking or ideal conditions in mind, but with resilience to survive the very VERY long term, including less-than-ideal conditions unforeseeable by the framers of the Constitution. Conditions today do not require all able-bodies citizens to muster in defense of the Nation, but can you say, conclusively and absolutely, that the US will NEVER need that again? My ability to foresee the future is limited, so I'd rather keep the options option.

The same systems were also made with built-in means to modify themselves. If an amendment, for instance, is no longer needer, it can be altered or removed altogether. If the second amendment is built upon a justification that is no longer valid, then it should be removed. If the justification is no longer valid but the amendment is not dependent upon it, then it should be re-written.

 

[Jrrarglblarg]

The same systems were also made with built-in means to modify themselves. If an amendment, for instance, is no longer needer, it can be altered or removed altogether. If the second amendment is built upon a justification that is no longer valid, then it should be removed. If the justification is no longer valid but the amendment is not dependent upon it, then it should be re-written.

Yep. That's part of the resilience in the system. Get to work if you want it changed.