That's how I've always interpreted it - noting that when they said "the people" they didn't mean everybody -and that since we now have standing armies a well-regulated militia is no longer necessary for the security of our free State.Col Hogan wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 5:58 pmkalm wrote: ↑Thu Jun 23, 2022 1:41 pm
Hmm…well I’m here to be educated. The right to bear arms is a constitutional right. The interpretation of intent from the founders seems to be the contested point.
Similar to the definition of abortion, murder, and what constitutes to life.
Hanging over both decisions is the issue of states rights. It’s literally brought up in the current courts writings.
I too could be snarky and say amend the constitution to fit unmitigated rights to bear all manner of arms in any fashion or STFU but I look for deeper meaning.
So please, enlighten this gun owner.
Dr Naomi Wolf, a self-described liberal, wrote a wonderful piece on the Second Amendment in anticipation of todays SCOTUS ruling. She addresses a number of issues, but I feel her discussion on language is one of the best I’ve every read. She ends the discussion with a translation of the 18th century English of the Second Amendment into modern-day English.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2022/0 ... aomi-wolf/Grammar too was used to make the case against individual gun ownership. Often, commentators in our circles described the phrasing of the Second Amendment as being so twisted and archaic that no one today could never truly confirm the Founders’ intentions regarding gun ownership by individuals.
Indeed, I heard these truisms so often, that when I actually sat down and read the Second Amendment carefully — as I was writing my 2008 book about the decline of democracies, The End of America — I was startled: because the Second Amendment wasn’t unclear at all.
“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.”
Critics on the Left of individual gun rights often described this sentence as being opaque because it has two clauses, and two commas prior to the final clause; so they read the first two sections as relating unclearly to the last assertion.
But if you are familiar with late 18th century rhetoric and sentence construction, the meaning of this sentence is transparent.
The construction of this sentence is typical of late 18th into early 19th century English grammar, in which there can be quite a few dependent clauses, gerunds and commas that come before the verb, and the object of, the sentence.
Thus, the correct way to read the Second Amendment, if you understand 18th century English grammar, is:
“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.”
Or, translated into modern English construction: “Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The 2nd amendment is the Constitution's version of your body's appendix. A long time ago it had a purpose.