“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.”
But let’s cut to the chase, shall we? I lied. The passage quoted above is actually not the Second Amendment; at least it’s not the original version passed by Congress in 1791. It is, rather, a subtly altered version that states later ratified, much to the delight of the gun lobby, which almost always quotes the tweaked edition. Here’s the way the Amendment read as passed by Congress:
“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.”
My contention is that the whole business is so antiquated and anachronistic that it's meaningless, but I love the Professor's take on it too.Notice the difference? The NRA is really hoping you won’t. But if you look closely, you’ll spot something that was missing from the other version. Actually, two somethings: little spermatazoid markings after “Militia” and “Arms”. They’re called commas, and they can drastically alter the meaning of a sentence. (Which sounds more appealing: ” a million dollars, and beads” or “a million, dollars and beads “?)
What's your opinion? Since I realize we never tire of discussing this, and it is at the very center of raison d'etre here on the blog, what do you think the Second Amendment means today? Is that meaning different than it was in the beginning? How has it changed?
Please leave a comment.
The Second Amendment has been interpreted to mean an individual right not connected to military service. That's it's current meaning, according to Heller and McDonald. We can argue the originalist meaning at length, and we already have done so, but the individual intermpretation is the current law.
ReplyDeleteNow, I don't know much about the Propaganda Professor, but here in the English Department, we know that writers in the eighteenth century tossed commas about at will, but contrary to the claim made on the professor's site, that doesn't change the grammar of that sentence. Grammatically, the word, right, is the subject--you know, the thing that "shall not be infringed."
The one that the states ratified is the only version that matters.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all I concur with FatWhiteMan.
ReplyDeleteAs for how do I understand the 2nd Amendment ... I personally see only one sensible way to interpret the 2nd Amendment: primarily in light of its words and secondarily in light of the other formal, public sentiments of the Founders. Those public sentiments of the Founders include the Declaration of Independence, State Constitutions, and their statements published in various forms and recorded during debates.
When you look at everything the Founders said and did, it is clear that they loved liberty and despised tyranny. And when the Founders went to great lengths to protect liberty (and its various associated rights) and stave off tyranny, it is ludicrous to suggest that they neglected to formally state a personal, individual right of the people to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their community. Remember that just a few short years earlier the Founders participated in a rebellion to secede from England. They KNEW the importance of an armed citizenry from first hand experience. And they also KNEW the propensity of a central government to become corrupt from first hand experience.
And the importance of an armed citizenry is only slightly less urgent today. While we have a strong military that has managed to fend off large scale wars of aggression from foreign states, smaller scale attacks, terrorist attacks, and guerilla tactics are an ever present threat. Whatever the nature of any threat, whether foreign or domestic, citizens are everywhere and are always the true "first responders". To disarm citizens who face all sorts of possible aggressors is an abomination.
If you scoff at such notions, I direct you to southern Arizona in 2010. The U.S. Department of the Interior posted warning signs across southern Arizona advising citizens that it was no longer safe to venture within 60 miles of the U.S. - Mexico border. The U.S. was no longer in control of an area larger than some of the New England states. Rather, drug smugglers were operating with impunity. This link shows Sheriff Babeu stating that Mexican drug smugglers were in control of the area and that his office was unable to stop them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpe6y8c-OD0
Imagine that. A present day situation where the federal government refused and local law enforcement was unable to protect the citizens of an area the size of some New England states.
Greg, Is it crystal clear and absolutely unambiguous? Tell me the truth.
ReplyDeleteCapn, When you say "the one that States ratified," do you mean you don't accept Heller and McDonald?
Mikeb302000,
ReplyDeleteIf the author of the Second Amendment were my student, I'd demand a rewrite, to be sure, but we're left to figure out what it means. I want to see judges interpret laws and the Constitution as far as possible in the direction of individual freedom.
Oh, so Greg, couldn't arms mean any form of weapon including weapons of mass destruction if you "want to see judges interpret laws and the Constitution as far as possible in the direction of individual freedom."
ReplyDeleteAs the article points out, the word is "arms" not "firearms"--that leavess alot of room for interpretation.
And, if you want to ignore the words "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State", then you have to come up with some reason why individuals can't own nerve gas and nuclear weapons.
Sorry, Greg, but as far as legal knowledge goes, you are truly a moron.
But, you do have the right to open your mouth and show the world that you are a moron.
BTW, The Propaganda Professor is firly bang on as far as the Second Amendment goes- he could even do better and actually quote some founding father and historical background to back up his statement,which is more than Greg, FWM, and crunchy can do.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but if you really were to have inquiring minds, the historical evidence is that the intent was to keep those militias well armed.
Unfortunately, that system was pretty much moribund as a read of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations demonstrates.
The ultimate upshot is that it is something which is irrelevant to modern life, unless Greg (or any other "Second Amendment Supporter") wants to join a constitutionally formed militia unit.
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteSo your legal argument is that we must understand the text only according to its original interpretation, and when there's disagreement as to how it was originally interpreted, we accept only the one that you like?
O.K., show me where abortion is permitted by the Constitution. Show me privacy specified in the writing--not deduced, but specifically ennumerated. Show me where the Internet is permitted. And so forth. . .
Laci the Dog,
ReplyDeleteYou do keep mentioning nerve gas. When you can show me a legitimate use that I would have for nerve gas, I'll consider supporting private ownership. I can name several legitimate uses that private citizens have for firearms.