Speaking as an editor – and a native speaker of American English – it's undoubtedly the worst-written amendment among the original ten.
As passed by the 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.As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State: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 reason it's such a grammatical dog's breakfast is that it went through some fast and furious last-minute changes:
The real reason the Second Amendment was ratified, and why it says "State" instead of "Country" (the Framers knew the difference - see the 10th Amendment), was to preserve the slave patrol militias in the southern states, which was necessary to get Virginia's vote. Founders Patrick Henry, George Mason, and James Madison were totally clear on that . . . and we all should be too.That's the original intent of the Second Amendment as it was finally, lop-earedly phrased. And that's why it has that clunky preface – which, for almost any other part of the Constitution would be taken dead-seriously by the originalists on the Supreme Court, but not here. Antonin Scalia, please pick up the white courtesy phone. Antonin Scalia, the white courtesy phone, please.
In the beginning, there were the militias. In the South, they were also called the "slave patrols," and they were regulated by the states.
In Georgia, for example, a generation before the American Revolution, laws were passed in 1755 and 1757 that required all plantation owners or their male white employees to be members of the Georgia Militia, and for those armed militia members to make monthly inspections of the quarters of all slaves in the state. The law defined which counties had which armed militias and even required armed militia members to keep a keen eye out for slaves who may be planning uprisings. [...] It's the answer to the question raised by the character played by Leonardo DiCaprio inDjango Unchained when he asks, "Why don't they just rise up and kill the whites?" If the movie were real, it would have been a purely rhetorical question, because every southerner of the era knew the simple answer: Well regulated militias kept the slaves in chains.
There are quite a few problems with the militias were popular with the slave owner argument:
ReplyDelete1) the real issue was civilian control of the military, whether professional army or militias. Militias were considered less likely to act contrary to the public interest.
2) Standing/professional armies were distrusted in this mind frame since they would be more likely to be used by a tyrant. Historically, tyrants would use the military to impose their will in a republic.
3) this thought was prevalent on both sides of the Atlantic, even where slaves were not present.
So, this is a nice belief to discredit the Second Amendment, but it is not really supported by history.
It's an odd moment when Laci and I agree on anything, but he's got you on this matter.
ReplyDeleteBesides, the right isn't identified as belonging to the militia. It belongs to the people.
Well, there are two different things here. One is what is the purpose of the gun rights and the other is what is the purpose of the militia.
DeleteIt belongs to the people as long as their intention is to form a militia. Militias no longer exist, it's called the National Guard.
DeleteThe purpose of the militia is as stated: a free state. But the right belongs to the people, regardless of the existence or not of a militia.
DeleteA 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.
DeleteIt's clear by stating the purpose for people to have the right, before it states the right. There was no armed government force back then. There is now, making militias extinct and the 2nd amendment void.
The militia clause explains why the Founders saw that amendment as needed, but the right is identified as belonging to the people.
DeleteSorry, it's a single sentence separated by commas, which means one phrase defines the other phrase. The individual right only exists if the individual is part of the militia.
DeleteHey, Mr. English Professor, explain this one, will ya?
Delete"The purpose of the militia is as stated: a free state."
Mikeb, what about that don't you understand?
DeleteAnonymous, explain the difference between dependent and independent clauses.
Laughable, the site liar won't answer questions, but expects others to answer his.
DeleteYeah, Greg, I got ya. You can connect the militia with the free state but you cannot connect the bearing arms with the militia.
DeleteMikeb, I was trying to understand your question. But I think I see what you're asking now.
DeleteThe Founders saw a militia as necessary to preserve a free society. That's why they felt it necessary to enumerate the right to arms as worthy of specific protection. But nothing in the enumeration makes being part of the militia a necessary element of the right.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary
Delete...to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
DeleteNotice how the militia is given as a reason why a pre-existing and broader right needs protection?
No, Greg, the militia is given as the reason for the right. Since there is no militia today, the right is meaningless. I know some say the National Guard is today's militia, I don't agree. And I know the Supremes said there is an individual right, but that's only because that was the best Court money could buy. It'll be reversed in the future.
DeleteSee how he leaves out the start of the sentence, that defines the rest of the sentence.
DeleteDishonest, but we already know he is the site lying criminal coward.
Anonymous, I finished the sentence that you or one of the other cowards started. Look at the comment directly above mine.
DeleteMikeb, the militia is given as the reason the right needed protection. The right itself stands alone and prior to the text.
it becomes clear why your students are ranked last in education.
DeleteAre you also teaching them, that they do not have to be responsible for their own words? You have proven that is your belief.
Mike, the Second Amendment had nothing to do with slavery, and I can show you why I know that.
ReplyDeleteThe Second Amendment is part of the federal Constitution. But every state has its own constitution, and most of them include some provision that protects the right to keep and bear arms, similar to the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment.
If arming and regulating slave patrols was the primary purpose behind protecting the right to keep and bear arms, then we would expect to see a RKBA provision in the constitutions of slave states, but not in those of free states.
Instead, we see RKBA provisions in most but not all state constitutions in both slave states and free states. http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm
If the Second Amendment was included to preserve slavery, then why did Connecticut, in 1818, enact their Article 1, section 15, "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."? And why did Georgia completely neglect to protect the RKBA until 1865, after they were conquered by the Union?
Good point. I suppose it could be that arming the militia in each state was not ONLY for protecting against slave uprisings but for any situation that might require the intervention of the local militia.
DeleteDoes this mean you agree with the collective interpretation of the amendment?