Can somebody parse the 2nd Amendment for me, please?

U

Unique 5.7

New member
If any of you are English teachers or experts, I'd like to know how this sentence is parsed. I not so good at that. TIA

"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."
 
It's a bit arcane syntax, being eighteenth-century English.

In a strictly linguistic sense, a "modernized" translation into modern English would be:

"Because a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Antis make a big deal of the "well-regulated militia" part, but that's irrelevant, because the first part of the sentence is merely prefatory. Also, the term "regulated" didn't have the same meaning in 1790 as it does these days. For an illustration of the 18th century meaning of the word, take a double-barreled rifle to a gunsmith and ask him to regulate the barrels. He'll ask you for what load and distance you want them regulated.

To state that the sentence means that only militias may have guns is a deliberate misreading of the sentence.

Bruce Tiemann hit the nail right on the head when he wrote:

"A well-crafted pepperoni pizza, being necessary to the preservation of a diverse menu, the right of the people to keep and cook tomatoes, shall not be infringed."

I would ask you to try to argue that this statement says that only pepperoni pizzas can keep and cook tomatoes, and only well-crafted ones at that. This is basically what the so-called states rights people argue with respect to the well-regulated militia, vs. the right to keep and bear arms."
 
Part 1 of 2

The following is reprinted from the September 13, 1991 issue of
GUN WEEK:
THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
by J. Neil Schulman

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of theSecond Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus. A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did \not\ give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
"July 26, 1991
"Dear Professor Copperud:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment 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.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.

"Sincerely,

"J. Neil Schulman"



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
Click to expand...

End of Part 1
 
Part 2 of 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.
In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]

[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;] [Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]

[Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]

[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.

[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]

[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.

[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]

[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since 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 abridged."

[Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,


Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]
[Copperud:]
Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the ACLU, staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Copyright (c) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited.
All others rights reserved.
Click to expand...

The End
 
Last edited:
Nice post. Some interesting history ...

The constitution was never meant to be detailed; it was guidelines for the courts to interpret. When the courts interpret constitutional issues they look at the recorded conversations from the period and read over the arguments.

There was very little debate over this one because owning weapons was just natural to the framers and they didn't give it much thought; they just always assumed private citizens would own weapons for their own defense (what fool wouldn't).

But, there were 2 other options discussed.

One clearly made it an individual right (something like "the rights of any individual to own a firearm...")

The other was more specif to the militia (individuals in the militia can own firearms ...").

But remember ... even if the last one had been taken and made it a specific right to certain national guardsmen, it wouldn't have excluded gun ownership because the framers took that for granted.

Too bad they didn't go for the first one. But until the 14th amendment the entire constution only restricted the federal government; States could make any law they wanted as the constitution only limited the feds.

Hope I'm remembering all that correctly ...
 
Thank you very much fellow posters for this help and references. If it is clear enough to you that you could parse it, I'd really appreciate your help, Rich. I don't want to get ahead of myself here and start making conclusions. Right now I'm studying it, its legal history, how the words are parsed, strengths and weaknesses to help determine how to do volunteer work in a liberal state where there is a possible chance to legalize CCW. I will be addressing Liberals and Centrists and am preparing myself to answer/argue/agree with the arguments that will be made as the situation dictates.
I wanted a strictly linguistic analysis with political interpretations down the line, but this will help a lot.
 
unique said:
If it is clear enough to you that you could parse it, I'd really appreciate your help, Rich.
Click to expand...
Unique-
Apologies. The blithe manner of your question caused me to assume your post was tongue-in-cheek.

It's a short statement with really only two terms that might be at question:
1) "Well regulated militia": Marko has spoken to this in terms of it being a preamble statement and in terms of what the words meant at the time. Remember also that there was no Army at the time. The "militia" was considered to be all able-bodied men. Essentially, the Founders were affirming their view and intent that a "free" and "secure" state requires the right of citizens to go armed.

2) "The people": Much as they'd like, opponents of the 2nd Amendment can point to no instance in our Constitution where the words "the people" refer to anything but an INDIVIDUAL right. It is not a collective term.
Rich
 
Rich - No problem at all, I was making fun of myself for being poor at parsing. I have another thread I started if you are wondering what I'm doing. I did volunteer work in Ohio and we now have it, thanks to the work of many different peoples and organizations. I am quite adept at speaking on these issues with moderate liberals and centrists who hold jobs and pretty much resemble moderate conservatives in most ways. Some of these liberals are conservative with a small "c" in the way they conduct their lives and are quite approachable and open minded when they are not being vilified. A lot of them are veterans, own guns, and have property and families they are interested in defending. The 2nd Amendment has some quirky problems. I don't want to promote these weaknesses and get caught in a trap. For example, I haven't done the research yet, but I believe the militia consists of able bodied male U.S. citizens between the ages of 18/21 - 45? I wouldn't want to argue that too much and hear back that this doesn't apply to people who do not fit the criteria. I believe the elderly and females should have the right to bear arms. When gun controllers argue guns shouldn't be taken into certain places, I'd like to take a look at the concept of "places of public accommodation" that many promoted to force integration in public places. Maybe this should extend to the lawful carry of guns in many, if not all, such places. You see, much liberal lawmaking and jurisprudence can be applied if you look at lawful gun owners as the "victim" class. It won't help much to have a carry law and then enable so many places to ban the carry, that it becomes illegal and ineffective to carry very much. Michael Corleone should have been shot dead before he ever got to the door by a CCW citizen, imo! Take care.
 
Last edited:
I was taught that the first part of 2A was written as an example. 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state'...was the Founder's way
of illustrating just one scenario where the uninfringed right to keep and bear arms was fundamental. By using the phrase 'well-regulated militia' they were not limiting the keeping and bearing of arms to just that purpose. That in itself would have constituted an infringement by eliminating the use of firearms for individual self defense, sport and/or the gathering of game. Anti's would have you believe that in colonial times the ONLY lawful possession and use of firearms was in direct association with the official duties of the militia. It just ain't so.
 
"The "militia" was considered to be all able-bodied men."

Understand also that this definition continues essentially unchanged to this day. See 10 USC sec 311.

Goto Alllaw.com and search "US Codes" for "militia".

Tim
 
Even so, the definition of a militia has no bearing on the second amendment, as the amendment is not limited to said militia.

This is, as far as I see it, the big mistake in invoking Miller on this point. The court ruled that because the shotgun had no military (militia) significance, it was not covered under the amendment. They were mistaken, it did have relevant significance, but even so, it misinterprets the amendment to cover only weapons suitable for militia use.

So be careful thinking you are going to win an argument or make progress on this issue by trying to attach a more favorable definition to 'militia'. When you do, you run the risk of conceding the point that the amendment confers a right to the militia and the militia only, which is incorrect.

- Gabe
 
"When you do, you run the risk of conceding the point that the amendment confers a right to the militia and the militia only, which is incorrect."

Except that the militia, then and now, is "the people". I point this out because a common anti-2A argument is to say that it applies only to the militia, and that the militia is the National Guard. There is an "organized" and an "unorganized" militia, and virtually everyone is in the unorganized militia. (That, of course, is not literally true. Recognize, though, that at the time the Constitution was written, a 45-year-old would have been considered "old" if not "venerable", and no one would have thought to include women in the militia, since, well, that would just have been unthinkable.)

If I anticipated arguments about this (and the OP does) I would bring along a copy of the applicable US Code, or at least be prepared to quote chapter and section. Even the most dim-witted anti is usually impressed and surprised by this.

Tim
 
5.7 - Did you read hkmp5sd's post above? Did you read the links I posted? That's about as parsed as you're likely to get. :)
 
Thanks for all the info. Hopefully, we'll have somebody who can parse it or authoritatively explain why it can't be parsed. I have a suspicion it couldn't be parsed at the time it was written and that this was done on purpose. I may go to some linguistics/language analysis web site for help and see what they come up with. I must accomplish this first.
Anyway, I do appreciate the many references provided concerning the 2nd Amendment very much, though I am not going to look closely at them for a while. I have always wanted to spend some of my retirement time promoting the 2nd Amendment and the spread of legal CCW in the nation.
 
here's my go ...

1) A well regulated Militia

well-regulated - adjusted for accurate and proper functioning, maintained in order, trained
Militia - the ordinary citizens of the country

2) being necessary to the security of a free State

necessary - needed to achieve
free - live in liberty, not slavery

3) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms

people - plural of person
keep and bear - own, possess
arms - weapons, especially a firearm

4) shall not be infringed

shall not be - negative of, not
infringed - defeated or invalidated

in other words, when the ordinary citizens of a country are no longer allowed to possess weapons they cease to be free and become slaves

an armed man is a citizen
an unarmed man is a serf
a disarmed man is a slave
 
Last edited:
It sounds to me like the "parsing" you want is something that could be done by a computer program i.e it requires no comprehension of what principles the Second Amendment represents. I don't see the point.

IMHO ... The key is the term "free State". When the founders spoke of a "free State" or "free government", it is a reference to self-government. Virginia, for instance, is founded upon the principle that Virginians have a collective right to control our State. Virginia is a Commonwealth. And a Commonwealth is a "free State".

A "free State" is not a Libertarian State, it is a State in which the people have a collective right to pass laws as they see fit. A free State might for instance pass a law that blacks and whites cannot marry, or that homosexual acts are illegal, or that CCW is not allowed.

But there are certain things that a free State cannot do. For instance, if Virginians decided to make somebody King of Virginia, then we would no longer be what the Founders called a "free State", we would be a "monarchial State".

What's more, there are certain requirements for a "free State" that must be respected, and these are enumerated in a Bill of Rights. For instance, a "free State" requires that government have separate branches, and this "right" is listed in the Virginia Bill of Rights. In this view, a Bill of Rights is not about individual rights, it is better seen as regarding requirements for self-government or "political rights".

Again, IMHO ... What the Second Amendment is saying is that self-government requires an armed people. Further, they need to get together and be trained and ready to stand up to the military. Because the Founders believed that the military may take over or else the government may use the military to take over ... and they did in the 1860's, but I digress.

Here is what Virginia requested for the Second Amendment:

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.
Click to expand...

What I hope to do is point out that a Bill of Rights, at least to me, is not just some random enumeration of libertarian principles or individual rights. Instead, they are requirements of self-government or free government or, as the Second Amendment puts it, "necessary to the security of a free 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 right of the people is not the right of every person. A free State may deny the RKBA to felons, or for that matter a "free State" may deny the RKBA to blacks or Jews. But the general population, the controlling majority, have a political right to be armed. Further, a free State may ban certain guns. In fact, to push this political theory to its very extreme, a free State might ban every gun but one model and require that anyone having that gun keep it locked up at home with the ammo stored separately. Because the point is that the people would still have the ability to take their one gun and load it with their separately stored ammo and collectively use their RKBA to alter or to abolish their government.

Also, the US is not a "free State" or commonwealth because a free State is empowered by its people whereas the US is empowered by the States (i.e. by the people as fifty sovereignties).

I believe the ultimate exercise of the Second Amendment is secession.
 
A free State may deny the RKBA to felons, or for that matter a "free State" may deny the RKBA to blacks or Jews
Click to expand...
um, shall not be infringed?

But the general population, the controlling majority, have a political right to be armed.
Click to expand...
actually, this is why the minority needs to be armed so they don't get pushed around by "the controlling majority". if "the controlling majority" decides that all Hugh Damrights are to be imprisoned, are you going to going to submit willingly?

the second amendment is less about what the government can or can't do and more about what individuals should do if they wish to remain free, ie keep and bear arms. a law passed by "the controlling majority" doesn't automatically make it just.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top