What does it matter how many commas are in the Second?

J

Jack 99

New member
I've never followed this argument very well. From where I sit, the Second says what it means and means what is says. No amount of commas really changes that.

It enumerates a certain pre-existing right, the right to keep and bear arms, as being retained by the PEOPLE. As a pre-cursor, it establishes Militia duty as the pre-eminent rationale for the enumeration of that right. The first clause is NOT exclusionary though. It does NOT say (except when wishful-thinking Pinkos get ahold of it) that the ONLY reason for the RKBA is to serve as part of the Militia.

In other words, the reason its there is to make sure that the pre-existing right to keep and bear is clearly spelled out in no uncertain terms and to establish a pre-immentent reason for that right -- namely to serve as part of the Militia (which we are OBLIGATED to do, but that's another thread), but it does NOT put a condition on the RKBA. Even if it did, it really wouldn't matter because the Ninth protects our RKBA for every other purpose other than Militia duty anyway.

Now how in the world does the number of commas change anything?
 
It dosn't. It's just a trap that the anti's set for us to get us to doubt ourselves as to the meaning. And as you can see from all the discussion, it has worked.



------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
To me; when the qualifier and directive portions of the sentence are not broken by the additional commas; the single comma verson seems to show even more strength of purpose.

Either way, it seems the good gentlemen intentionaly wrote the document in simple inarguable prose rather than the flowery legaleese that even then was popular.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
Jack,

For you, for me, for most of us, the number and placement of commas is irrelevant.

However,
- As a minor historical point, I would like to know what the ole boys actually wrote.
- From a grammatical viewpoint, I would like to defend the Second Amendment and its original intent without ambiguities.

Between us? Heck, let's go shootin'!! :)
 
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.

Well, if you look at modern grammatical correctness and commas, the 2nd Amendment could be shortened by stating:

"A well regulated Militia shall not be infringed."

In my opinion, the two middle sections could be summed up by stating:

"The right of the People to keep and bear arms is necessary to the security of a free State."

However, when I think of the 2nd, I think "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Whether they are conveying that it is the Militia or the Right that shall not be infringed matters not, in my opinion.

Either way, it pertains to us, as we are the Militia as defined in the United States Code, and the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is ours.

So in essence, you can move or remove all the commas you want and the 2nd Amendment will still say the same thing - That we, the Militia, and our right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed upon.

That's my take on it, at least.

------------------
¡Viva la RKBA!
Bulldawg: NRA, GOA, TSRA, Shiner Bock Connoisseur.
Bulldawg's Firearms Page
 
The one commma version reads more like we currently speak and write. Overall the one comma version is simpler, easier to understand, and much more direct in the meaning.

"A well regualated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Written this way it is very obvious that the words before the comma are a subordinant clause, and the words after are the primary clause which could be written as a complete and seperate sentence.

Otherwise, with the three comma version, there isn't any phrase that is a stand alone sentence. Those that wish to twist the meaning and intent of the 2nd amendment can claim that the phrase structure gives the 2nd amendment a meaning of something different.

A well regulated militia, shall not be infringed.
A well regulated militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms (for the security of a police state.)

Its just easier to twist the words around and make it seem something other then it is. Those that don't understand the history and are constantly getting missinformation from the media, may be mislead.

There isn't any way those that wish to mislead can do so with the one comma version. We should make a big deal about it because the one comma version is much stronger. If Anti's were to use it, they won't, it would blatently show they were less then honest with themselves and how they feel about the intelignece of those they are trying to convert.

Sprig
 
By the way, Sprig, the original was written with three commas. I don't see any reason to re-write the 2nd Amendment with only one comma just to get the point across.
 
Bulldog I knew that!
The point was to take 2 out of the 24 different ways the 4 word phrases (in the three comma version) could be organized such that an anti could try to twist some other meaning out of it.

Here are two more.

Being necessrary to the security of a free state, a well regulate militia, was created and called the National Guard.

Shall not be infringed, a well regulated miltia, of Jack Booted Thugs!

That was the point. I just kept the commas to show each seperate word phrase. With blatant disregard for proper grammer.

I was acting like an Anti, can you forgive me?

Sprig
 
Bulldog,

Was the 2nd amendment written with 3 commas?

Orginaly it was written as "aricle the fourth" and did contain 3 commas. However, there are survivng published documents that indicate the FINAL RATIFIED VERSION which then became the 2nd amendment contains only one comma.

I'd like to have access to some of resources to find out whether this was a mistake on the part of some publisher 226 years ago, or whether we should all be pissed off the correct version isn't being currently published.

Sprig
 
Thank you Sprig.
Either way I will defend it but I too would like to know how the ratified version was written.

Sam
 
seen this page? http://www.nidlink.com/~bobhard/mom.html
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Article II

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 is of great interest to note that in the ensuing years since this Amendment was ratified that two commas have been inserted, after the words "Militia" and "Arms",
providing misconstruction of a very explicit restriction on the legislatures and the government. These commas appear in virtually all presentations of the 2nd Amendment
today, including the official NARA presentation. The correct wording as presented to the States for ratification is shown in the "True Bill" and the Original Congressional
Engrossing of the Proposed Amendments.

Early publications of the Laws and Constitutions of the the United States DO NOT show these commas, i.e. the Bioren and Duane publication, "The Laws of the United
States of America, from the 4th of March, 1789 to the 4th of March, 1815", and the "The Constitutions of the United States", published in 1809 during Jefferson's
administration by "Exeter: Printed by Charles Norris & Co for Edward Little & Co. Booksellers & Stationers, Newburyport." Both Original publications and many others
contemporary with them showing this fact are in the possession of my group of researchers -- Barefoot

"The Constitutions of the United States" volume contains the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, State constitutions for New Hampshire,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island (which was still operating under the King's Charter until 1843), Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland,
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Vermont, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Ohio. It also has the "Government of the Northwest Territory", "An Act to Divide
the Northwest Territory into two separate governments", "An Act Concerning the District of Columbia" and supplements, "An Act to incorporate the inhabitants of the City
of Washington in the District of Columbia" and supplements, and finally "An Act erecting Louisiana into two Territories, and providing for the Temporary government
thereof."

The Bioren and Duane edition of 1815 was published by Act of Congress. This publication, in five volumes, is the first authorized publication of the Laws of the United
States and the U.S. Constitution following the destruction of the Library of Congress and the other records of the government by the British army in 1814. The lawmakers
then seated as the Thirteenth Congress authorized the spending for this special edition on February 16th, 1815.

Just recently, June 1999, I have finally found a Government presentation of the Constitution which has the 2nd amendment right... without the extra
commas after the words Militia and Arms. The discussion is not very definitive . . . but worth studying. This, however, is a definitive statement . . . "\1\
Whatever the Amendment may mean, it is a bar only to federal action, . . ."[/quote]

dZ
 
Yes

The government cannot grant a right, it can take a right away. I read the second as forbidding the government to take that right away.

------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin

Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
 
The archive search seems to be disabled...this is the 4th time I've posted this:

Source: Harper's October 1999: "Your Constitution is Killing You" by Daniel Lazare.

Madison original version, 1789:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person being religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
All punctuation is as Madison wrote. Note that he also addresses conscientious objectors. Also note that in his original version, he suggests that a well-regulated militia is merely one of the good things that stem from a universally armed populace.
This was submitted to committee and was altered as follows: (all punctuation as written)

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

This was submitted to the Senate, who changed it to present existing form, as they wanted it to be lean: They felt that everyone at the time knew what the militia was, so it didn't need to be defined as it was common knowledge; and they dropped the CO aspect.




------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
 
A well regulated malitia is necessary to the security of a free state and the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The firearms community "Living Constitution".
 
A well regulated standing army, being necessary to the security of the police state
the right of the government to keep and bear arms,exclusive of all others, shall never be infringed upon penility of immediate death.

Al Gore and Bill Clinton's
"Living Constitution."
 
I have a book that belonged to one of my relatives many years ago. It is entitled, "The Constitution of the United States of America," by W. Hickey, published in Philadelphia, 1848. This is the offically authorized printing by the Congress, at that time. It was distributed to all members of Congress, the Judiciary, President, and many citizens.

In it, the Second Article reads, "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 is claimed by W. Hickey, that it was taken directly from the original documents, and many letters from congressmen, senators, and Supreme Court justices, acknowledge this.

That's what the book says. If the "commas" were different in the original document, it is not noted in this book.

FWIW. J.B.
 
Surely someone here has either a photographic copy of the BoR, or will have the opportunity to go view the original document itself, and can tell us exactly where the commas are.

At this rate I'm half tempted to fly to DC myself just to answer this long-running comma question.
 
Antis are interpreting the Second Amendment using TODAY'S punctuation conventions.

Big mistake, because punctuation usage today is VERY different than it was 200 years ago.

------------------
Beware the man with the S&W .357 Mag.
Chances are he knows how to use it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top