Clause and Effect

The New York Times Company ^ | December 16, 2007 | ADAM FREEDMAN

[Hazcat]

The best way to make sense of the Second Amendment is to take away all the commas (which, I know, means that only outlaws will have commas). Without the distracting commas, one can focus on the grammar of the sentence. Professor Lund is correct that the clause about a well-regulated militia is “absolute,” but only in the sense that it is grammatically independent of the main clause, not that it is logically unrelated. To the contrary, absolute clauses typically provide a causal or temporal context for the main clause.

The founders — most of whom were classically educated — would have recognized this rhetorical device as the “ablative absolute” of Latin prose. To take an example from Horace likely to have been familiar to them: “Caesar, being in command of the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence” (ego nec tumultum nec mori per vim metuam, tenente Caesare terras). The main clause flows logically from the absolute clause: “Because Caesar commands the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence.”

Likewise, when the justices finish diagramming the Second Amendment, they should end up with something that expresses a causal link, like: “Because 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 infringed.” In other words, the amendment is really about protecting militias, notwithstanding the originalist arguments to the contrary.

[Hazcat]

Rip it (the article) apart guys and girls.

[Bob]

Even a cursory reading of other statements written by the very people who wrote the Constitution would be sufficient to obliterate this article as the absolute drivel that it is.

[rellimpank]

—I’ll take this over the NYT anytime—

—http://www.largo.org/literary.html

[vikingd00d]

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.”
— George Mason

[coloradan]

The moon, being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

[faloi]

Exactly. While I can almost see the point the author is struggling to make, he’s only shifting the argument. What would the framers believe constitute a militia? A group of like-minded individuals ready to fight to establish and protect something they believe in, like a country free of tyranical rule?

[Bob]

A couple of good links to contemporaneous thinking:

Quotes from the Founders (infowars.com)

Comments after ratification (guncite.com)

[Pentagon Leatherneck]

Typical NYT: “Because we’re too stupid to understand it as written, let’s pretend it’s written another way that we can understand.” Bushwa.

TC

[WILLIALAL]

Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state,

Under this reasoning then the next phrase should have been: The right of a “militia” to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

But instead the word “people” was used and for a specific purpose.

[DuncanWaring]

IBrp.

[antinomian]

OK so by his own argument, in order to protect our ability to form militias, all private individuals have the right to keep and bear arms as they see fit. Good enough.

[devistate one four]

Correct, the R i g h t that is being guaranteed is the right of t h e people!!

[longtermmemmory]

orwellian doublespeak.

per the NYT the US Constitution is crimethink.

[Hazcat]

Here’s another good source

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39388c210c1b.htm

[Rick.Donaldson]

The best way to make sense of the Second Amendment is to take away all the commas (which, I know, means that only outlaws will have commas). Without the distracting commas, one can focus on the grammar of the sentence. Professor Lund is correct that the clause about a well-regulated militia is “absolute,” but only in the sense that it is grammatically independent of the main clause, not that it is logically unrelated. To the contrary, absolute clauses typically provide a causal or temporal context for the main clause.

Mayhap I thinketh muchly upon yon verbage, but can say, with utter and complete accuracy, that this is bulleth shitteth.

While "technically correct" in his idiotic assumption, it appears that indeed, the commas are there. (That's the most commas I've used today)

using his rules, this is how I read this statement: "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 shall not be infringed. Militias should be well regulated, but NOT interfere with the rights of the people (whom take precedence over the militia).

The fact is, Americans were afraid of the Engish taking their weapons away (Boston Massacre anyone?) and this particular "Right" was precipitated clearly to prevent a future government from gaining similar powers over the people.

Check out the crazy Third Amendment about "quartering soldiers" in your homes!! Obviously there were mistakes there too! I mean LOOK at all the commas, and what the hell the word "nor" is used?????

Ah, to yearn for the good old days when the elementary school teacher explained, "A comma is little more than a pause to catch your breath"....

sigh

[facedown]

Bushwa.

LOL, I haven't heard that expression for 30 years.

[Hazcat]

Ah, to yearn for the good old days when the elementary school teacher explained, "A comma is little more than a pause to catch your breath"....

And I had such a crush on Miss Jones, my second grade teacher. ;)

[Hazcat]

Ah, to yearn for the good old days when the elementary school teacher explained, "A comma is little more than a pause to catch your breath"....

And I had such a crush on Miss Jones, my second grade teacher. ;)

[ALPAPilot]

I guess it's to difficult for him to fathom that the way the founders had for protecting militias was to protect the ablility of the individual to keep and bear arms.

I would also challenge the author to cite any founding era idea of "collective" rights. Individuals have RIGHTS. Governments have been given JUST POWERS by individuals.:

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness - That to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such Form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happines

[Rick.Donaldson]

5th grade english teacher.... and right now I can’t remember her name, but she certainly made an “impression” on my mind, and I recall her always “pausing for a breath”. wow.