Posted on 02/25/2018 12:08:53 PM PST by Stanwood_Dave
I just thought this would be helpful. For what it's worth I had to dig deep back to September 13, 1991 issue of GUN WEEK, via a back-up disk to find this. Hope you all enjoy.
The following is reprinted from the September 13, 1991 issue of GUN WEEK:
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 the Second 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:
“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):
[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,
(1) 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
(2) 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:] (1) Your “scientific control” sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
(2) 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 abridgment 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.
Thanks for reposting. I used to have a copy of it in my files that I copied from FR years ago.
It is time to invoke the fourteenth amendment and boot out those rebelling against the constitution.
Very well said, i will defend the entire bill of rights to the death, not mine, to those who attempt to revoke.
But progressives know better.
The origjnal ammendment, as written and approved, had only 1 comma in it. Some a$$hat do gooder wordsmith inserted the other 2 after.
For real.
As written and approved:
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the free state, the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.”
Makes more sense that way, eh?
The “militia” is the whole American people-
viz.
The Second Amendment is a part of the Bill of Rights, which are rights belonging to the PEOPLE, i.e., The Citizens, not “rights” belonging to the any organizations such as “militias”. “Militia” in the Second Amendment is a consequential corollary of that right, due to necessity for self-defense of all the citizens in a group, because a single individual citizen cannot withstand a large army all by himself. Even Burgoyne defines American militia as “farmers”:
Gentleman Johnny Burgoyne defines “militia” explicitly in 1777, leaving zero doubts to its meaning in 1777 after the Battle of Bennington Aug 16, 1777 :
“The great bulk of the country is undoubtedly with the Congress, in principle and zeal; and their measures are executed with a Secrecy and dispatch that are not to be equaled. Wherever the king`s forces point, militia, to the amount of three or four thousand assemble in twenty-four hours; they bring with them their substance etc., the alarm over, they return to their farms. The Hampshire Grants [Vermont], in particular, now abounds in country unpeopled and almost unknown in the last war, now abounds in the most active and most rebellious race on the continent, and hangs like a gathering storm upon my left.”
-General John Burgoyne, “A State of the Expedition from Canada, as laid before the House of Commons, by Lieutenant-General Burgoyne, and Verified by Evidence; with a Collection of Authentic Documents, and an Addition of Many Circumstances Which were Prevented from Appearing before the House by the Prorogation of Parliament.” (London: J. Almon, 1780) xxv.
American militia defined by the British in 1793:
“THE MILITA IS THE WHOLE AMERICAN PEOPLE”
1775 ”In the American war the distresses of the country were aggravated from the circumstance that every man was obliged some way or other to be in the public service. In Europe where military operations are carried on by armies hired and by paid for the purpose the common people partake but little of the calamities of war; but in America where the Whole people were enrolled as a militia” Ramsay, p285
- The History of the American Revolution”, Volume 2
By David Ramsay 1793 P.
AMERICAN FARMERS, DEFINED AS THE MILITIA, BEAT THE HESSIANS AT HUBBARDTON
“A History of the State of Vermont: From Its Discovery and Settlement to the ...” By Nathan Hoskins, 1831, p66
Battle of Hubbardton, 1777:
“Fortune now began to favor the Americans. The decisive victory at Bennington diffused confidence and joy. The friends of independence before dispirited by misfortune and defeat were now animated by the prospect which suddenly burst upon them of a distinguished victory over an arrogant and once dreaded enemy. The greatest exertions and enterprise were everywhere displayed.
To see the American militia without any military attire or weapons except a farmer’s gun destitute of a bayonet force entrenchments, kill and make prisoners of the royal troops filled the enemy with indignation and amazement.”
General John Stark defines “militia” in 1809
‘On August 16, [1777] a motley collection of militia led by John Stark... [Battle of Bennington]
In 1809, Stark, aged 81, declined an invitation to return to Bennington, but sent a letter that was widely republished in newspapers. Referring to his “men that had not learned the art of submission, nor been trained in the art of war,” Stark closed his letter with the famous postscript,“Live free or die; Death is not the greatest of evils.”’ Wallomsack Review
British speak of Gen. Stark`s undisciplined militia:
General Stark`s “800 UNDISCIPLINED MILITIA”
1777 “
“General Starke who commanded the American militia at Bennington engaged with them before the junction of the two royal detachments could be effected. On this occasion about 800 undisciplined militia without bayonets or a single piece of artillery attacked and routed 500 regular troops advantageously posted behind entrenchments furnished with the best arms and defended with two pieces of artillery.”-
- “The History of the American Revolution”, Volume 2, - By David Ramsay, 1793 P.42
“At this time there was a company of VOLUNTEERS [my caps] from Charleston [NH] with Stark under the command of Captain Abel Walker, which was embraced in Colonel Hobart`s reginment, which, we have reason to believe, did good service in the Battle of Bennington, which followed a few days after.” – Saunderson, p.109 VOLUNTEERS of NH fight at Battle of Saratoga - Saunderson, p.119
I have one quibble with Dr. Copperud’s interpretation:
[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.
I’ve always read that ‘well-regulated,’ in the vernacular of the time, meant ‘well trained.’
“Subject to a superior authority” would put us back under the gov’t having the authority to limit ‘the militia’ which would essentially mean gun control. We the people - the militia, if you will - have to be ready to respond regardless of the gov’t, which is too often useless as we saw in Broward County.
There is also an analysis from a college English professor, PhD, of the punctuation of 2A in which he finds the same thing, that the right to keep and bare arms is the right of the PEOPLE.
His findings clearly state that the way the second amendment in our constitution is punctuated is not by accident, but is intentional in its exactness of intending the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bare arms to be clearly understood.
His conclusion sites that another version of 2A was written and rejected/ejected prior to the final writing of our constitution; that this prior 2A document was punctuated differently. The punctuation was intentionally changed to the current status to insure that it could never be interpreted incorrectly.
So much for that and the liberals inability to read English correctly.
I can not remember where I stored the other document but I have seen it and it is punctuated differently. It is all about where the “comas” are placed.
I'll look for it and see if I can post it in here for all to see.
I suggest that the ratified grammar is not readily apparent. I base my 2nd Amendment position on the founder's published correspondence.
These quotes represents my position :
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invent against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson
The constitution of the United States is to receive a reasonable interpretation of its language, and its powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for which those powers were conferred. By a reasonable interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent of the Constitution. - Joseph Story Commentaries on the Constitution
“So much for that and the liberals inability to read English correctly.”
Yet most English majors and librarians are far-left! How do you figure THAT??? ;)
Here’s some more good information. It’s very well written and a quick read. Most of us have had a perspective that was cluttered with noise from contemporary journalism. This is like a filter to easily clean out the noise. It also shows a great tool for writers to use without needing to be copycats.
Is The Second Amendment Worth Dying For?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/3633354/posts
I tend to think that Dr. Copperud is correct but in any case ‘well-regulated’ only applies to the militia. There is no honest way to read the 2nd A. and see it applied to ‘the people.’
On the plus side, while the a$$hat do gooder wordsmith was in there, he changed "bare" to "bear" ... or it would have been even more confusing.
A couple of professors, I think from Harvard, wrote nearly the same thing several years ago.
I have been trying to search for their report but all of the search engines I have tried are scrubbing anything positive in regards to the Second Amendment and freedom in general.
I wish I could get me hands on that report.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=001/llsl001.db&recNum=144
The actual original wording, from the Library of Congress.
Only 1 comma!
Here we go again..
“[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.”
The word Regulation has not been addressed. Regulation means “To keep in good working order”. As easily demonstrated by older clocks : Regulator for those that set the official time and Regulated for those that need to be set by the Regulator. Regulator clocks are usually kept at post offices, city halls and other official government facilities. Regulated are kept at businesses and the occasional home. For the time period, before modern politicians and lexicon changed it to “Controlled by the government” the word meant that the Congress had to keep this militia in “Good working order”. This meant equipped, trained and organized.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.