2nd Amendment, Scalia and what the Founders meant: Commas, Common Sense and Justice. The question is how to interpret the comma after 'free state.'

[Stryder50]

Scholars have and you need to take a break.

You clearly are not one of those scholars and in need of re-education on the topic.
Or STFU, pack your bags and move to one of the communist tyranny nations where you'll be more at home

 

[Stryder50]

the intent was that all males should be armed, now it should include females.

Language usage back then wasn't as specific, gender conscious or divisive as it is today.

For example; "all men are created equal" implied the inclusions of females and children within language usage of the era.

As for the 2nd Amendment, it is "the Right of the People" which does include women and as many historians would confirm, in the Frontier era women often used arms/weapons and fought alongside men in defense of their homes (and themselves).

BTW, as I mentioned earlier here, the term "arms" is not exclusive to firearms. Would have included swords, knives, axes, spears, halberds, lances, bow&arrows, crossbows, catapults, balistas, cannons, etc.

 

[Stryder50]

It's hard to believe that Trump has been alive for almost 1/3 of our entire countries history. 80/250 = 3

Many of us are in that category.

 

[Stryder50]

Ok, valid point, I see what you are getting at. Ok, it's like this: Because much of today's argument on 2A, not only is irrelevant to militia, much of the argument is focused on the scope of the right, which is not defined in 2A (since no right is absolute, thus 'shall not be infringed' is not absolute, which gives rise to how we should define scope), which is why Heller exists, not only to change the militia-centric aspect of 2A, but to further define scope. 2A does not give us any hint as to what the scope of the right should be and thus it should be modernized to include at least some parameter for scope to guide us in our court rulings (which are thus left to partisanship)

Of course, if we agree on an amendment, there will be a major debate on what the parameters of scope should be but we should get the conversation at least started.

Some rights are absolute, but humans can suppress them at times.
Especially fascists ~Leftists who are power hungry.

 

[Stryder50]

Funny how you avoided this part:

Given your argument - the militia is no longer necessary to preserve a free state - this 'modernization' would be fully accomplished by amending the Amendment to read:

Amendment II(A): The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Why doesn't this satisfy your complaint?

Give recent years of civil disorder/unrest such as from the radical Left ~ AntiFa, it could be argued that militias are still needed to protect the communities and citizens from the political thugs and criminals that have been allowed to violate laws because they are mobs.

 

[Dante]

You clearly are not one of those scholars and in need of re-education on the topic.
Or STFU, pack your bags and move to one of the communist tyranny nations where you'll be more at home

Try paying attention -- for once in your pathetic life

THE OP:

This argument has been around for a very long time. The question is how to interpret the comma after “free state.” It's incredible that it took a heavily stacked court to rule as they did. I support gun ownership. Have been a gun owner. I have never been in or desired to join a militia. Why would I? I'm no Timothy McVeigh.


Opinion | Commas, Common Sense and Justice - John McWhorter - You’re reading the John McWhorter newsletter. A Columbia University linguist explores how race and language shape our politics and culture.

Like language itself, punctuation is always in a state of flux.

If you are of a certain age, notice how you are likely using exclamation points more lately. It has become a mark of agreeability in a way that would mystify a time traveler from as recently as a couple decades ago. “See you in a bit!” “I looked for you yesterday but you weren’t there!” I now email like that.

This is part of a long story Florence Hazrat tells in “On the Mark: From Periods to Interrobangs, How Punctuation Remade the World,” due out in August...

It’s a roller coaster of a story. Ancient Greek had no spaces between words, Hazrat writes, and Aristophanes of Byzantium, a librarian in Alexandria, found it cumbersome...

In considering how the history of punctuation can affect history itself, Hazrat touches on the role of commas in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Constitution’s Second Amendment — “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” — protects the rights of all people, not just militia members, to possess firearms. Hazrat finds the reasoning behind the ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, is absurd. I agree.

The question is how to interpret the comma after “free state.” Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the ruling, wrote that the comma set apart a mere preface to the “operative clause” of the amendment — the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Hazrat writes that Scalia’s analysis followed the tradition of the most conservative pro-gun advocates to take the part of the amendment before that comma as throat-clearing, with all the intention of the amendment coming after that comma. Scalia argued that that preface in no way qualified or limited the intention of the Bill of Rights’ framers.

Essentially Scalia argued that the Founders meant, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms — something separate — shall not be infringed.”

Hazrat argues that commas should play no role in interpreting the amendment...

Rather, we should accept the most plausible interpretation of what the words mean. Until this century there was a broad understanding that the Founders meant that all clauses of the amendment, no matter how many there are, should be read together. As in, people should be able to bear arms to serve in a militia, not just for any reason they want.

I would add that the comma is less the issue than that Scalia’s interpretation is hopelessly forced. Scalia persuasively argued that in the late 18th century, “bear arms” referred to using weapons in various ways, not just in a militia. But it still leaves a crucial question: Why would the Founders bring up one type of gun ownership — when serving in a militia — if they wanted to approve all kinds of gun ownership? If they wanted to preface their proclamation, as Scalia claimed, they could have mentioned not only serving in a militia, but self-defense and hunting.

Under Scalia’s analysis, the following sentence would pass muster: “Basketball, aiding in health, sports, shall be encouraged.” Such a sentence is beyond clumsy.

It insults the Founders to suppose that this sort of convolution was the best they could do when adjudicating something of such gravity.

It comes down to this: “Officials, being prone to partisan bias, Supreme Court justices, should interpret language according to what is most intuitive.”

 

[Dante]

Give recent years of civil disorder/unrest such as from the radical Left ~ AntiFa, it could be argued that militias are still needed to protect the communities and citizens from the political thugs and criminals that have been allowed to violate laws because they are mobs.

Try adding something of value.

In considering how the history of punctuation can affect history itself, Hazrat touches on the role of commas in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Constitution’s Second Amendment — “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” — protects the rights of all people, not just militia members, to possess firearms. Hazrat finds the reasoning behind the ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, is absurd. I agree.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Try adding something of value.

In considering how the history of punctuation can affect history itself, Hazrat touches on the role of commas in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Constitution’s Second Amendment — “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” — protects the rights of all people, not just militia members, to possess firearms. Hazrat finds the reasoning behind the ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, is absurd. I agree.

In this case it doesn't do anything because that part of the clause doesn't do anything.

 

[Stryder50]

Try adding something of value.

In considering how the history of punctuation can affect history itself, Hazrat touches on the role of commas in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Constitution’s Second Amendment — “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” — protects the rights of all people, not just militia members, to possess firearms. Hazrat finds the reasoning behind the ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, is absurd. I agree.

Compare to the writing and punctuation within the Constitution for further example and context.

The "comma" issue is a mountain out of a molehill, tempest in a teacup.

 

[Stryder50]

Try adding something of value.

In considering how the history of punctuation can affect history itself, Hazrat touches on the role of commas in the 2008 Supreme Court ruling that the Constitution’s Second Amendment — “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” — protects the rights of all people, not just militia members, to possess firearms. Hazrat finds the reasoning behind the ruling, District of Columbia v. Heller, is absurd. I agree.

BTW, "arms" implies all types of weapons, not just firearms.
Like many, you are reading into this what it doesn't say.

 

[Dante]

In this case it doesn't do anything because that part of the clause doesn't do anything.

Do the graduate schools in America know how brilliant this Stryder50 is?

 

[Dante]

BTW, "arms" implies all types of weapons, not just firearms.
Like many, you are reading into this what it doesn't say.

Canons? Tanks? Bazookas?

 

[Dante]

Compare to the writing and punctuation within the Constitution for further example and context.

The "comma" issue is a mountain out of a molehill, tempest in a teacup.

You know so much more than all the experts in all of America's graduate schools.

Stale Genius for sure.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Do the graduate schools in America know how brilliant this Stryder50 is?

Doubt it, do they know the facts of the 2nd Amendment? Probably not either.

Each side is throwing shit and hoping it sticks.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You know so much more than all the experts in all of America's graduate schools.

Stale Genius for sure.

But he's right.

The Second Amendment is this:

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia
The right to keep arms is the right to own militia style weaponry (for individual soldiers, as opposed to owning tanks and SAMs)

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

All this does is say "well, the rights (stated above) are there so that we can remain free". It doesn't do anything. There's no right conferred in that part of the sentence. It doesn't take any power away from the US govt.

Unless you think it does, then if so, what power is taken from the US federal government?

 

[Stryder50]

Canons? Tanks? Bazookas?

Extension of modern day weapons/arms application.
The colonies had more than muskets in their arsenals.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do the graduate schools in America know how brilliant this Stryder50 is?

speaking of experts a few years back a renowned expert in the English language agreed with what the supreme court ruled.

 

[Dante]

Extension of modern day weapons/arms application.
The colonies had more than muskets in their arsenals.

Yep.

I thought your argument was about the Colonists themselves.

 

[Dante]

speaking of experts a few years back a renowned expert in the English language agreed with what the supreme court ruled.

Really? How many experts disagreed? Do you even care?

 

[Stryder50]

Really? How many experts disagreed? Do you even care?

When have all "experts" on any subject ALL agreed ???