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.
I can't parse this. Someone got comma-happy.
There are a few possibilities:
1. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state (along with the right of the people to keep and bear arms), shall not be infringed.
The problem with this interpretation is that grammatically a militia isn't infringed, but rights are. The verb doesn't match the direct object.
2. A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, [and] the right of the people to keep and bear arms [although we aren't going to say why it's important] shall not be infringed.
This eliminates only one comma, but it adds a conjunction and creates an unparallel sentence.
3. 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.
This eliminates two commas, but the verb now matches the direct object and no additional words are necessary. It also implies that the arms are connected to the well-regulated militia, and the militia is what is important for a free state.
--
Of the three, I like the last interpretation the most. My questions are twofold:
1. Did it always contain that many commas? And goodness, why? We use many fewer commas in our writing now than we did 200 years ago, I know. Maybe more research into the historical uses of commas is needed.
2. Do the Supremes generally follow the intent of the words or the literal meaning of the words themselves? Or is it whatever is convenient for their political leanings at the time?
[ August 05, 2004, 11:27 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I've seen copies of the original, and I believe it always did have that many commas. (And as a comma-abuser myself, I have great sympathy for the Founding Fathers. ) Didn't Eats, Shoots & Leaves mention that commas used to be used to indicate anywhere a speaker would pause while reading? That could explain the excess.
As to the second question, at this point in time, I believe case law and precedents may be more significant in decision-making than the original document from whence they came.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Taking into account rivka's reading, I present the following possibility:
4. A well regulated being necessary for the security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
If you take out all the commas and add them in one at a only when strictly grammatically necessary, there is only one - between "state" and "the".
quote:Main Entry: in·fringe Pronunciation: in-'frinj Function: verb Inflected Form(s): in·fringed; in·fring·ing Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- + frangere to break -- more at BREAK transitive senses 1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <infringe a patent> 2 obsolete : DEFEAT, FRUSTRATE intransitive senses : ENCROACH -- used with on or upon <infringe on our rights>
On the other hand, infringe could apply to either the right (in the intransitive sense) or the militia (in the transitive sense).
Is it likely that it could take a double object, one for which it is a transitive verb and the other for which it is intransitive?
[ August 05, 2004, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Richard Berg (Member # 133) on :
The rephrasings are more or less equivalent, with #3 being obviously preferable for contemporary English. People with axes (or suitably nonviolent alternatives ) to grind will find ways to reinterpret things in each case.
My knowledge of history suggests that the authors of this clause intended to say:
the ability to repel attackers and overthrow tyranny is the primary reason a nation-state should concern itself with this right, but hardly the only reason existing in a state of nature (broader self-defense has a very long tradition in Enlightenment thinking, obviously)
to mention "the militia" is to fail to mention a standing army by conspicuous absence; the difference was a big issue at the time, and they were very much against the latter.
Analogies in gun threads are rarely helpful, but regarding Constitutional language this one is fairly good.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) Didn't Eats, Shoots & Leaves mention that commas used to be used to indicate anywhere a speaker would pause while reading? That could explain the excess.