2nd amendment language argument

I keep hearing arguments regarding the second amendment and "ablative absolute" sentence structures.  I have plenty of ammo (pun intended) regarding a pro individual gun ownership position, and am supremely confident in that position.  I could list hundreds of quotes from the founders, in the Federalist Papers, or talk about historic rulings in the Supreme Court, etc, regarding the INDIVIDUAL'S right to gun ownership.

What I am looking for here is response to the ablative absolute argument.  They basically say the sentence reads like this: “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.”

Some of them only want to discuss grammar, which is a bit of a red herring.  None the less, playing on their field, any retorts?

At a small pass in ancient Greece a small group of armed men stood against a large group of armed men. It was their intent to conquer and subjugate a freedom loving people. For the first time freedom stood against tyranny from the  east. It would not be the last time. When the Persian (Iranians)  host told the Spartans to lay down their weapons the response from the Spartans was "MOLON LABE"

 Similarly,on April 19 1775,  at Concord Massachusets a similar group of freedom loving men armed with muskets stood alone in the middle of the road that led to Lexington attempting to stop Major Pitcain and the armed forces of the British Empire from confiscating powder and ball. This led to the shot heard round the world. As we all know, the rest is history. As for my Second Amendmaent language all I can say is ....' from my cold dead fingers.....'

 I used to spend a lot of time arguing the subject. Does that comma change the meaning of the clause? It's silly, in a way. I realized that my own State constitution ensures me the right to keep and bear arms, stated thus:

The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, whenthereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons.

 And most State constitutions specify that it is an individual right, not a matter of militias or the National Guard. So there you have it.

Very good point to bring to the table.  Obviously if all of our states (or most) understood early that it is an individual right, the argument is just an attempt to get their foot in the regulation door from the grammatical angle.  The proverbial camels nose under the tent (or the elephants tusks :) )

 Hope it helps, but Statists tend to be -- always are? -- Federally obsessed, so even if something like 41 States say it's an individual right, it won't matter much. Odds are, though, your own State says its an individual right. Just attack and attack without ceasing. 

Jim:

At a small pass in ancient Greece a small group of armed men stood against a large group of armed men. It was their intent to conquer and subjugate a freedom loving people. For the first time freedom stood against tyranny from the  east. It would not be the last time. When the Persian (Iranians)  host told the Spartans to lay down their weapons the response from the Spartans was "MOLON LABE"

Hate to be a party pooper, but the Spartans were oppressive bastards who kept a whole race of slaves to practice their techniques on. They controlled every aspect of their citizen's lives and were one of the least free peoples ever. The Athenians were free (albeit misogynist boy-lovers). The Spartans were psychotic (and also boy-lovers). And, as empires went, the Persian one was pretty kewl. They let their territories (Satrapies) keep their own governments, albeit with a Persian governor, and were not immensely burdensome in their taxes. If an appointed governor really screwed things up, they let the people of the Satrapy kill him and pick a new one from among their own number.

Just a little ancient history for ya. Let's try to avoid comparing ourselves to the Spartans.

> “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.”

I don't understand why you think this statement is weak. It is stronger than its two parts, "A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state" and "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed". It also introduces the idea that the first truth justifies the second truth.

I think this sentence isn't ablative absolute, as that doesn't exist in English. The original text is nominative absolute.

Also, I don't understand why it's illegal to run around in public wielding swords and bazookas. That sounds like an infringement on one's right to bear arms.

I never said it was "weak".  Their argument is we only have the right to bear arms BECAUSE a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.  This is why they bring up the ablative absolute argument.  So they say we have no "personal" right to bear arms, or have a conceal carry.  They say the right to bear arms is for the militia.

My reply would be, that the militia (A) is made up of individuals (B), and it is necessary for B to be capable to own and carry arms in order for A to exist, and B can own and carry arms whether B is a part of A or not....get my drift?

Also, I don't understand why it's illegal to run around in public wielding swords and bazookas. That sounds like an infringement on one's right to bear arms.

It absolutely is. The correct response to folks carrying bazookas is the private property response: if you don't want folks carrying bazookas, don't let bazooka-wielding people on your property. If enough people agree with you, and ban bazookas on their property, you will have achieved a purely free-market bazooka ban. If you don't like them having bazookas on their property, there are also voluntary measures you can take. You can ban Bazooka Joe from using your road. You can refuse to insure his house. You can ban him from your grocery store. Again, if enough people don't like bazookas, you can limit them through purely voluntary means.

--Len.

They basically say the sentence reads like this: “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.”

The first clause has no bearing on the second, except to gratify curiosity. The sentence could have said, "Because the moon is made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That they're wrong about the moon doesn't change the fact that the right to keep and bear arms is absolutely protected. If you object to arms on the grouns that the moon is NOT green cheese, you still have to amend the Constitution accordingly.

--Len. 

jamesjwilsonsr:

Some of them only want to discuss grammar, which is a bit of a red herring.  None the less, playing on their field, any retorts?

Page 153 (with the meat starting at pg 155) of J. Neil Shulman's _Stopping Power_, has what I consider the definitive grammatical analysis of the 2nd Amendment:

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stop0584.pdf

If I can find the article as plain text, I'll post a link and excerpt. ...Ah! Here it is:

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b55b0ec0b93.htm

 {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.

...and...

 {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.

 I personally like the way it is spelled out in the Texas constitution.

Article 1, Sec. 23

"Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."

Can't get much plainer than that. 

Plainly oppressive, that is. I should be able to tape a gun to my face if I want. "The Legislature shall have power", my buttocks.

 Yes, JCFuller the Spartans were all you say they were..."the Spartans were oppressive bastards who kept a whole race of slaves to practice their techniques on. They controlled every aspect of their citizen's lives (hmm sounds like federalism to me) and were one of the least free peoples ever. The Athenians were free (albeit misogynist boy-lovers). (hmm sounds like the castro diststrict in SF) The Spartans were psychotic (and also boy-lovers).". and despite all that they kicked a lot of persian (iranian) butt. And they were very cruel and barbaric about it because thats the way "oppresive bastards"fight. They learned  their lessons well against their helot/messenian slaves. And  I will compare ourselves to the Spartans, JCFolsom. We all know what they were and what they did. And so what if they owned slaves there was no one there to challenge them. As if owning slaves was a bad thing back in the day? It was an acceptable norm for the times..They did what they did because they could. As all dictators do.The point I was trying to make is this: from the time of the Spartans stand against the Persians a few good men have been willing to stand against tyranny and despotism and pay the price for it. How many times have we done that on foreign battlefields, next time we are in France we will take the time to count the crosses and Stars of David. Those Spartan brave souls ("oppresive bastards") acted as a "trip wire,they fought a delaying action so  the athenians could get their act together. The Spartans I suppose will always have their detractors as we have ours. The Spartans ("oppresive bastards")merely showed us how it is done. IE. to stand against an empire and poke it in the eye. And they did it with such glee and gusto ("we will fight in the shade") And send it packing from wence it came as our Minutemen did on Lexinton Green.
  Now that you mention it JC, the more I think about it there does seem to be a common thread between  the Spartans, the Athenians and us. We too have our boy lovers (NAMBLA) We too had slaves both north and south. we also commited genocide and ethnic cleansing to our own native peoples and used the christian faith to justify it..(MANIFEST DESTINY) and did it with the constitution in one hand and the bill of rights in the other.There is no point in pointing ("let he who  has not sinned cast the first stone") a self righteous,corrupt finger at the ancients who were the first to stand for freedom and paid an awful price for it. But they did it so well. I suppose I have gone far afield here in response to the language of my Second Amendment. In my discussions with the anti Second Amendment types in my community (yes martha I live in the belly of a liberal beast) attitude is that they could care less about the grammar, commas and such in the text of my Second Amendment, they are afraid for their safety they want all guns banned. They want the Second Amendment repealed and are more than willing to use the legislative process to accomplish this. We cannot allow this to happen. This is where our challenge is.  Mr Franklins quote is totally lost on them. No argument,no amount of logic will convince  these hoplophobes to even consider that they have a right to protect themselves They would rather the government protect them.  After all thats why they pay taxes.Yes, JCFolsom history is replete with barbarism and pederasity  and so called mans inhumanity to man and all that. SO WHAT. After all this time you think we would know better. Evil is in our genetic code. In closing this history lesson for you jcfolson try to remember that when you point an accusatory finger at someone or something you will always have three fingers pointing back at yourself. Party On. PEACE.