Here’s the second amendment to our Constitution in its entirety:
“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.”
Here’s the NRA version, also adopted by the far right, alt-right, white supremacists and sundry other anti-American, anti-intellectual elements of our population:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Obviously, when you don’t understand what something means, the logical thing to do is just ignore it and move on to the easy part that you do get. Problem is, the easy part is based on the confusing part and can’t be accurately interpreted without figuring out the confusing part.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” seems like unfamiliar syntax to modern speakers and writers of the English language, but it’s really quite familiar.
Gramatically, “a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” is called an absolute clause. Absolute clauses are adverbial in function, meaning they modify something else in the sentence. A clause is a group of words containing a subject and a verb; an absolute clause is a group of words containing a subject and a participle (form of a verb) but not an active verb.
Here are a few examples in more modern English:
“The dinner being prepared, I had time to take a nap.”
“My last paper having been graded, I was ready for a relaxing spring break.”
“That being said” . . .
“Having said all of that” . . .
In each of these examples, the meaning is perfectly clear to modern audiences: the second part of the sentence is true only in light of the first part having been established. In the first example, I’m free to take a nap only because my food prep is done. In the second, I’m ready to spend a relaxing spring break because my paper work is done. When someone says “That being said” or “Having said all of that,” it’s clearly understood that the statement which follows is to be interpreted in the context of what has preceded.
Therefore, these examples could be written this way:
“Because dinner was prepared, I had time to take a nap.”
“Because all of my papers are graded, my spring break will be relaxing.”
“Because of what I just said, the rest of my statement is true.”
Back to the second amendment,
“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.”
Why are we giving you this right? Because we want you to be able to serve in a militia. Oh, yes, a well-regulated militia! According to this text, the right to “keep and bear arms” cannot be interpreted except in the context of citizens being needed to secure our nation’s safety and welfare.
We no longer have state militia. We have a federal army, something our founders wanted to avoid. But now we have it, and it does not require recruits to supply their own weapons. So one could say, as I do, that this amendment has long been outdated and in need of revision to make it applicable to 20th– and 21st-century life.
Here’s what is NOT included in the second amendment:
The number of firearms each person is allowed to own. Many have said that, in the absence of a stated limit, people can own any number they choose. Anyone should be able to see that’s not working out well for the “security of [our] free state.”
Also not included is a limit on the amount of ammunition any one citizen can stockpile. Again, those who prefer to take the route requiring the smallest amount of critical thinking have decided it’s okay for private citizens to own any amount of ammunition they please. Well, that’s not working so well either.
The amendment further does not specify the types of weapons that may be privately owned. On December 15, 1791–the date the Bill of Rights was ratified–the types of weapons available might have been counted on one or two hands. In the last 227 years, however, much has changed in the field of weaponry; and if the types of available weapons have changed, so should the laws and Constitutional provisions which determine weapon ownership. The first amendment has had to be refined since its ratification. Mass communication didn’t exist in 1791, so the founders couldn’t have possibly written into the first amendment provisions regulating radio, TV, and the Internet; we’ve had to develop and refine those provisions ourselves. Why have we not done the same with the second amendment?
Chief Justice Warren Burger, in a 1991 PBS News Hour interview, made this statement:
“The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American people by special interest groups that I have seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies–the militia–would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires.”
Notice again the line, “The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument . . . ” The analysis of language is grammar, so Chief Justice Burger agrees with my premise on the grammar of this amendment.
Until 2008, the Supreme Court and our gun-ownership laws acknowledged that gun ownership is not untethered; it is clearly tied to citizens’ role in national defense. In 2008, however, a case called District of Columbia vs Heller resulted in a decision which includes the following:
“The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
“The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.” [BS–that’s my note.]
It’s time for our SCOTUS to get a grammar lesson!
But before I conclude, because I’ve heard it so many times before, I know the next question will be “Do you think all guns should be banned?” NO. I think citizens should be allowed to own certain types of guns if they can pass a thorough background check and prove themselves sane and responsible. No citizen needs a military assault weapon, so all of those should be banned, as should bump stocks and anything else that increases the killing ability of a weapon. I believe people should have the right or privilege of gun ownership within those parameters, but their right comes from something other than the second amendment. Let the rotten tomato throwing begin!
Our SCOTUS needs to revisit the Heller decision, and it’s past time for a rewrite on the second amendment which reflects life in 2018, not 1791. That’s the least we can do to save our children’s lives.