# Parsing the Second Amendment **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 27, 2011, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952 "2011-04-27T21:28:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 3:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952/41 "2011-04-28T03:23:28Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > You know, I remember in the earlier days of this message board members of the anti-gun contingent on here frequently dropping the bomb into gun control threads of “Sorry, the USSC disagrees with you. See _Miller._ Suck it down.” Yet when the USSC shows in two back-to-back landmark decisions that the anti-gun contingent is not correct any more (let’s leave aside whether or not they were correct before; assume that they were and it still doesn’t change my point), suddenly there’s this _reluctance_, and _equivocation_, and _hemming and hawing_, and _handwaving_ and _goal-post moving_, and even sometimes “oh, it was only a 5-4 decision…”-ing (yeah, so was _Miranda_, anyone want to throw that out? You there, next to the American flag? Oh, you were just scratching your back; never mind…), and _no one_ saying “You’re right, the USSC disagrees with me, I need to suck it down.” > > I find that most unfortunate. > > And as far as this thread goes…2008 called, it wants its topic back. There is nothing wrong with arguing why you think a given ruling is wrong. Of course if you like a ruling you defend it. If your argument is everyone else should shut-up once they rule the way you like then yeah…that is not cool. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952/42 "2011-04-28T03:28:08Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Deal. The First Amendment protects flags from being burned, and people have an individual right to possess guns. Quite so. However, neither of those is (or need be) an \*unrestricted \*right. Considering the right to free speech is not absolute (see: yelling fire in a theater, public indecency laws and so forth), I see no reason the right of the individual to arm the bears they keep should be absolute as well. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952/43 "2011-04-28T03:30:47Z")
I wondered how long it would be before someone would advocate arming the bears. If we can have lasers on sharks, then we need 12-gauges on bears. Then again, I’m a mostly anti-hunting / pro-gun person, so that fits… ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952/44 "2011-04-28T03:49:50Z")
> [@Evil\_Captor](#): > > All right, SA. Give me your damn gun! Now!!! > > I’ll need your man card, too. You’ll get my man card when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers. 😉 My gun too, if I had one. 😛 ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952/45 "2011-04-28T05:33:22Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > You’re missing the point. > > “Suits at common law” did have a specific definition at the time, but that definition\* has now changed\*. Many of the civil actions which have come into existence since then are based on statute, but many are based on evolving common law. However, SCOTUS chose to stick with the definition of the phrase as it existed at the time of ratification. > > SCOTUS took the opposite path with “arms”, “speech” and “press”. Ok, you are correct that the 1st and 2nd amendment weren’t interpreted based on a specific definition at the time, while the 7th did. I’m trying to say that ‘Suits at common law’ had a specific meaning at the time, but ‘arms’, ‘speech’, and ‘press’ didn’t. The latter are generic terms, whose meaning hasn’t changed with the development of new forms, and weren’t fixed at the time either. If there were a known list of the items that qualified as ‘arms’ or ‘speech’ they would have been noted in the Constitution. So the different ways of interpreting were based on the differences in the specification, not just randomly applying different means of interpretation. BTW: The 7th could have been interpreted to mean any US law thereafter since the US laws were based on the English common law. Literalism in this case was used to deprive people of rights rather than expand them. So I’m not agreeing with the Supremes on this one, just pointing out the difference in the way the the amendments are specified. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 6:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952/46 "2011-04-28T06:17:25Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Why would you think that? What’s bad for the goose is bad for the gander. Plus I’m only referring to people who said _Miller_ was the be-all and end-all because it fit their agenda, and suddenly when the wind blows the other way the USSC isn’t so infallible, is it? Which people are those, specifically? Because if there aren’t any people in this thread who actually did that, then your posts here are kind of pointless, aren’t they? Of course, if someone in this thread was doing that, I’m sure you can call them out by name, and directly resolve this apparent hypocrisy. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952/47 "2011-04-28T13:30:41Z")
> [@Una\_Persson](#): > > Let us celebrate this meeting of the minds by putting a lot of holes in targets! Oh wait, it’s fencing night for me…um, how about crossing foils? My foils and my epee are in some relative’s attic 6,000 miles away. Perhaps a drinking contest? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 2:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952/48 "2011-04-28T14:25:46Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Or one could read the plain text of a short sentence. > > You have not answered why they would put a meaningless rhetorical flourish in there when they never did that anywhere else. > > If they wanted to say, _“The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”_ then they could have said that. It is not difficult. I just did it. No ambiguity and we’d not be arguing about it today. Supposedly that is what many here are pretending it _really_ says. You and they are ignoring the obvious other part and given no explanation for the existence of what you deem superfluous words or why they should be _ignored_. I do not think you could point to any other part of the US Constitution and pick out clauses we could equally well ignore as meaningless. As I already wrote, they could have also just as easily have said _“The right of the People to form a well regulated militia shall not be infringed.”_ But they didn’t say that either. What they said was _“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.”_ And that’s a lot closer to _“The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”_ than _“The right of the People to form a well regulated militia shall not be infringed.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 2:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952/49 "2011-04-28T14:29:59Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > There is nothing wrong with arguing why you think a given ruling is wrong. Of course if you like a ruling you defend it. > > If your argument is everyone else should shut-up once they rule the way you like then yeah…that is not cool. This doesn’t apply to me. I think guns are a serious problem in this country and the Second Amendment should be repealed. But as long as it exists, we should abide by it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952/50 "2011-04-28T14:35:46Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > I’m trying to say that ‘Suits at common law’ had a specific meaning at the time, but ‘arms’, ‘speech’, and ‘press’ didn’t. I’m having a hard time parsing this. Are you saying there was no common understanding of the terms _arms_ and _speech_ in 1791? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 2:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952/51 "2011-04-28T14:35:57Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Look at what you quoted there (that wasn’t the first draft or the first writings on this subject btw)" I posted the first version that was officially enacted. I figure earlier drafts were just proposals and discussions. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952/52 "2011-04-28T14:42:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Deal. The First Amendment protects flags from being burned, and people have an individual right to possess guns. Umm…I think I’m missing something here. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952/53 "2011-04-28T14:48:21Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > As I already wrote, they could have also just as easily have said _“The right of the People to form a well regulated militia shall not be infringed.”_ But they didn’t say that either. > > What they said was _“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.”_ And that’s a lot closer to _“The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”_ than _“The right of the People to form a well regulated militia shall not be infringed.”_ I disagree. You are splitting the text and deeming half of it unimportant. Why? Since when is it ok to just toss parts of the constitution as meaningless? As I asked **xtisme** where else do we do that? The two parts go together (part of the same sentence). If you want to know why the FFs wanted people to bear arms the explanation is _right there in the text_. It’s as plain as day. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952/54 "2011-04-28T14:53:11Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Umm…I think I’m missing something here. Ha! I didn’t notice that before. That naughty **Bricker**! ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952/55 "2011-04-28T14:53:34Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > I’m having a hard time parsing this. Are you saying there was no common understanding of the terms _arms_ and _speech_ in 1791? Yes. Not to the same extent that ‘Suits at common law’ could be determined. I don’t know of any recorded list of weapons or forms of speech at the time that could have been specified in the Constitution, while the common law was specified in written form. The common law wasn’t based on a common understanding, but something specifically defined. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 2:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952/56 "2011-04-28T14:55:10Z")
Stoid: My particular derision for this supposed lawyer’s opinion is rooted in the following. He says > [@some idiot](#): > > Then, when the word “Militia” follows, we have the purpose of that orderliness–to serve the “Militia,” whatever that is. If we understand “Militia” to refer to a state-based military organization, then the clause has become moot–because states don’t have militias independent of the federal government anymore. If we understand “Militia” to refer by extension to what we now know as “the Army” or the “Armed Forces,” then the right to keep and bear arms only has meaning in that context. But “militia” legally means neither of those things. > [@U.S. Code](#): > > The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. There are two subtitles, differentiating that into the “organized militia” (the National Guard) and the “unorganized militia” (everyone else covered under a). So we’ve proven that your cite’s author is apparently ignorant of the Federal law on the issue. Now, as for “well-regulated”. > [@the idiot again](#): > > When you come to this realization, you see that the right, whether it is individual or collective, is to be exercised in the context of the “well-regulated Militia.” Let’s just pause on “well-regulated.” There is an orderliness connoted in that phrase, a sense that someone is in charge, and that there is a body organized for some task. “Well-regulated”, in an 1700s-1800s context, has multiple meanings. I’m quoting from examples in the OED here (hence no link), but the most pertinent one that differs from the modern colloquial meaning is > [@OED](#): > > “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.” “Well-regulated”, in the time period, could potentially mean one of two things: either “appropriately constrained by law” (that is, the modern meaning of the phrase) or “in good working order; functioning as expected”. In a Founder’s era context, this is not terribly clear as to intended meaning, but in the context of militias of the time, “well-regulated” of the members of a militia generally meant “properly trained in use, maintenance, and storage of their arms and able to present themselves and arms at need”. There is no necessary connotation of government oversight, nor of “someone …in charge”, nor is there a connotation of “a body organized”. Finally, there’s the grammar argument concerning the “well-regulated militia” clause and whether it actually informs the primary clause of the amendment, which has already been adequately covered upthread and which is unrelated to my conception of the author of your link as a hack. ---
**Author:** ![Una\_Persson](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/una_persson/32/346_2.png) [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952/57 "2011-04-28T14:56:05Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Which people are those, specifically? Because if there aren’t any people in this thread who actually did that, then your posts here are kind of pointless, aren’t they? Of course, if someone in this thread was doing that, I’m sure you can call them out by name, and directly resolve this apparent hypocrisy. First, it’s questionable under the current rules of this forum whether “calling them out” is acceptable here. Then again I seem to no longer seem to fully understand the nuances of the Rules in this forum on **Cecil’s** message board, as I keep reporting what seem to be Rules violations in here and have actually been told by a Moderator to **stop complaining.** Second, if the appropriate place is the Pit then I’m not going to bother as I don’t feel the need to get whaled on today in an anti-Una Festivus. In fact I had already dropped the line in here and explained myself when you commented, and was looking forward to reading more discussion later. Third, the topic at hand was specifically about how the Second Amendment is parsed, and my comment is with respect to the hypocrisy of those on the anti and pro-sides who seem happy to allow others (vis, the USSC) to parse the text for them, until the winds of change blow the other way. Then all of a sudden it’s time to second-guess and hand-wave. My first comment points to the anti-side because _Miller_ was the banner of the anti-side, and until _Heller_ the anti-side had more weight of USSC precedent on their side. In other words, they were first. If history had been reversed then the post would have been likewise. I can’t change history so there we are. This is by no means limited to the issue of gun control but that is the over-arching issue here. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952/58 "2011-04-28T15:06:48Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > The two parts go together (part of the same sentence). If you want to know why the FFs wanted people to bear arms the explanation is _right there in the text_. It’s as plain as day. Absolutely, you’re totally right. The Second Amendment’s first clause describes why the Founders wanted people to have the right to bear arms. And the second clause describes the result of that desire. “Shall not be infringed.” Not “shall not be infringed, as long as they’re in said well-regulated militia.” ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952/59 "2011-04-28T15:09:47Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I disagree. > > You are splitting the text and deeming half of it unimportant. Why? Since when is it ok to just toss parts of the constitution as meaningless? As I asked **xtisme** where else do we do that? > > The two parts go together (part of the same sentence). If you want to know why the FFs wanted people to bear arms the explanation is _right there in the text_. It’s as plain as day. How does the first part make the second part ambiguous? The 1st part states a reason for the right of people to bear arms, but not as a qualifier. It’s the Constitution, it has defined a necessity for the security of a Free State. If you believe a well regulated militia is no longer necessary, that would require an amendment (IMHO), not simply deciding that the existing wording means that a well requlated milita is NOT necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 28, 2011, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952/60 "2011-04-28T15:15:44Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > You are splitting the text and deeming half of it unimportant. Why? Since when is it ok to just toss parts of the constitution as meaningless? To me, that seems more like what you’re doing. You’re splitting the text in half and ignoring the part that explicity says “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” To put your question back to you, how can you claim this is meaningless? The other half is “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State”. That half, by itself, doesn’t actually give any direction. But you’re interpreting it to have an implied direction - that the primary intent of the Second Amendment is to regulate militia units. But as I’ve said - repeatedly - if that was the intent of this amendment, it would have said so. The amendment has two halves - one is a clear and precise direction and the other is a vague phrase which may have a meaning. My interpretation is that the overall intent is containing within the clear and precise direction and the vague phrase, if it has any meaning, is intended to support this clear and precise direction. Your interpretation seems to be that we should ignore the clear and precise direction and then assign a meaning to the vague phrase which is the opposite of the clear and precise direction. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/parsing-the-second-amendment/579952.md?page=4)