----- Original Message -----
From: Dean Forster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > With rights come responsibilities. I suggest that
> > the first half of the 2nd
> > amendment and the comma
>
> the foundation of your argument is a comma. I know
> you can do better than this, i've seen it. you're not
> a lawyer, are ya? ;) darn lawyers.
>
First of all, I'm not a lawyer. I am a Phd physicist who works as a
consultant in nuclear petrophysics. But, I do have a strong interest in
scripture study, having taken a graduate course in it. I'm about at the
level where I need to take ancient languages in order to progress.
>From that work, I've developed viewpoints about reading critical text. When
reading a text that has few words and is considered critical, such as a key
periscope of scripture or a clause in the Constitution, one needs to look at
all the information available to obtain as close an understanding as
possible. I draw a personal parallel between fundamentalist interpretations
of scripture and interpretations of the 2nd ammendment that ignore
significant parts of it, its contrast to to the other ammemdments in the
Bill of Rights, and reconstruct the grammar to suit purpose.
It is extremely hard, as Rev. Dr. Peter Gomes points out in the Good Book,
to read a personally important piece of literature without bring some
preconceptions to it. The purpose of technical arguements is to improve the
objectivity of the reading. I'll certainly agree that my own reading is
influenced by the baggage that I bring to it. But, with technical
arguements, I can at least present concepts that can be argued independant
of my presuppositions.
In what I have argued above, I have focused on two things: the first half of
the 2nd
ammendment and a comma in the second. I would argue that the crafters of the
constitution were too careful, too talented, and too numerous for us to
dismiss the first half of the ammendment as ambiguous accident.
Second, one cannot ignore punctuation while trying to fathom the meaning of
sentences. Otherwise the sentences:
No, women should have the right to vote.
and
No women should have the right to vote.
would have the same instead of opposite meanings. Objecting to the
elimination of a comma is not just nitpicking, punctuation is critical to
understanding the meaning of English sentences as the above example shows.
My particular parsing of the sentence that comprises the 2nd Ammendment is
that the main clause is
A well regulated militia shall not be infringed.
with subordinant clauses:
being necessary to the security of a free state
&
the right of the people to keep and bear arms
Other interpretations that I repsect are that the subject was complex and
that the framers put in some creative ambiguity and the wording was a
compromise between different ideas. I cannot see, though, how the grammar
or the wording would be accidental. I think that any interpretation should
answer the question "why was it written as it was?"
Elsewhere you have suggested that the second ammemdment be interpreted
through comparision with the rest of the constitution. That's an execellent
suggestion. I won't even post the whole Bill of Rights, but the 1st and the
3rd should be enough for our purposes:
They are
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment III
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the
consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed
by law.
Can you see the significant contrast between I and III and II?
II is the only one with a preamble.
Others have suggested that the grammar of the time be considered. That's
very valid, and I'd welcome any analysis based on the changes in the rules
of grammar from then till now.
Dan M.
