With credit due to: "Wayne Mann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
ENGLISH USAGE EXPERT INTERPRETS 2ND AMENDMENT
by J. Neil Schulman
July 17, 1991
California
Libertarian Party
I just had a conversation with Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator for
the Office of Instruction of the Los Angeles Unified School District. Mr.
Brocki taught Advanced Placement English for several years at Van Nuys High
School, as well as having been a senior editor for Houghton Mifflin. I was
referred to Mr. Brocki by Sherryl Broyles of the Office of Instruction of the
LA Unified School District, who described Mr. Brocki as the foremost expert in
grammar in the Los Angeles Unified School District -- the person she and
others go to when they need a definitive answer on English grammar.
I gave Mr. Brocki my name, told him Sherryl Broyles referred me, then asked
him to parse the following sentence:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and read
Books, shall not be
infringed."
Mr. Brocki informed me that the sentence was overpunctuated, but that the
meaning could be extracted anyway.
"A well-schooled electorate" is a nominative absolute.
"being necessary to the security of a free State" is a participial phrase
modifying "electorate"
The subject (a compound subject) of the sentence is "the right of the
people"
"shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with "not" as an adverb
modifying the verb phrase "shall be infringed"
"to keep and read books" is an infinitive phrase modifying "right"
I then asked him if he could rephrase the sentence to make it clearer. Mr.
Brocki said, "Because a well-schooled
electorate is necessary to the
security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall
not be
infringed."
I asked: can the sentence be interpreted to restrict the right to keep and
read books to a well-schooled electorate --
say, registered voters with a
high-school diploma?" He said, "No."
I then identified my purpose in calling him, and read him the Second
Amendment in full:
"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."
He said he thought the sentence had sounded familiar, but that he hadn't
recognized it.
I asked, "Is the structure and meaning of this sentence the same as the
sentence I first quoted you?" He said, "yes." I asked him to rephrase this
sentence to make it clearer. He transformed it the same way as the first
sentence: "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 asked him whether the meaning could have changed in two hundred years. He
said, "No."
I asked him whether this sentence could be interpreted to restrict the
right to keep and bear arms to "a well-regulated militia." He said, "no."
According to Mr. Brocki, the sentence means that the people \are\ the militia,
and that the people have the right which is mentioned.
I asked him again to make sure:
Schulman: "Can the sentence be interpreted to mean that the right can be
restricted to "a well-regulated militia?"
Brocki: "No, I can't see that."
Schulman: "Could another, professional in English grammar or linguistics
interpret the sentence to mean otherwise?"
Brocki: "I can't see any grounds for another interpretation."
I asked Mr. Brocki if he would be willing to stake his professional
reputation on this opinion, and be quoted on this.
He said, "Yes."
At no point in the conversation did I ask Mr. Brocki his opinion on the
Second Amendment, gun control, or the right
to keep and bear arms.
Bard
Pro Libertate - For Freedom
BUCHANAN-Reform
http://gopatgo2000.com/default.htm
No more phony warrants......
"Better to die on one's feet than live on one's
knees."
