Frequently, I hear the media’s political pundits, as well as politicians of all stripes, make references to the “Bill of Rights” in support of their interpretations of Liberty, Freedom, and the American Way of Life. I often read that same “Bill of Rights,” and I am always intrigued by the conclusions I reach which differ from the partisan interpretations of others. How is it possible to read those same ten additions to The Constitution of the United States and to arrive at different interpretations?
I believe that those amendments that became a part of our Constitution over 200 years ago were added in deference to those many formerly confederated colonists who feared a strong centralized government. Having just fought a long, destructive, and costly war against a monarchy, the most centralized of all governments, obviously made them cautious as they instituted a new and revolutionary system of government. The switch from a confederation of states to a centralized federal republic was adequate reason for their attempts to safe guard states’ rights and individual liberties.
In their brevity and vagueness of composition, the “Bill of Rights” tended to ignore the future implications of their obscure language within an even more dynamic future political climate. I realized that I could enhance my interpretations of the first ten amendments by giving consideration to the grammar of each of them. Interpretations based on political partisanship and irrational emotions have created a tension that divides our nation and inhibits its progress. For the purpose of this short essay, let’s consider the linguistic logic of the controversial and divisive “Second Amendment,” while paying brief attention to its historical circumstances. If we can avoid our preconceived convictions and partisanship for the moment, perhaps, we can linguistically and objectively determine exactly what this amendment says to us in the divisive matter of an individual’s unquestionable right to possess firearms.
“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.”
When we analyze the structure of this single sentence, we first recognize that the independent clause, the main idea, concerns “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms…” That part, lifted from the context of the entire sentence, is frequently used independently. That leads to a faulty conclusion. In part, the amendment states that people have “the right to keep and bear arms”…That noun phrase is further modified with “shall not be infringed.” Either independently or together, we have segments of the amendment that are frequently lifted to advocate unrestricted and unregulated possession of firearms.
However, the author of the “Second Amendment” modified and qualified his main idea, his independent clause. By beginning his one sentence amendment with a long qualifying phrase, he grammatically restricts “the right to keep and bear Arms…” The right that is protected by the “Second Amendment” is a right restricted to the necessity of maintaining “A well-regulated Militia” and for “the security of a free state.” The meaning of the currently controversial “Second Amendment” is dependent on its entirety, not on its selected subsections. That would be a linguistic “fallacy of composition,” an error in logic. An introductory phrase or clause is often used to modify and therefore, change the meaning of an independent clause that follows. That’s the grammar of the “Second Amendment.”
If we return to the historical aspects of the “Second Amendment,” it should be noted that the “Second Amendment” was articulated over 200 years ago at a moment in our history when there was no standing army and each state felt vulnerable to the possibility of invasion by other nations or to a potential internal insurgency. The present (2014) National Guards are a remnant of early militias; but today, they can be quickly federalized to supplement the nation’s standing army. This changes the 200 year old concept of a “well-regulated Militia” that provided a defense specifically to those earliest states, while undependable for the common defense. Of course, today’s Guardsmen are called out by governors in instances of disaster or civil unrest, but modern “militia” men do not keep the arms they bear in their homes or in their daily possession.
It would appear that some attempts to defend the unfettered right to possess firearms are based on a “linguistic fallacy” or on an unrealistic, historical interpretation of the ambiguously written “Second Amendment.” Some would do well to consider another source for the defense of their position. Grammatically, the “Second Amendment” does not support the defense of the unrestricted right of all people to “keep and bear Arms.” In addition, the concept of “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…” has lost its military relevance.
Perhaps, at some future time, we could analyze the “First Amendment” and it’s broad defense of freedoms that far exceed “The Congress shall make no law…” wording that seems to have been generously expanded to address religion, speech, the press, peaceful assembly, and petitioning of the government in much broader terms than the “..Congress shall make no laws…” introduction intended… or if you prefer, we can continue to ignore the grammatical logic of some of the amendments and consequently, allow pundits, partisan politicians, judicial activists, and executive branch edicts to interpret and apply their interpretations to define our treasured documents and the protections they provide. Is there a need for a constitutional convention to review our existing Constitution? Over 200 years ago, a group of enlightened individuals gathered to “modify” The Articles of Confederation, and the results were quit productive although entirely unintended by most accounts. Maybe this time someone could check the grammar and its attendant logic?