23 ms·

The commas in the second Amendment and their meaning are probably worth Trillions of dollars. When you think of all the private arms and all the costs of gun vi

The commas in the second Amendment and their meaning are probably worth Trillions of dollars. When you think of all the private arms and all the costs of gun violence in the US over the years which hinge on the individual right to bear arms, when punctuation in the second amendment can lead people to read the text as only holding a right to bear arms within a well-regulated Militia. Turns out that the commas weren’t even standardized and lots of differently punctuated versions were ratified by the different states. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_Unit...

jandrese 5y ago
I think that people would have interpreted that amendment the way they wanted to regardless of comma placement. They already blind themselves to the "well regulated militia" wording entirely, so ignoring an extra comma or two makes little difference.
- DangitBobby 5y ago
  Blind to and blinded by, depending on who you ask.
- Asooka 5y ago
  The meaning seems obvious. A well regulated militia is required for the security of a free state. Therefore, people's freedom to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It declares an already existing freedom to keep and bear arms (as IIRC nothing on the federal level forbade it), and forbids its infringement by the state, with the goal of keeping the population familiar with the operation of firearms for the benefit of local militias. Or read the longer explanation by the Cornell Law School https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2/second-amendment-doctrine-and-practice https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2/s... .
  - skulk 5y ago
    That explanation you linked is a whole lot of words, and after reading it I am less sure of what I thought the Second Amendment means than ever. Its meaning is anything but obvious. I say this because there is nothing about self-defense in the text of the Second Amendment, and yet the SCOTUS has held that self-defense is one of the rights that cannot be infringed. It's not at all obvious how a statement about the necessity of a well-regulated militia has anything to do with personal self-defense with a handgun. I can see a world where the DC handgun ban was upheld by the SCOTUS because long guns (for the well-regulated militia) were still available and personal self-defense isn't covered under the wording of 2A. Of course, if you bring the zeitgeist into view this seems absurd, but in a vacuum where the 2A is the only reference it makes logical sense.
    - Gunax 5y ago
      Well, we are talking about a body that finds the constitution protects privacy, even though CTRL-F 'privacy' has zero results. I am not saying they are right or wrong, but any pretense that the courts rule based on the text of the law should be discarded. The reality is they find rights and laws that seem reasonable to their own selves, and disregard precedent that is poorly argued (ie they don't like the result). The alternative is perhaps that we are stuck with Plessy v Ferguson until the end of time or a constitutional amendment is ratified (end of time seems more plausible).
      - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
        I'd argue the 4th Amendment gives you a right to privacy from the government.
rpmisms 5y ago
Textualists might be able to make your argument. Any constitutional scholar worth their salt could not.
CamperBob2 5y ago
The only way to misread the Second Amendment is to assume that it, alone among the other amendments in the original Bill of Rights, was written to constrain the people rather than the government. In other words, you have to approach the question with an agenda -- and a conclusion -- already in mind. Bad for intellectual honesty regardless of how you feel about gun ownership rights.
- cafard 5y ago
  Which government? Two states still had established churches when the First Amendment took effect.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    If the framers hadn't felt the First Amendment to be necessary, based on their awareness of both classical and all-too-recent history, they wouldn't have bothered including it. Arguably the same is true for the Second Amendment.
    - nicwolff 5y ago
      They didn't – Madison and Hamilton were backed into a corner during the ratification process by the anti-Federalists.
      - CamperBob2 5y ago
        (Shrug) What ended up in the document is what counts, the rest is just commentary.
- philovivero 5y ago
  This sort of sanity in interpreting written texts is disallowed on this forum. Here, guns are bad. The second amendment was meant to take away guns from the people and allow them only for the government, specifically, the armed forces. This is because here, we love tyranny, and are rather tired of the uppity flyover staters who are holding it back.

jandrese 5y ago

I think that people would have interpreted that amendment the way they wanted to regardless of comma placement. They already blind themselves to the "well regulated militia" wording entirely, so ignoring an extra comma or two makes little difference.

DangitBobby 5y ago
Blind to and blinded by, depending on who you ask.
Asooka 5y ago
The meaning seems obvious. A well regulated militia is required for the security of a free state. Therefore, people's freedom to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It declares an already existing freedom to keep and bear arms (as IIRC nothing on the federal level forbade it), and forbids its infringement by the state, with the goal of keeping the population familiar with the operation of firearms for the benefit of local militias. Or read the longer explanation by the Cornell Law School https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2/second-amendment-doctrine-and-practice https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-2/s... .
- skulk 5y ago
  That explanation you linked is a whole lot of words, and after reading it I am less sure of what I thought the Second Amendment means than ever. Its meaning is anything but obvious. I say this because there is nothing about self-defense in the text of the Second Amendment, and yet the SCOTUS has held that self-defense is one of the rights that cannot be infringed. It's not at all obvious how a statement about the necessity of a well-regulated militia has anything to do with personal self-defense with a handgun. I can see a world where the DC handgun ban was upheld by the SCOTUS because long guns (for the well-regulated militia) were still available and personal self-defense isn't covered under the wording of 2A. Of course, if you bring the zeitgeist into view this seems absurd, but in a vacuum where the 2A is the only reference it makes logical sense.
  - Gunax 5y ago
    Well, we are talking about a body that finds the constitution protects privacy, even though CTRL-F 'privacy' has zero results. I am not saying they are right or wrong, but any pretense that the courts rule based on the text of the law should be discarded. The reality is they find rights and laws that seem reasonable to their own selves, and disregard precedent that is poorly argued (ie they don't like the result). The alternative is perhaps that we are stuck with Plessy v Ferguson until the end of time or a constitutional amendment is ratified (end of time seems more plausible).
    - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
      I'd argue the 4th Amendment gives you a right to privacy from the government.

rpmisms 5y ago

Textualists might be able to make your argument. Any constitutional scholar worth their salt could not.

CamperBob2 5y ago

The only way to misread the Second Amendment is to assume that it, alone among the other amendments in the original Bill of Rights, was written to constrain the people rather than the government. In other words, you have to approach the question with an agenda -- and a conclusion -- already in mind. Bad for intellectual honesty regardless of how you feel about gun ownership rights.

cafard 5y ago
Which government? Two states still had established churches when the First Amendment took effect.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  If the framers hadn't felt the First Amendment to be necessary, based on their awareness of both classical and all-too-recent history, they wouldn't have bothered including it. Arguably the same is true for the Second Amendment.
  - nicwolff 5y ago
    They didn't – Madison and Hamilton were backed into a corner during the ratification process by the anti-Federalists.
    - CamperBob2 5y ago
      (Shrug) What ended up in the document is what counts, the rest is just commentary.
philovivero 5y ago
This sort of sanity in interpreting written texts is disallowed on this forum. Here, guns are bad. The second amendment was meant to take away guns from the people and allow them only for the government, specifically, the armed forces. This is because here, we love tyranny, and are rather tired of the uppity flyover staters who are holding it back.