Update: High School AP History Book Rewrites 2nd Amendment

[Abatis]

::::wwhhoooosssh::::

The function of a comma is not a Constitutional question. It's a language question. One you completely failed to address.

Talk about ::::wwhhoooosssh::::!

I did address it.

The right to keep and bear arms does not in any manner depend upon the words of the 2nd Amendment or the comma for its existence.

The constitutional principle of conferred powers and retained rights trumps your tortured grammar interpretation.

Perhaps you were too busy plugging in assumptions and then wondering why they don't work.

The "assumptions" I plugged in were the clear determinations of the Supreme Court dismissing any and all theories that the 2nd Amendment can be read to say anything more than the fundamental, original, pre-existing, fully retained right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”​

Again, the only thing that can be taken away from a reading of the 2nd Amendment is that the 2nd Amendment declares that "it" shall not be infringed. The "it" is of course, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

So, at this point what needs to be explained is not how you became such an expert on comma use, but why do you persist in maintaining opinions in such offensive opposition to longstanding determinations of the Supreme Court?

 

[RKMBrown]

::::wwhhoooosssh::::

The function of a comma is not a Constitutional question. It's a language question. One you completely failed to address.

Talk about ::::wwhhoooosssh::::!

I did address it.

The right to keep and bear arms does not in any manner depend upon the words of the 2nd Amendment or the comma for its existence.

The constitutional principle of conferred powers and retained rights trumps your tortured grammar interpretation.

Perhaps you were too busy plugging in assumptions and then wondering why they don't work.

The "assumptions" I plugged in were the clear determinations of the Supreme Court dismissing any and all theories that the 2nd Amendment can be read to say anything more than the fundamental, original, pre-existing, fully retained right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”​

Again, the only thing that can be taken away from a reading of the 2nd Amendment is that the 2nd Amendment declares that "it" shall not be infringed. The "it" is of course, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

So, at this point what needs to be explained is not how you became such an expert on comma use, but why do you persist in maintaining opinions in such offensive opposition to longstanding determinations of the Supreme Court?

Well said... to be more specific, shall not be infringed by the feds. States restrictions, however, are not so clear. Additionally the term infringed has been tweaked over time to mean unduly infringed.

 

[J.E.D]

J.E.D. is a know nothing partisan RUBE...TRIES to be imposing but IS a PUSSY at heart...aren't ya J.E.D.?

As a matter of course, Dave? He is Obfuscatiing. He has no where else to go but down. Good for him. I hope he enjoys his trip to the depths. I'm happy with his travels.

Have you gotten up off of your couch and stumbled out of your trailer yet? When are you going to lead your brothers into war? After your next bottle?

I'll LEAD to to ANY battle that is RIGHT and JUST...something YOU will NEVER understand. ANYTIME...ANYWHERE sport.

YOU laid down the gauntlet. TIME for YOU to MAN UP and ANSWER me...*BOY*

I know you think you sound all tough and stuff, but you only sound like an idiot. Oh, and you're still a pussy. A major MAJOR pussy.

 

[FA_Q2]

::::wwhhoooosssh::::

The function of a comma is not a Constitutional question. It's a language question. One you completely failed to address.

Talk about ::::wwhhoooosssh::::!

I did address it.

The right to keep and bear arms does not in any manner depend upon the words of the 2nd Amendment or the comma for its existence.

The constitutional principle of conferred powers and retained rights trumps your tortured grammar interpretation.

Perhaps you were too busy plugging in assumptions and then wondering why they don't work.

The "assumptions" I plugged in were the clear determinations of the Supreme Court dismissing any and all theories that the 2nd Amendment can be read to say anything more than the fundamental, original, pre-existing, fully retained right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”​

Again, the only thing that can be taken away from a reading of the 2nd Amendment is that the 2nd Amendment declares that "it" shall not be infringed. The "it" is of course, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

So, at this point what needs to be explained is not how you became such an expert on comma use, but why do you persist in maintaining opinions in such offensive opposition to longstanding determinations of the Supreme Court?

Well said... to be more specific, shall not be infringed by the feds. States restrictions, however, are not so clear. Additionally the term infringed has been tweaked over time to mean unduly infringed.

That was true up until the fourteenth amendment. I have always held that we actually do not want the exact government that the founders envisioned precisely because of that. Originally, it would have been just fine for the state of CA to declare Islam as the official language and outlaw Christianity. The BOR was only restrictive on the feds. After the fourteenth, there was constitutional grounds for applying the BOR to the states as well. That is something that I agree with considering that the idea of unalienable rights is somewhat lacking if the states can take those away at a whim.

 

[RKMBrown]

Yeah. But the problem is the fourteenth did not take it away it merely proscribed the requirement of due process. Eg. Eminent domain.

 

[daveman]

Uh oh, looks like you fell off the wagon.

I expect him to get off of his lazy ass and start his revolution.

But I know he won't because he's an ubber-pussy. Just like you.

Go have another drink, old man

Oh, you mean like your Workers' Revolution? When are you going to start that?

And why do you keep ignoring this question? Perhaps because...you're a pussy?

Yes, that seems likely.

Nice try, Caveman; but I have made no threats of revolution when I don't get my way. That would be the sore-loser movement aka the new conservative movement aka the USMB Wingnut Brigade.

My goodness, but you're ignorant of your end of the political spectrum, aren't you?

Well, nobody ever credibly claimed progressives were smart.

 

[daveman]

We're not at all far apart-- I agree with virtually all of that. It is indeed without meaning, if it's prefatory rather than operative. So I ask again, why would they stick a prefatory clause in here, when they (correctly) didn't do it anywhere else?

Logical answer: because it's operative rather than prefatory. Because that way it is like the others.

Still atrociously written, no matter which way intended. If it was concisely written, we'd have nothing to jaw about here and it would be unequivocal.

Take that comma for instance. What was up with that?

Wait, I think Dave's got that one. Over to you, Dave?



Bzzzzt.

"SCOTUS are expert in English"? Don't think that's in the job description, no. But I'll bite-- what do THEY say about that comma?

Somewhere Gertrude Stein laughs maniacally...I could tell you what she said...

*sigh*

No, kid. For probably not the last time, you DON'T get to dictate what the Constitution means. You can get your panties in a wad all you want; we're not under any obligation to alter the government and laws just to validate your unmerited sense of superiority.

You're an English major. Yippee. When you've also got a law degree and a few decades of experience practicing Constitutional law, then you can speak authoritatively.

Until then, you're just whining about how unfair it all is.

*wheeze*

You're the whiner I'm afraid. I haven't ventured into the area of law here. I know you wish I would, since you have some kind of snappy comeback at the ready, which I'm sure is uh, fascinating and shit, but as I said 176 times, that's not my interest here.

Poor Dave. Doesn't get the questions he wants, so he brings in his imaginary friend...

And yet, oddly, the United States STILL hasn't appointed you Constitutional English Czar.

It's sooooo unFAIIIIIR!!

You should probably realize that your whining isn't going to change anything. EVER.

Got that? Are you beginning to see your impotence here? No little blue pill is going to cure the kind you've got, either.

Your whinging about commas is meaningless.

Period.

 

[PrometheusBound]

It's really frustrating that Netties can't think for themselves and only respond to things they have been told the answers to by their anointed intellectual nannies.

There is a second comma that doesn't belong: "...keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." This is so obvious to anyone with a true education that the fact that no one mentions it once again proves the absolute failure of our educational system from pre-K to PhD. And this is not "18th Century punctuation" either, except for the capital A. So the sloppy writing indicates haste and lack of editing. The founding fodder were trying to pull a fast one on the people, so they threw a lot of phrases together here as slogans and not as a sentence.

Late edit. Homophonophobia caused by formerly writing shorthand, where every homophone is spelled the same way.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Have you gotten up off of your couch and stumbled out of your trailer yet? When are you going to lead your brothers into war? After your next bottle?

I'll LEAD to to ANY battle that is RIGHT and JUST...something YOU will NEVER understand. ANYTIME...ANYWHERE sport.

YOU laid down the gauntlet. TIME for YOU to MAN UP and ANSWER me...*BOY*

I know you think you sound all tough and stuff, but you only sound like an idiot. Oh, and you're still a pussy. A major MAJOR pussy.

Mr T. is most likely a Chickenhawk who doesn't have a problem with the fact that Teddy "I Wasn't Ready" Nugent is a phony slimeball who went to psychotic extremes to get someone else to fight in his place against the Communists.

 

[Foxfyre]

Every now and then SCOTUS really does get it right. . . .

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.

2nd Amendment Annotations

Prior to the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller,1 the courts had yet to definitively state what right the Second Amendment protected. The opposing theories, perhaps oversimplified, were (1) an "individual rights" approach, whereby the Amendment protected individuals' rights to firearm ownership, possession, and transportation; and (2) a "states' rights" approach, under which the Amendment only protected the right to keep and bear arms in connection with organized state militia units.

2 Moreover, it was generally believed that the Amendment was only a bar to federal action, not to state or municipal restraints. . . .

3However, the Supreme Court has now definitively held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that weapon for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Moreover, this right applies not just to the federal government, but to states and municipalities as well. . . .

. . . .The Court reasoned that this right is fundamental to the nation's scheme of ordered liberty, given that self-defense was a basic right recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present, and Heller held that individual self-defense was "the central component" of the Second Amendment right. Moreover, a survey of the contemporaneous history also demonstrated clearly that the Fourteenth Amendment's Framers and ratifiers counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to the Nation's system of ordered liberty. - See more at: Second Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

 

[Foxfyre]

Further, if a big deal is to be made of the commas and their placement in the 2nd Amendment, consider this image of the original document preserved by the Library of Congress:

See that? One comma.

The Second Amendment Foundation maintains, "The Final (ratified) version had only one comma according to the Library of Congress and Government Printing Office."

This image, from the Library of Congress, also shows the ratified version with one comma.

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/001/0100/01450021.gif

And this page from the National Archives contains a three comma version.

Author David E. Young writes:
Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State in the Washington Administration prepared an official printing of the amendments. This is the version that he authenticated as being the amendments proposed by Congress, ratified by the state legislatures, and made part of the Constitution under the ratification procedure set forth in Article V. Jefferson's official imprint of the Second Amendment has one middle comma with only the leading word, "A", of the sentence capitalized.(On Second Opinion Blog: Commas and the "Original" Version of the Second Amendment)

This law journal article states:
The second amendment's capitalization and punctuation is not uniformly reported; another version has four commas, after "militia," "state," and "arms." Since documents were at that time copied by hand, variations in punctuation and capitalization are common, and the copy retained by the first Congress, the copies transmitted by it to the state legislatures, and the ratifications returned by them show wide variations in such details. Letter from Marlene McGuirl, Chief, British-American Law Division, Library of Congress (Oct. 29, 1976).(The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights)

So, it appears the states ratified insignificant differing versions of the Bill of Rights. These slight variations in puncuation and capitalization should not have any bearing on the document's interpretation.

And all this only magnifies the gross error and failure to educate as demonstrated in that textbook emphasized in the OP.

 

[Foxfyre]

And this has absolutely nothing to do with the thread, but I just saw it and thought it was good:

Okay, back to the topic. I doubt many history books these days, if they deal with the 2nd Amendment at all, bother to quote the statistics of how small a percentage of gun owners commit any crime of any kind or even have accidents with them. Nor will they accurately state the demographics of those who do use guns for the purpose of committing crimes or how many of those guns were obtained ilegally. But given the prevalence of liberal concepts embedded in public education, I would guess that it isn't only the book quoted in the O.P. that focuses on an emphasis of more gun control as the means to reduce gun related crime.

 

[boedicca]

SPOONS are making us fat!

Who knew?

And somebody better warn Spoonman!

 

[Pogo]

::::wwhhoooosssh::::

The function of a comma is not a Constitutional question. It's a language question. One you completely failed to address.

Talk about ::::wwhhoooosssh::::!

I did address it.

The right to keep and bear arms does not in any manner depend upon the words of the 2nd Amendment or the comma for its existence.

The constitutional principle of conferred powers and retained rights trumps your tortured grammar interpretation.

Perhaps you were too busy plugging in assumptions and then wondering why they don't work.

The "assumptions" I plugged in were the clear determinations of the Supreme Court dismissing any and all theories that the 2nd Amendment can be read to say anything more than the fundamental, original, pre-existing, fully retained right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”​

Again, the only thing that can be taken away from a reading of the 2nd Amendment is that the 2nd Amendment declares that "it" shall not be infringed. The "it" is of course, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".

So, at this point what needs to be explained is not how you became such an expert on comma use, but why do you persist in maintaining opinions in such offensive opposition to longstanding determinations of the Supreme Court?

You STILL don't get it?

There's absolutely nothing in any of my context about the Supreme Court, anybody's right to bear arms, pre-existing this, post-existing that, or non-existing the other. You've plugged all that in. It's irrelevant here.

Take a reading comprehension course sometime soon. If you still need help, see Foxy's last post. She at least gets the question.

 

[Pogo]

Further, if a big deal is to be made of the commas and their placement in the 2nd Amendment, consider this image of the original document preserved by the Library of Congress:

See that? One comma.

The Second Amendment Foundation maintains, "The Final (ratified) version had only one comma according to the Library of Congress and Government Printing Office."

This image, from the Library of Congress, also shows the ratified version with one comma.

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/001/0100/01450021.gif

And this page from the National Archives contains a three comma version.

Author David E. Young writes:
Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State in the Washington Administration prepared an official printing of the amendments. This is the version that he authenticated as being the amendments proposed by Congress, ratified by the state legislatures, and made part of the Constitution under the ratification procedure set forth in Article V. Jefferson's official imprint of the Second Amendment has one middle comma with only the leading word, "A", of the sentence capitalized.(On Second Opinion Blog: Commas and the "Original" Version of the Second Amendment)

This law journal article states:
The second amendment's capitalization and punctuation is not uniformly reported; another version has four commas, after "militia," "state," and "arms." Since documents were at that time copied by hand, variations in punctuation and capitalization are common, and the copy retained by the first Congress, the copies transmitted by it to the state legislatures, and the ratifications returned by them show wide variations in such details. Letter from Marlene McGuirl, Chief, British-American Law Division, Library of Congress (Oct. 29, 1976).(The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights)

So, it appears the states ratified insignificant differing versions of the Bill of Rights. These slight variations in puncuation and capitalization should not have any bearing on the document's interpretation.

And all this only magnifies the gross error and failure to educate as demonstrated in that textbook emphasized in the OP.

Not much of an analysis, but Foxy has at least grokked what the question was. Thank you.

But do tell, how does this "insignificant" punctuation "magnify the gross error"? And the original question-- what's the "error"?

Here's why commas matter. They can change meaning radically. The old example noted before:
"Let's eat, Grandma!" versus
"Let's eat Grandma!"

Two radically different meanings rendered by nothing more than the presence or absence of a comma.

I also noted back there that they could have, if they wanted to, written:

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.

Exact same words, different punctuation. Had they written it this way there would be no murky meaning. In this version, it would be clearly "the right of the people (to keep and bear arms) that is noted as "necessary to the security of a free State".

But that's not the construction, is it?

The actual construction (the ratified version):
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.

This means something different -- what is "necessary to the security of a free state" is now "a well regulated militia". And this is the way it was written, both before and after revision.

This is where RKMBrown sees the "well regulated militia" clause as "prefatory" -- a passage which sort of introduces the following "the right of the people" etc.

My point to him was that, unless a connection was intended between the militia and the eventual thrust of the Amendment, there's no reason to qualify the right with the militia application, as distinct from other applications. If as Brown implies this opening clause is a justification for the Amendment, then it's odd that this is the only Amendment that finds a need for any such justification, is it not?

I've been mostly posting over people's heads who would rather set up strawmen about gun rights than strain their brain on grammatical logic. Maybe you can follow the question.

Somebody else did it here--

>> The best way to make sense of the Second Amendment is to take away all the commas (which, I know, means that only outlaws will have commas). Without the distracting commas, one can focus on the grammar of the sentence. Professor Lund is correct that the clause about a well-regulated militia is “absolute,” but only in the sense that it is grammatically independent of the main clause, not that it is logically unrelated. To the contrary, absolute clauses typically provide a causal or temporal context for the main clause.

The founders — most of whom were classically educated — would have recognized this rhetorical device as the “ablative absolute” of Latin prose. To take an example from Horace likely to have been familiar to them: “Caesar, being in command of the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence” (ego nec tumultum nec mori per vim metuam, tenente Caesare terras). The main clause flows logically from the absolute clause: “Because Caesar commands the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence.”

Likewise, when the justices finish diagramming the Second Amendment, they should end up with something that expresses a causal link, like: &#8220;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.&#8221; In other words, the amendment is really about protecting militias, notwithstanding the originalist arguments to the contrary. << -- Clause and Effect

Then again there's an obvious difference (the same one) between:

&#8220;Caesar being in command of the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence" (Because Caesar is in command of the earth I fear neither...) and
&#8220;Caesar, being in command of the earth I fear neither civil war nor death by violence" (Caesar is being personally addressed and told "Because I (the speaker) command the earth, I fear neither...")

All due to the location of a comma.

Why this grammatical tangent?

Because the entire OP (as well as several posts including yours) is predicated on the claim that this study guide book has somehow changed the meaning of the Second Amendment, and that requires some kind of reading analysis ability. That must be why I haven't got an answer yet as to how the book has changed the meaning -- particularly from the same posters who can't understand the comma question.

But it's Monday, a new week.

 

[daveman]

Because the entire OP (as well as several posts including yours) is predicated on the claim that this study guide book has somehow changed the meaning of the Second Amendment, and that requires some kind of reading analysis ability. That must be why I haven't got an answer yet as to how the book has changed the meaning -- particularly from the same posters who can't understand the comma question.

But it's Monday, a new week.

You've gotten an answer, several times, your petulant foot-stamping notwithstanding.

That you don't LIKE the answer is utterly immaterial. Insisting it's not there is simply childish.

Foxfyre rendered your silly comma question moot when she posted images of the original versions of COTUS. You're beating a dead horse. I hope at least you're getting some aerobic benefit from it.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Further, if a big deal is to be made of the commas and their placement in the 2nd Amendment, consider this image of the original document preserved by the Library of Congress:

See that? One comma.

The Second Amendment Foundation maintains, "The Final (ratified) version had only one comma according to the Library of Congress and Government Printing Office."

This image, from the Library of Congress, also shows the ratified version with one comma.

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/001/0100/01450021.gif

And this page from the National Archives contains a three comma version.

Author David E. Young writes:
Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State in the Washington Administration prepared an official printing of the amendments. This is the version that he authenticated as being the amendments proposed by Congress, ratified by the state legislatures, and made part of the Constitution under the ratification procedure set forth in Article V. Jefferson's official imprint of the Second Amendment has one middle comma with only the leading word, "A", of the sentence capitalized.(On Second Opinion Blog: Commas and the "Original" Version of the Second Amendment)

This law journal article states:
The second amendment's capitalization and punctuation is not uniformly reported; another version has four commas, after "militia," "state," and "arms." Since documents were at that time copied by hand, variations in punctuation and capitalization are common, and the copy retained by the first Congress, the copies transmitted by it to the state legislatures, and the ratifications returned by them show wide variations in such details. Letter from Marlene McGuirl, Chief, British-American Law Division, Library of Congress (Oct. 29, 1976).(The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights)

So, it appears the states ratified insignificant differing versions of the Bill of Rights. These slight variations in puncuation and capitalization should not have any bearing on the document's interpretation.

And all this only magnifies the gross error and failure to educate as demonstrated in that textbook emphasized in the OP.

See that? One comma.

The Second Amendment Foundation maintains, "The Final (ratified) version had only one comma according to the Library of Congress and Government Printing Office."

of course they meant one comma

the framers didnt seem to forget to add commas all over the place

in the other amendments

 

[Pogo]

Because the entire OP (as well as several posts including yours) is predicated on the claim that this study guide book has somehow changed the meaning of the Second Amendment, and that requires some kind of reading analysis ability. That must be why I haven't got an answer yet as to how the book has changed the meaning -- particularly from the same posters who can't understand the comma question.

But it's Monday, a new week.

You've gotten an answer, several times, your petulant foot-stamping notwithstanding.

That you don't LIKE the answer is utterly immaterial. Insisting it's not there is simply childish.

Foxfyre rendered your silly comma question moot when she posted images of the original versions of COTUS. You're beating a dead horse. I hope at least you're getting some aerobic benefit from it.

-- and voilà, that's the only kind of answer I've gotten. It's like a conversation with fricking Pee Wee Herman.

 

[daveman]

Because the entire OP (as well as several posts including yours) is predicated on the claim that this study guide book has somehow changed the meaning of the Second Amendment, and that requires some kind of reading analysis ability. That must be why I haven't got an answer yet as to how the book has changed the meaning -- particularly from the same posters who can't understand the comma question.

But it's Monday, a new week.

You've gotten an answer, several times, your petulant foot-stamping notwithstanding.

That you don't LIKE the answer is utterly immaterial. Insisting it's not there is simply childish.

Foxfyre rendered your silly comma question moot when she posted images of the original versions of COTUS. You're beating a dead horse. I hope at least you're getting some aerobic benefit from it.

-- and voilà, that's the only kind of answer I've gotten. It's like a conversation with fricking Pee Wee Herman.

Oh, good Gaea -- will somebody PLEASE agree with Pogo that he's smarter than the Founding Fathers and SCOTUS put together?

One more time, for the English-major-impaired:

The study guide in the OP gets the 2nd wrong because it's stating it is a collective right, not an individual one.

Now lie again and say the question hasn't been answered. You'll only prove me correct when I say you're being a petulant child.

 

[Foxfyre]

Further, if a big deal is to be made of the commas and their placement in the 2nd Amendment, consider this image of the original document preserved by the Library of Congress:

See that? One comma.

The Second Amendment Foundation maintains, "The Final (ratified) version had only one comma according to the Library of Congress and Government Printing Office."

This image, from the Library of Congress, also shows the ratified version with one comma.

http://memory.loc.gov/ll/llsl/001/0100/01450021.gif

And this page from the National Archives contains a three comma version.

Author David E. Young writes:
Thomas Jefferson as Secretary of State in the Washington Administration prepared an official printing of the amendments. This is the version that he authenticated as being the amendments proposed by Congress, ratified by the state legislatures, and made part of the Constitution under the ratification procedure set forth in Article V. Jefferson's official imprint of the Second Amendment has one middle comma with only the leading word, "A", of the sentence capitalized.(On Second Opinion Blog: Commas and the "Original" Version of the Second Amendment)

This law journal article states:
The second amendment's capitalization and punctuation is not uniformly reported; another version has four commas, after "militia," "state," and "arms." Since documents were at that time copied by hand, variations in punctuation and capitalization are common, and the copy retained by the first Congress, the copies transmitted by it to the state legislatures, and the ratifications returned by them show wide variations in such details. Letter from Marlene McGuirl, Chief, British-American Law Division, Library of Congress (Oct. 29, 1976).(The Second Amendment and the Historiography of the Bill of Rights)

So, it appears the states ratified insignificant differing versions of the Bill of Rights. These slight variations in puncuation and capitalization should not have any bearing on the document's interpretation.

And all this only magnifies the gross error and failure to educate as demonstrated in that textbook emphasized in the OP.

Not much of an analysis, but Foxy has at least grokked what the question was. Thank you.

But do tell, how does this "insignificant" punctuation "magnify the gross error"? And the original question-- what's the "error"?

Here's why commas matter. They can change meaning radically. The old example noted before:
"Let's eat, Grandma!" versus
"Let's eat Grandma!"

Two radically different meanings rendered by nothing more than the presence or absence of a comma.

I also noted back there that they could have, if they wanted to, written:

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.

Exact same words, different punctuation. Had they written it this way there would be no murky meaning. In this version, it would be clearly "the right of the people (to keep and bear arms) that is noted as "necessary to the security of a free State".

But that's not the construction, is it?

The actual construction (the ratified version):
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.

This means something different -- what is "necessary to the security of a free state" is now "a well regulated militia". And this is the way it was written, both before and after revision.

This is where RKMBrown sees the "well regulated militia" clause as "prefatory" -- a passage which sort of introduces the following "the right of the people" etc.

My point to him was that, unless a connection was intended between the militia and the eventual thrust of the Amendment, there's no reason to qualify the right with the militia application, as distinct from other applications. If as Brown implies this opening clause is a justification for the Amendment, then it's odd that this is the only Amendment that finds a need for any such justification, is it not?

I've been mostly posting over people's heads who would rather set up strawmen about gun rights than strain their brain on grammatical logic. Maybe you can follow the question.

Somebody else did it here--

>> The best way to make sense of the Second Amendment is to take away all the commas (which, I know, means that only outlaws will have commas). Without the distracting commas, one can focus on the grammar of the sentence. Professor Lund is correct that the clause about a well-regulated militia is &#8220;absolute,&#8221; but only in the sense that it is grammatically independent of the main clause, not that it is logically unrelated. To the contrary, absolute clauses typically provide a causal or temporal context for the main clause.

The founders &#8212; most of whom were classically educated &#8212; would have recognized this rhetorical device as the &#8220;ablative absolute&#8221; of Latin prose. To take an example from Horace likely to have been familiar to them: &#8220;Caesar, being in command of the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence&#8221; (ego nec tumultum nec mori per vim metuam, tenente Caesare terras). The main clause flows logically from the absolute clause: &#8220;Because Caesar commands the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence.&#8221;

Likewise, when the justices finish diagramming the Second Amendment, they should end up with something that expresses a causal link, like: &#8220;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.&#8221; In other words, the amendment is really about protecting militias, notwithstanding the originalist arguments to the contrary. << -- Clause and Effect

Then again there's an obvious difference (the same one) between:

&#8220;Caesar being in command of the earth, I fear neither civil war nor death by violence" (Because Caesar is in command of the earth I fear neither...) and
&#8220;Caesar, being in command of the earth I fear neither civil war nor death by violence" (Caesar is being personally addressed and told "Because I (the speaker) command the earth, I fear neither...")

All due to the location of a comma.

Why this grammatical tangent?

Because the entire OP (as well as several posts including yours) is predicated on the claim that this study guide book has somehow changed the meaning of the Second Amendment, and that requires some kind of reading analysis ability. That must be why I haven't got an answer yet as to how the book has changed the meaning -- particularly from the same posters who can't understand the comma question.

But it's Monday, a new week.

The point I made and I believe others have made is that extra commas and capitalization inserted into the functional copies sent out to some states for ratification does not change the original intent and purpose of the Second Amendment. The historians have researched this quite thoroughly as demonstrated in the links I provided for the documents I posted and for the SCOTUS opinions on the subject. And as has been competently documented on this thread, the Supreme Court has now affirmed that original intent in three separate rulings.

If you look at the history, the legal commentary and interpretations, and the Supreme Court rulings, forgive me but only an idiot or somebody insufferably stubborn would not know that the text book in the OP got it wrong.

I don't think you're an idiot.