The grammar of the Second Amendment

[takebackthewh]

As a left-winger who nevertheless happens to believe in the Second Amendment, I was a bit nervous when I first ventured into DU a couple of years ago. I expected unremitting hostility to guns.

However, I was pleasantly surprised to find that there is a significant faction here who do support the Second Amendment. I would say 20-35 percent of the membership. Which I guess goes to show that just because you hate Bush, that doesn't mean you have to hate guns.

With these thoughts in mind, my friends here may wish to read the following column. I'm curious to hear reactions to this guy's argument.

------------------------

The Newsroom Iconoclast

Kshew-kshew! The grammar of the Second Amendment

Sunday, January 30, 2005

By Michael Bowers, Star columnist

What red-blooded American boy doesn't love to play with guns?

No matter if it's a broom handle or Barbie doll, just so long as he can point it and go "Kshew-kshew!"

And what red-blooded American boy doesn't go to bed dreaming of nonessential clauses? Give him a copy of "The Careful Writer" and he'll be absorbed for days.

Well, OK, maybe not that second part. Give a boy a grammar book and he'll probably point it at you and go "Kshew-kshew!"

However, in America, it happens that guns and nonessential clauses are fundamentally related. I refer to the grammar of the Second Amendment.

READ THE REST HERE ...

http://www.starnewspapers.com/star/spedit/col/30-col1.htm

[reticulatus]

1. The founders were not stupid

If they put something in the text then they had a clear intention of linking the phrase to the whole meaning of the amendment. To pretend otherwise is to use modern grammar to split hairs.

[billbuckhead]

2. The second amendment is the watchdog that doesn't bark

The vast majority of gun nuts fervently support the most anti freedom, most fascist regime in American history. Hell they brag about working out of the White House. If guns made men free, Afghanistan would be the freest nation on earth and the EU would be a gulag.

[solinvictus]

3. The Second Amendment...

In my view, many of those against gun rights accept ideologically inconistent positions. They wish the Second to be interpreted as a collective right, meaning a right exercised through the government of the US. At the same time, they typically see no need to restrict the First Amendment to such literal interpretations.

[Kenneth ken]

4. my POV

I see the entire Bill of Rights (amendments 1-10) as being a counter-balance to the main body of the Constitution. The main body describes how the government is to be structured, and what powers it is to have. The BoR is set counter to that, limiting what the government can NOT do.

The government can not establish a nation religion; impose censorship;
The government can not require a home owner to play host to troops;
The government can not search you or your property without a warrant ("unreasonable search" is the debatable point here);
etc.

so in that same overall sense of rights of the people as individuals, the right to keep and bear arms applies - a well-regulated milita notwithstanding.

I would say that the wording is sloppy to some degree, as it obviously doesn't foresee the potential of sociopaths/psychopaths acquiring arms.

The Constitution is a human-created document, and therefore flawed. But it was overall a pretty well thought-out document.

It would be good if we could get a contitutional convention reconvened to update and revise it. Not throw it out and start fresh, but use it as a starting point, and have open debate on how to revise it, with the best minds of our generation at the table, and a REAL free press to provide a forum for the debate.

[virginia mountainman]

10. thoughtfull

Kenneth

Our founders had criminals in their time also; I refer to some of their writings

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
~ Thomas Jefferson

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms . . ."GEORGE MASON

And a couple from modern Americans!

It was President John F. Kennedy who said, "Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom."

"The Constitution of the United States of America clearly affirms the right of every American citizen to bear arms. And as Americans, we will not give up a single right guaranteed under the Constitution. The history of unpunished violence against our people clearly indicates that we must be prepared to defend ourselves or we will continue to be a defenseless people at the mercy of a ruthless and violent racist mob."
~ Malcolm X,

I would not call it sloppy, I don’t know if I would want to change the Bill of Rights, I would want to ADD more things to it, but I would never take away any part of it!

Andrew

[Kenneth ken]

21. thanks

you don't leave me much wiggle room :)

I guess I'll slide under the 10th, and let states determine individually if they have residents among them who would be an inherent danger to themselves or their community if they were able to legally own arms.

I can't think of any BoR items I would want to take away either; I can think of a fair amount of constraints I might want to impose on the federal government, given the ability to look at how it has acted over the past couple hundred years, and so that would be reason enough for a reconvening for updating the Constitution.

[virginia mountainman]

23. nice talk!

"I guess I'll slide under the 10th, and let states determine individually if they have residents among them who would be an inherent danger to themselves or their community if they were able to legally own arms."
---------------------------------------------------
I have a simple answer to that problem, If you cannot be trusted with a firearm, than you cannot be trusted with a car, knife, pipe, 2x4, lawnmower ,ETC……………………… You cannot be trusted to walk down the street then.


Let’s keep folks locked up until we can, as a society trust them with simple day to day tools. I also propose that when criminals finally DO get out of jail, that we as a people completely forgive them. They get ALL of their rights back COMPLETELY, Guns, Voting, you name it, my view is they have paid their debt to society and we as a society have a duty to forgive them.

With the current justice system such a system would NEVER work, with the light sentences and suspended sentences that are routinely handed down, even for repeat offenders.

My plan would require long sentences to implement effectively, something like 20 years for robbing a 7-11 with a gun, 10 for doing it without a gun, no parole and hard time with lots of education, but when you’re released, total forgiveness for your crimes, a place to stay while you find a job and get back on your feet, and “some pocket money” to keep you honest till you get your first paycheck.

Andrew

[Kenneth ken]

29. lawnmower eh?

I'm not sure I'd go quite that far, but mostly I am still not in disagreement with you.

Since we license drivers, I'd be ok with a person having to demonstrate a knowledge of, and capacity to safely operate a firearm, in the same way we regulate drivers. Keeping in mind there are different licenses needed for passenger vehicles and 18 wheelers. Why not something similar for firearms, and say cannons/rocket launchers, etc.

Once you have a license, like vehicles you can have as many as you can afford of the type you are licensed to operate. This of course, all determined at a state level, since we agree the Fed is prohibited from infringing on RKBA.

As far as criminal justice, I have a whole different view of that. I would mandate that any person under 18 convicted of a crime, be sentenced to jail/prison until their 18th birthday and completion of a GED style diploma. So we (presumably) agree that education is at least to some a degree a deterrent to crime.

Those over 18, I would agree with minimum sentencing melding a combination of first/second offense and type of crime. First offenders could get educational opportunities while incarcerated.

Third offenders - three strikes and you're out, or in, game over. Life sentence. This would also possibly apply to certain first offenders, murder, as an example. But this is a harsh sentence, to completely discard a person's life, so should require close scrutiny before passing that sentence.

And I do agree with the total forgiveness approach to those who have completed their sentences. Treating people as criminals after hey have been punished for criminality is essentially a second sentence, which is of course, prohbited by the 5th. :D

Presumably the justice system used to work more along those lines. In westerns, at least, there is a not uncommon theme of people getting out of prison, and subsequently seen in town wearing their guns. Though typically those people are out for revenge - propaganda by the powers that be to brainwash citizens into giving up their rights?

Here's a different thought - the labor strikes of the early 1900s and thereabouts; how much more effective might they have been if the local police force/national guard had had to face an armed citizen militia siding with the strikers as people petitioning for redress of grievances?

Not withstanding the individual RKBA, I do see some valid use for a well-regulated citizen militia. They might be the venue for providing the training necessary for a citizen to acquire an arms license. We used to have citizen militias too; that was the make up of various regiments and such.

what's that quote? - when government fears the people you have liberty, when people fear their government you have tyranny.

[virginia mountainman]

30. hmmmm

Dag nabit, your making me think HARD today!!


I think licensing is a terrible idea, and I will try to explain why,

You mentioned the licensing of cars, true enough, but there is an important distinction between cars and firearms, Cars are NOT mentioned in the bill of rights!! You don’t need a license to practice the REST of the Bill of Rights do you? The basic truth of the matter is, driving a car, is a PRIVILEGE not a right.

Also, think of it this way, If an known abuser of human rights is elected president(WINK WINK) and civil liberties are being curtailed (WINK WINK ) do you want the abusive government knowing who has guns and who doesn’t??

And the facts of the matter is registration of firearms ALWAYS has eventually lead to confiscation

We basically agree, on the punishment of criminals, as I said before, I would even support lots of “after release” help and support to get them making a worthwhile life. So they will not WANT to get locked up again. Make prison a hard experience, NO TV, NO NOTHING but work and education..

And I agree, about certain crimes not being forgivable, I FULLY agree on that.

And that is an EXCELLENT QUOTE!! I would like to see the citizen's militia return in some fashion, not for combat duty but for domestic emergencies, and natural disasters, trained much like the National Guard but be unpaid, mandatory service like jury duty. And yes, if the need arises, for these same folks to take up arms (which has proven necessary ever few years) to stop a riot or looting, or just to assist the local authorities.

THAT is what our founders envisioned

Andrew

[Kenneth ken]

31. ok

you are right here: You don’t need a license to practice the REST of the Bill of Rights do you?

so I will concede the licensing thing, even at the state level.

I don't mean to make you think hard, I mean to make you make me think - so good job!



and since you liked it, I looked it up (you'll Like it even better quoted accurately)

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

[virginia mountainman]

32. Nice to meet and talk to ya Ken

Dude, you nearly made me blow a fuse on that last one, the brains had not been used that hard in a while!

LOL Nice to meet and talk to ya Ken!!

I look forward to farther thought provoking conversations with you!!!

Andrew

[Kenneth ken]

33. the pleasure was mine good sir.

:hi:

[ecoalex]

5. Militia a key word

THE 2ND AMENDMENT

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.


The 2nd amendment hinges on the preamble, "a well regulated militia"

How does individual gun holder's rights fall under this ?

Gangs are well regulated militias

the northwest Militias fall under this

How can an interpretation of a well regulated militia , include individual owners of guns? when they are not in a quasi National Guard?

For the record, I hunt, have 3 firearms .

For militia sake , owners should be able to own assult weapons .

Common sense says individuals should not be able to own them as they are strictly for military use , multiple deaths , rapid fire.

[virginia mountainman]

9. interesting comments

Very good discussion! And some new points of view

Here is the long held congressional definition of a Militia; you will find that most male members of this country are technically in the “unorganized militia”

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/cgi-bin/htm_hl?DB=uscode10&STEMMER=en&WORDS=militia+&COLOUR=Red&STYLE=s&URL=/uscode/10/311.html#muscat_highlighter_first_match


Ecoalex, what definition of “Assault Weapon” are you using??

The “Brady/VPC definition” which is full of cosmetic items and does not concern itself with HOW the gun works?

Or the real “Assault Weapon” definition which simply states an “selective fire rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge” those rifles I might add has been basically banned since the 1930’s

There are MAJOR differences in those definitions.

Andrew

[Devil Dog Dem]

13. "Regulated" in the late 1700s does not mean what it does today.

As I understand it, it meant provision of supplied. Thus, a well supplied militia should have a sufficient number of guns.

[billbuckhead]

14. And guns were scarce so civilian ones were needed in emergency

[Township75]

27. "And guns were scarce " - did you take that from a fired prof from Emory?

?

[billbuckhead]

36. No I took the scarcity fact from the history of Colt weapons

If guns weren't scarce there would be no need for mass production. American revolutionaries wouldn't have needed to buy guns from those evil French. Cars were scarce too, until Ford mass produced them.

[benEzra]

28. They weren't scarce...

any more than they are now...

[billbuckhead]

37. Guns were so scarce we bought them from France on credit.

FRANCE-U.S. RELATIONS

In colonial North America dynastic, religious, and ethnic rivalries frequently produced bloodshed between Protestant British and French Catholic settlers, leading them to fight four wars between 1688 and 1763, until in the Seven Years' War Great Britain ejected the French from continental North America. When the British colonies revolted, France retaliated by secretly supplying them with guns and other supplies.
<http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/rcah/html/ah_032700_franceusrela.htm.>

[virginia mountainman]

15. Definitions

Regulate USED to mean well practiced and maintained the modern definitions did not come about until the early 1900’s

Here is the MODERN Definitions of Regulate

1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.

The number (1) definition is the most common use of regulate today, but in the 1700’s the number (3) definition was the common meaning

It becomes problematic when reading 200+ year old texts with modern definitions!

Andrew

[Devil Dog Dem]

19. So true!

Imagine what it will be like in another 200 years!

[benEzra]

35. No modern military uses "assault weapons"

For militia sake , owners should be able to own assult weapons .

Common sense says individuals should not be able to own them as they are strictly for military use , multiple deaths , rapid fire.

No modern military uses "assault weapons" as defined by the expired "assault weapons ban." Militaries use automatic weapons, not fake civilian lookalikes. You appear to be under the impression that the assault weapons ban restricted military infantry rifles?

AFAIK the only gun affected by the "assault weapons ban" that the U.S. military uses would be the Beretta M9 pistol, which is simply a civilian Beretta 92F anyway. (The 1994 AWB dramatically raised prices on replacement magazines for that handgun, among others.)

[dan_p]

6. The USDOJ seems to think it's an individual right...

I'd take a read at this:

http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

It's basically a huge breakdown of the second amendment word for word by the Department of Justice to figure out whether or not the right belongs to the individual. The end result: Yes, yes it does, no question about it. It's an interesting read even if you're not going to change your mind :)

[billbuckhead]

8. Does that mean individuals can have WMD's? Antiaircraft weapons?

Where is the line between what weapons individuals can have and not have? Neutron bombs? Bio agents? Antiaircraft weapons? RPG's? Where does 2nd amendment absolutism stop?

[dan_p]

11. Limit to Abilitly to safely own.

That's a really good question, and not one I can even say I have a really good answer for. I'm always conflicted on this because of this logic:

At the time the second amendment was written, the most powerful weapon that existed was a rifle, which is what our military used, they also felt that citizens should also be able to own that (I believe it was THomas Jefferson who also said that it was the DUTY of citizens who could afford to own a rifle to do so). By that logic whatever is good for the military is good for the citizenry.

Now obviously that logic is flawed, neither I nor Joe Bob should have a nuclear warhead in their home.

I've began to think about it this way:
The weapons you own should be limited to ones you can own and secure responsibly. Eg, if you have a handgun, you should be able to lock it in it's case, if you have rifles you need a gun safe, if you have machineguns you need a BIG safe, if you want to own a nuclear warhead, you better have your own personal nuclear facility and military to protect it :P

[MyMouth]

25. Not so.

The most powerful (conventional) weapon at the time of the founding fathers was the cannon.

Private citizens were allowed to own these, and did. Private citizens outfitted sailing ships with cannon and were granted Letters of Marque(sp?), which was basically permission from the gov't to intercept, attack, and confiscate enemy shipping and warships.

Taking this in mind, I would not have a problem with law-abiding citizens owning battleships, armed aircraft, etc. Only the obscenely wealthy would be able to afford to own and maintain such arms(dammit....I want a Vulcan cannon on my VW Golf!!), and they would generally only be useful in periods of all-out war.

[virginia mountainman]

12. History

Well that is a tricky question,

I would assume cost would be the limiting factor

There are CLEAR cases of Americans owning and sailing warships in the name of the United States in it past

John Paul Jones was such a “privateer”, he owned his warship, and he outfitted it and hired its crew.

And in his time, his ship and ships like his were the super weapons.

You will find that Privateers where MUCH more numerous than the Continental navy was at the time!

http://www.usmm.org/revolution.html

Very interesting reading with history there!

Andrew

[benEzra]

26. From a pragmatic standpoint...

it makes sense to leave that line of demarcation precisely where it has been since 1934. Heavy restrictions on explosives, automatic weapons, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, firearms over .50 caliber (except shotguns), disguised firearms, other ordnance, and suppressed firearms. Non-automatic firearms .50 caliber and under are OK.

Trying to shatter that 60-year-old compromise in 1934 and replace it with new restrictions based on how a gun looks, or banning 11-round handguns, has now cost the Democratic party the House, the Senate, and two presidencies. I personally feel the National Firearms Act got it pretty much right.

[BlueEyedSon]

16. Oh , you mean that dept headed by nutjob Ashcroft, and soon Gonzales?

Yeah, I'd take their word on the interpretation of law....NOT!

[jody]

7. You should read all material associated with

Silveira vs. Lockyer, US vs. Emerson, WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, and The Right To Keep And Bear Arms.

Those four documents are among the best recent arguments for and against RKBA.

[ecoalex]

17. Assult Weapon

"Ecoalex, what definition of “Assault Weapon” are you using??

The “Brady/VPC definition” which is full of cosmetic items and does not concern itself with HOW the gun works?

Or the real “Assault Weapon” definition which simply states an “selective fire rifle chambered in an intermediate cartridge” those rifles I might add has been basically banned since the 1930’s"

The 30's law should do it, but it seems a new class of weapons needed to be made to accomodate new technology I would think . Hell, a baseball bat is a killing weapon , but it has limitations compared to a 50 shot clip in an automatic weapon .

[jody]

18. Did you reply to my post? n/t

[virginia mountainman]

20. hmmm

The 1930’s law DOES do it.

Semi auto rifles have been available since the early 1900’s

As for the high capacity magazines, their have been .22’s around for 50 years that held lots of rounds, nobody thought hi-cap magazines where “bad” until the AW ban was passed 10 years ago.

The “Special class” of firearms you are talking about just look scary, they are functionally NO different than the millions of sporting semi automatics that are out their, you know, the pretty ones with the fancy wood and scopes(and YES most of them take a detachable magazine, that could easily be modified for high capacity)

It could be succefully argued that they are LESS dangerous than other semi auto hunting rifles, due to the extremely powerful rounds and high quality optics on them. Most can hit a pie pan at well over 1000 yards with ease; most of your “assault rifles” are only accurate to 200 yards and that is with an experienced shooter

It is only a matter of time before Brady/VPC/MMM are calling them sniper rifles and call for their total ban

The twisted Brady ban, as I said earlier banned several rifles that could ONLY hold 10 rounds or less, one of which could only hold 8

And gun owners rebelled because of it in 1994, and our party is still paying the price for all that damned gun control

Remember when the AW Ban sunsetted back in September, all the doom and gloom predictions of blood running in the streets because of it, and all the terrible mass murders
That where going to happen,

NOTHING HAPPENED, except the prices on semi automatic rifles dropped.

It is hard for folks that don’t understand firearms to shift thru all the misinformation about guns that is floating around.

Andrew

[benEzra]

34. What new technology?

The 30's law should do it, but it seems a new class of weapons needed to be made to accomodate new technology I would think . Hell, a baseball bat is a killing weapon , but it has limitations compared to a 50 shot clip in an automatic weapon .

Not sure what "new technology" you're thinking of here. Box-magazine-fed self-loaders go back to the 1890's or so. And over-10-round rifle magazines go back to the 1860's. Not much differentiates a 2005 Ruger mini-14 from, say, a 1940 M1 carbine, except the mini is much more rust resistant...

BTW, all automatic weapons fall under the National Firearms Act of '34. The "assault weapons ban" didn't restrict any automatic weapons. (That's not what you meant, is it?)

[hansberrym]

22. Absolute construction does not modify the subject!

After reading the column, I am curious to find out what the full responses were from the experts that corresponded with the M.Bowers.



According to the Americn Heritage Dictionary: "Absolute construction modifies the rest of the sentence, not the subject of the sentence (as a participial phrase does)".

The subject of the clause following the preamble of the Second amendment is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", and it is not modified by the preamble (see definition of Absolute construction below). The preamble, even when veiwed as absoulte construction, acts only to modify the rest of the sentence and could then only be a rationale for the non-infringement of the RKBA. This is the usual interpretation given to the preamble by individual rights interpreters anyway, so something seems to be missing.



The other expert cited by Boweres claims that the Founders attempted to qualify the arms but then this expert admits that the Founders failed to do so. But an assumption of error makes an extremely weak argument, and the much more likely scenario is that the Founders wrote what they meant to write. This same expert is also quoted by Bowers as making the following (IMO)poorly worded statement:

"To say that a right is being granted because of the necessity of a well-regulated militia isn't quite the same thing as saying the right is being granted only within the confines of a well-regulated militia"

However, the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is NOT GRANTED by the second amendment. The amendment states that that right SHALL NOT NOT INFRINGED, but it does not create the right, nor grant the right. The text and grammar of the amendment show that the right is simply presumed to exist, and as the expert wrote, there is no qualifier(the expert wrote that the founders "failed" which presumes intent but none the less he admits that it is not qualified). Furthemore, while there is no mention of the reasons for the right's existence, a rationale is clearly given for its non-infringement.



The trouble with responding to the arguments of the experts presented in the link is that we do not have their full responses. We only know what the columnist shared with us.


Does anyone no any more about this story?





The American Heritage® Book of English Usage.
A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. 1996.


1. Grammar: Traditional Rules, Word Order, Agreement, and Case


§ 1. absolute constructions
Absolute constructions consist of a noun and some kind of modifier, the most common being a participle. Because they often come at the beginning of a sentence, they are easily confused with dangling participles. But an absolute construction modifies the rest of the sentence, not the subject of the sentence (as a participial phrase does). You can use absolute constructions to compress two sentences into one and to vary sentence structure as a means of holding a reader’s interest. Here are some examples:
No other business arising, the meeting was adjourned.
The paint now dry, we brought the furniture out on the deck.
The truck finally loaded, they said goodbye to their neighbors and drove off.
The horse loped across the yard, her foal trailing behind her.
1
Constructions like these are used more often in writing than in speaking, where it is more common to use a full clause: When the paint was dry, we brought the furniture out on the deck. There are, however, many fixed absolute constructions that occur frequently in speech:
The picnic is scheduled for Saturday, weather permitting.
Barring bad weather, we plan to go to the beach tomorrow.
All things considered, it’s not a bad idea.
2

[hansberrym]

24. However other sources do say:

"The absolute construction, unlike a participle which modifies only the subject of a sentence, modifies the entire sentence".
(See link below to Armchair Grammarian)

But even assuming that it is absolute contruction and considering the definition from the Armchair Grammarian the preamble is still best read as a rationale for the non-infringement of the right that is stated. Note that neither the existence nor the scope of the right are mentioned in the second amendment, but there is a mention of the non-infringement of the right. So to suggest that the preamble is meant to somehow provide information which would limit the scope of the right or to explain its existence, rather than as a reason for its non-infringement is totally unsupported by the text.


BTW: my email to M.Bowers bounced back. I Would still like to see full responses from Walsh/ if anyone has those links.



http://community-2.webtv.net/solis-boo/Grammar1/page11.html


ABSOLUTE CONSTRUCTIONS
Noun/Pronoun + Participle + Modifiers (if any)


An absolute construction is composed of a noun or pronoun followed by a participle plus modifiers (if any). The modifier of the noun or pronoun may be the participle itself. The absolute construction, unlike a participle which modifies only the subject of a sentence, modifies the entire sentence. In the following examples, the absolute construction appears in accentuated text.


The job finally completed, I went home.

(Regarding the absolute construction, the noun is job; the past participle is completed, which is modified by the adverb finally.)


Existence being meaningless, there is no one or no thing watching over us.

(The noun is existence; the present participle is being; the subject complement is meaningless).



The absolute construction is sometimes called an absolute phrase or a nominative absolute. The aesthetic function of the construction--including the verbal phrases, which are related--is to hold the reader's interest by varying sentence structure. I say reader because the absolute construction lends itself better to the written word than to the spoken word, since the absolute construction frequently sounds too formal and stilted in speaking, which frequently employs the full clause as a less strident alternative. Compare the sentences below.


ABSOLUTE PHRASE
(Stilted) FULL CLAUSE
(Better to the Ear)
Our job now completed, we drove home. When our job was completed, we drove home.
The car approaching the turn, we held our breaths. As the car approached the turn, we held our breaths.
We pulled off the road, our windscreen fogging up. We pulled off the road when our windscreen fogged up.



Note: Although the majority of absolute constructions introduce a sentence, the absolute construction can appear anywhere within a sentence. (For punctuation of absolute constructions see the Comma.)

[Dolomite]

38. Why didn't they just say:

The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

If they'd done that, our suicide numbers would be lower than Japan's and the growth rate for violent crime would be slower than England's right now!