I ask this question because Wikipedia claims the following:
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:
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 hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:
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.
Both versions are commonly used by "official" Government publications.
So which one is correct? I ask because the grammar drastically alters the meaning.
This is direct evidence that people not knowing how to use the English language properly can SERIOUSLY screw things up for everyone else, and that the effects of not knowing how to properly use English grammar can be profound indeed. The grammar in the original, RATIFIED Amendment is very precise and, as it is written, self-limiting toward the supposedly limitless "right" to own a gun OF ANY KIND.
Let's look at the first example:
"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 implication here is that those owning a firearm- the right to bear arms- was instituted in order to guarantee the existence of a well-regulated militia. The grammar is clear: the intent here, clearly and without the necessity of debate, is to guarantee the existence of a well-regulated militia. It would stand to reason that the ownership of a firearm ought to be contingent upon membership in that militia. This is implied, but not denoted; nonetheless, the intent is clear: the bearing of arms is necessary for the existence of a well-regulated militia, but there is NO mention of the unrestricted ownership of arms; in fact, restricted ownership is directly implied by the Second Amendment with the above punctuation.
Now, let us examine the other given example:
"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 above quote makes no actual grammatical sense. These are sentence fragments, isolated by commas; they make no sense on their own except when viewed through the filter of unrestricted gun ownership. Let me say that even more clearly:
The above quote, with the punctuation as stated, makes no grammatical sense.THIS part does:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"
But should be followed by a word such as should, will, shall, must, shall not, will not, etc. The words that follow make no sense, period. Here's the following words:
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "
Senseless, grammatically speaking. There is no real meaning in the above 'phrase'. In fact, it's not even a phrase, but is in fact a couple sentence fragments glued together with a comma.
Since most Americans are NOT savvy regarding their OWN language (loose! car's! sence!), it comes as no surprise that this Amendment is misunderstood. However, the additional commas make the Amendment actually senseless. This is why people think EVERYONE has the right to own a gun. The grammatically correct version of the Second proves that this is simply not the case: only CERTAIN PEOPLE, per the Second, are allowed to own a gun... and those are the various members of the state militias, AND NO ONE ELSE.
The first quote without the additional commas DOES make sense. Perfect, irrefutable sense. It refutes the unlimited ownership attitude some of us have. And, it's the correct interpretation, IMO.
So, let's see which version the NRA quotes on its webpage (I've never been there before now; I'm assuming they do...)...
Failure ensues. "second amendment +text" using the NRA website's own search engine yields ZERO results.
I am Joe's complete lack of surprise. Nonetheless, I have to ask myself whether gun manufacturers, like tobacco companies, have perverted their right into something rather less than what it should be. In the end, I must ask myself:
Which version of the Second is correct and, if the former definition is, given above, why aren't we following that more strictly than we are?
Clearly, it is possible that not everyone deserves to own a gun, but only members of their state's militia, and that per the Second itself. Why have we become erroneously convinced that things are different?
Who decided militia membership is not a factor in owning a gun? Because, to me, the Second says something much different.