District of Columbia v. Heller; Or, Why Commas Matter
Historic moment, here, people! I wonder what the rest of the world thinks of our individual right to bear arms. I got vertigo today, over the oddness/particularities of American culture. Usually I just take it for granted that our culture is pretty much "normal" (whatever that's supposed to mean). But my grandpa has a whole room in his basement
( Read more... )
grammatically shaky... ambiguous...
Hmm... [ I'm deliberately clueless about the case so that my interpretations will be unaffected. ] By modern English standards, there is a superfluous comma in the first version. However, I keep getting stuck on the fact that the verb "infringed" in the 'matrix' clause can only go with "right". You can't infringe a militia, not in standard usage. But the "militia" noun phrase cannot be left floating. Linguistically, it seems there's basically nothing in it: the interpretation of v1 should be the same as v2.
You're right, it's not far-fetched to take the first half of the sentence as subordinate. I paraphrase thusly:
"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."
The interpretation here being obvious (we need a militia to protect the state = we need people to own guns), but it depends whether or not you want to take this at face value (sole reason) or play with it a bit (one of the reasons).
I think the biggest problem I have with this phrasing is the "well regulated" part. What does that really have to do with any of the rest of it? Letting people own guns doesn't entail a well-regulated militia. That is achieved by having trained soldiers use guns owned by the military. If you let ordinary, agenda-ridden people wander round with their own firearms, ostensibly defending the state, all hell could break loose (and frequently has, in the saloons of history...). Well-regulated, my foot.
Surely the writers of the amendment weren't naive enough to assume that people with guns would use them solely for the purpose of defending the freedom of the state? That's neither practical, nor human nature. But I can believe they thought that by allowing individuals to "keep arms", they would have a BYO 'army reserve' of sorts, should such defence be needed...
In the present day, it's less/not relevant. The military is well-funded enough to take care of itself, and does not require the citizrenry to be armed. In that case, taking the amendment at strict face value, you shouldn't have a gun unless you're a soldier. However, that's clearly not the way it works.
Ugh, my head hurts. Still know nothing about the case, but have just read chaila43's comment above, in re the justices' interpretation:
just because that's the stated purpose doesn't mean that's the only purpose, and that in fact the right to bear arms exists for all "traditional purposes". I too am inclined to wonder where they got that, because it's not from the text, but...
*gets out wooden spoon*
Dare I suggest that establishment of a 'reserve' was merely the most pressing or noblest-sounding issue at the time? I mean, the founding fathers were all about freedom from oppressive colonial overlords, right? Who's going to write, "We want to let everyone have guns just coz", when they've got a goldmine of patriotic sentiment to use instead? Looks and smells like a properly delimited, valid reason, but the reality of intent might have been different...
*holsters wooden spoon*
*crawls off to bed apologetically*
:D xxoo
Reply
Ooh, damn, that was long. Dissertation ahoy! Sorry... :O
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment