by John Silveira I usually get up to the magazine from southern California in plenty of time for the bimonthly deadline. Not this issue. I was late and way behind. But getting up here late doesn’t lessen my workload; it just stretches out the number of hours I have to work each day. There’s less time to relax, visit, or spend with friends. That said, three of us, Dave Duffy, O.E. MacDougal, and I went shooting anyway and depreciated a huge amount of ammunition on a hillside up behind Duffy’s house. Duffy, of course, is the fellow who publishes this magazine. Mac is Dave’s poker-playing friend from the old days.
“It may be,” Mac said, “that in reality, rights are a figment of our imagination.”
IF we evolved, RIGHTS are purely imaginary, as is logic, science etc. The ‘woke’ are correct in their self contradictory assertions. Men can be women, or dogs, or marry airplanes, or whatever insane nonsense jumps into their minds that day.
If we were created, our rights are inalienable, as delineated by the founders. Fantastic article to read as a part of a series with Naomi Wolf and El gato.
Long, but interesting way of covering subject correctly. I had studied records of discussions of founders on Constitution and Bill of Rights. On use of word “militia”, it is made clear it only referred to normal citizens who have a weapon and not any standing military organization. Such citizens could act together, as a militia, to defend against the federal government if ever became necessary. When one reads all the discussions, on all sides of all the issues, it becomes obvious that these men were extremely intelligent and knowledgeable about governmental histories and lessons learned. Many were farmers and showed far more intelligence on governmental considerations than we see in any, and I mean any, of our current politicians.
Critics on the Left of individual gun rights often described this sentence as being opaque because it has two clauses, and two commas prior to the final clause; so they read the first two sections as relating unclearly to the last assertion.
But if you are familiar with late 18th century rhetoric and sentence construction, the meaning of this sentence is transparent.
The construction of this sentence is typical of late 18th into early 19th century English grammar, in which there can be quite a few dependent clauses, gerunds and commas that come before the verb, and the object of, the sentence.
Thus, the correct way to read the Second Amendment, if you understand 18th century English grammar, is:
“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.”
Or, translated into modern English construction: “Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Here is another example of many dependent clauses, commas and gerunds prior to the verb and object of the sentence: from the second paragraph of Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense (1776):
“As a long and violent abuse of power is generally the means of calling the right of it in question, (and in matters too which might never have been thought of, had not the sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry,) and as the King of England hath undertaken in his own right, to support the Parliament in what he calls Theirs, and as the good People of this Country are grievously oppressed by the Combination, they have an undoubted privilege to enquire into the Pretensions of both, and equally to reject the Usurpation of either.” [https://oll.libertyfund.org/page/1776-paine-common-sense-pamphlet].
This would translate into modern English: “The good people of this Country are grievously oppressed by the combination of a long and violent abuse of power and of the King of England’s support of Parliament in what he calls his rights and theirs. Thus, the [good people of this country] have an undoubted privilege to enquire into [ask about] the Pretension [claims] of both [King and Parliament], and by the same token to reject the Usurpation [of rights] of either.” The logic of the sentence, with its multiple clauses, gerunds and commas before the final verb and object of the sentence, is perfectly clear to anyone who is familiar with 18th century rhetoric.
Here is the famous first sentence of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, with the similar construction — common still in 1813, though uncommon today — of two commas and two clauses prior to the verb and object of the sentence: “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.”
So: there is no ambiguity whatsoever about the Second Amendment to readers of Paine and Austen. The Second Amendment says with zero ambiguity, in the English grammar of 1787, that Americans have an absolute right (“shall not be infringed”) to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms because they as individuals may be summoned to become a ‘well-regulated militia’. In the grammar of the 18th century, it’s the militia that is ‘well-regulated’ - orderly, in a clear chain of command, not a chaotic mob — and not the guns.
Why do I raise this all of this?
In part because — I have evolved my view about firearms, and I understand that doing so is in fact in alignment with the Constitution. And the thing about really supporting the Constitution is that you do not get to pick and choose. I can’t choose my favorite Amendment, the easy one, the First Amendment, and then shy away from the glass-clear directive of the Second Amendment, simply as a result of my own cultural discomfort. You have to stand up for it all, if you are to call yourself a supporter of the Constitution. - Naomi Wolf.
Most thorough and best darn explanation on why all men have this natural right to self defense I have ever read to date about the 2nd Amendment- and very aptly titled in jest - 2nd Smartest Guy InTheWorld !
Most helpful and readable discussion on the subject I have read to date. Modern fallacies die as quickly as they are born.
“It may be,” Mac said, “that in reality, rights are a figment of our imagination.”
IF we evolved, RIGHTS are purely imaginary, as is logic, science etc. The ‘woke’ are correct in their self contradictory assertions. Men can be women, or dogs, or marry airplanes, or whatever insane nonsense jumps into their minds that day.
If we were created, our rights are inalienable, as delineated by the founders. Fantastic article to read as a part of a series with Naomi Wolf and El gato.
"An armed society is a polite society" I say whenever this subject is raised here in Europe.
Just saw the cite embedded in the beginning, Backwoods Magazine, thank you!
Wonderful article, and very helpful in formulating my understanding of the Second Amendment.
Long, but interesting way of covering subject correctly. I had studied records of discussions of founders on Constitution and Bill of Rights. On use of word “militia”, it is made clear it only referred to normal citizens who have a weapon and not any standing military organization. Such citizens could act together, as a militia, to defend against the federal government if ever became necessary. When one reads all the discussions, on all sides of all the issues, it becomes obvious that these men were extremely intelligent and knowledgeable about governmental histories and lessons learned. Many were farmers and showed far more intelligence on governmental considerations than we see in any, and I mean any, of our current politicians.
This is the best I have ever read. Thank you
A complicated and enlightening weave! If just 10 million of the 70 million gun owners decide they have had enough of the talk, the talk would end.
Perhaps the most (if not one of the most) important pieces you have shared/written. Thank you -from a grateful American .
“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.” [https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992]
Critics on the Left of individual gun rights often described this sentence as being opaque because it has two clauses, and two commas prior to the final clause; so they read the first two sections as relating unclearly to the last assertion.
But if you are familiar with late 18th century rhetoric and sentence construction, the meaning of this sentence is transparent.
The construction of this sentence is typical of late 18th into early 19th century English grammar, in which there can be quite a few dependent clauses, gerunds and commas that come before the verb, and the object of, the sentence.
Thus, the correct way to read the Second Amendment, if you understand 18th century English grammar, is:
“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.”
Or, translated into modern English construction: “Because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
Here is another example of many dependent clauses, commas and gerunds prior to the verb and object of the sentence: from the second paragraph of Thomas Paine’s pamphlet Common Sense (1776):
“As a long and violent abuse of power is generally the means of calling the right of it in question, (and in matters too which might never have been thought of, had not the sufferers been aggravated into the inquiry,) and as the King of England hath undertaken in his own right, to support the Parliament in what he calls Theirs, and as the good People of this Country are grievously oppressed by the Combination, they have an undoubted privilege to enquire into the Pretensions of both, and equally to reject the Usurpation of either.” [https://oll.libertyfund.org/page/1776-paine-common-sense-pamphlet].
This would translate into modern English: “The good people of this Country are grievously oppressed by the combination of a long and violent abuse of power and of the King of England’s support of Parliament in what he calls his rights and theirs. Thus, the [good people of this country] have an undoubted privilege to enquire into [ask about] the Pretension [claims] of both [King and Parliament], and by the same token to reject the Usurpation [of rights] of either.” The logic of the sentence, with its multiple clauses, gerunds and commas before the final verb and object of the sentence, is perfectly clear to anyone who is familiar with 18th century rhetoric.
Here is the famous first sentence of Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice, with the similar construction — common still in 1813, though uncommon today — of two commas and two clauses prior to the verb and object of the sentence: “It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.”
So: there is no ambiguity whatsoever about the Second Amendment to readers of Paine and Austen. The Second Amendment says with zero ambiguity, in the English grammar of 1787, that Americans have an absolute right (“shall not be infringed”) to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms because they as individuals may be summoned to become a ‘well-regulated militia’. In the grammar of the 18th century, it’s the militia that is ‘well-regulated’ - orderly, in a clear chain of command, not a chaotic mob — and not the guns.
Why do I raise this all of this?
In part because — I have evolved my view about firearms, and I understand that doing so is in fact in alignment with the Constitution. And the thing about really supporting the Constitution is that you do not get to pick and choose. I can’t choose my favorite Amendment, the easy one, the First Amendment, and then shy away from the glass-clear directive of the Second Amendment, simply as a result of my own cultural discomfort. You have to stand up for it all, if you are to call yourself a supporter of the Constitution. - Naomi Wolf.
Thank you for this pertinent information that the masses need to grasp.
Most thorough and best darn explanation on why all men have this natural right to self defense I have ever read to date about the 2nd Amendment- and very aptly titled in jest - 2nd Smartest Guy InTheWorld !
Love this post! Thank you 🙏🏻
Is there a cite where this comes from? It’s great. Seems like a Bill Bonnor thing but I’d love to know where it comes from.