[image: pinterest.com]

Nation magazine just posted an article in which the author makes a determined case for interpreting the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution to mean that only members of the militia have the right to keep and bear arms. Such a right does not extend to citizens. I wanted to respond directly to the author, but I failed to meet their qualifying test: I must be a paid subscriber to post a response to them. That is trickery. Let them respond to my posting in my forum.

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

To: Nation Magazine

I typically agree with most of Nation’s postings. But I depart whenever you are wrong, and I am right. Such is the case with the Second Amendment article.

“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 amendment is an open and shut case of amphiboly. In case you have forgotten your basic parts of language, amphiboly is the deliberate us of ambiguity. It is the construction of language in such a way that it can be interpreted with two very different outcomes. “The king’s army, the enemy shall never defeat” is an example. Does this mean the enemy shall never defeat the king’s army, or the king’s army shall never defeat the enemy? The person who makes such a statement can make his choice after the fact. If the king’s army wins, that’s what he meant. But if the enemy wins, well, of course that is what he meant. If the author is also the king’s advisor, he could save his own head either way the battle goes.

Now back to the 2nd amendment. This statement is missing a conjunction that ties the two main clauses together. Try as I might, there are only two conjunctions that fit these clauses. One is “therefore,” and the other is “nevertheless.” Let’s take them one at a time.

Insert “therefore” between the clauses and we have a statement of the obvious. A militia is not a militia without arms. Even a nitwit knows that much. But would you waste precious space in so serious a document as the founding Constitution to state the obvious? I, along with Scalia et al., say “no.” The writers meant something a lot more profound than merely to note that a militia has got to be armed, otherwise, it’s just a group of citizens.

Now insert “nevertheless” between the same two clauses. Wow! What a difference! Now it says “Of course a militia must be armed, but that is not enough. We insist that the people also have the right to be armed. Some could be called up to join the militia, and they would be ready with their own arms. Meanwhile, they also have the means to defend themselves from each other as well as from an invading army. This interpretation is worthy of note in a founding Constitution,

The second interpretation clearly carries the day. I am surprised to learn that Scalia and others were bright enough to see the militia preface as just that—prefatory—but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

The writer of that amendment probably saw the ambiguity and let it stand, deferring to future generations to sort out meanings. You may not like our present Supreme Court’s interpretation or mine, but logic and language are on our side.

A more intelligent argument against rampant gun ownership is to note that the only arms that existed back in 1789 were muskets and slow-loading pistols. Even the originalist interpreters of the Constitution could not deny that fact. It follows from their own logic that the 2nd Amendment protects only those two slow-loading, single slug firing arms. Put the NRA and all their followers on notice to argue otherwise, and they would be caught in a quandary of language and logic that can be used against them. The Supreme Court would also be caught up in its own logic. If they conceded, all weapons of any kind beyond muskets could be banned or vastly limited for private ownership by any local, state, or national law.