Just curious what your thoughts are here.
If it's not, what is it?
If it's not, what is it?
Is the first phrase of the second amendment a nominative absolute?
- Thread starter LightningCrash
- Start Date
It's koan or a parable. Its meaning will or will not be understood after years of contemplation.
"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 subject of the sentence is "right." The verb is "shall be infringed" modified by the adverb, "not."
The main sentence states plainly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It merely answers the question, why should the right to keep and bear arms not be infringed.
My wife is an English Major/Teacher. Basically, I am married to a Grammar Nazi.
The subject of the sentence is "right." The verb is "shall be infringed" modified by the adverb, "not."
The main sentence states plainly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It merely answers the question, why should the right to keep and bear arms not be infringed.
My wife is an English Major/Teacher. Basically, I am married to a Grammar Nazi.
Excellent summary, and exactly right! The first clause is the dependent clause, and in no way modifies the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It merely provides philosophical justification as to why the right must not be infringed. In more modern English we would add the word "because": "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state . . ." The meaning is the same.
Indeed it is a nominative absolute, the English adaptation of the Latin ablative absolute. In this case, it gives a reason about the statement in the "operative clause" -- "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
The gun-grabbers would try to twist the meaning to "The only reason for the right to exist was to provide a militia, an outmoded idea now that we have a standing army and police forces."
In reality, the reason stated in the "Militia clause" is the reason why the government would not want to "cut its own throat" by undermining the militia, which was drawn from the armed populace. No standing army implied that the militia was the primary defense force for the security of all states in the Union, and the Union itself. Disarm the people, and the militia concept collapses.
If we accept the gun-grabber view, then instead of a nation founded on the principle of free men with innate rights, establishing a government to protect those rights, we have the absurdity of a "right of the people" which only exists so long as the state finds it useful for the people to have that right.
Of course, the gun-grabbers would not let that same concept of "rights exist at the convenience of government" apply to any other right.
(Or would they?)
The gun-grabbers would try to twist the meaning to "The only reason for the right to exist was to provide a militia, an outmoded idea now that we have a standing army and police forces."
In reality, the reason stated in the "Militia clause" is the reason why the government would not want to "cut its own throat" by undermining the militia, which was drawn from the armed populace. No standing army implied that the militia was the primary defense force for the security of all states in the Union, and the Union itself. Disarm the people, and the militia concept collapses.
If we accept the gun-grabber view, then instead of a nation founded on the principle of free men with innate rights, establishing a government to protect those rights, we have the absurdity of a "right of the people" which only exists so long as the state finds it useful for the people to have that right.
Of course, the gun-grabbers would not let that same concept of "rights exist at the convenience of government" apply to any other right.
(Or would they?)
Heller
+1 ^^^^^
It is actually more than philosophical. Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, makes the Militia necessary for law enforcement and for protection of the several states. Notably, Clause 15 contains the only power granted to the Union to enforce(execute) the laws of the Union(those passed by Congress and signed into law by the president).
Woody
If a person doesn't know what a "nominative absolute" is, does it really matter? 
Last edited:
Similar threads
