Linguistic Analysis of the 2nd Amend.

[GEM]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/big-data-second-amendment/607186/

This is an interesting piece which attempts to use modern computer based linguistic methods to discern the meaning of the terms in the 2nd Amend. It contrasts Scalia and Steven's views in the opinion and dissent.

You have to read the entire piece but here's a summary snipet:

Based on these findings, we are more convinced by Scalia’s majority opinion than Stevens’s dissent, even though they both made errors in their analysis. Furthermore, linguistic analysis formed only a small part of Scalia’s originalist opus. And the bulk of that historical analysis, based on the history of the common-law right to own a firearm, is undisturbed by our new findings. (We hope to publish this research, which also looked at other phrases in the Second Amendment, such as the right of the people, in an academic journal.)

One disheartening conclusion is that the Court will boot the NYC case as moot. Our legal folks say that we are waiting on that one for other more consequential cases to proceed. If a positive result isn't there - then that does not augur well for other cases.

 

[Texas10mm]

It's just Liberals trying to explain away the Second Amendment. There is plenty of writings from the time period which make it clear what the Second means.

 

[Trunk Monkey]

The problem with this article is that it doesn't match with what was common practice during that time. That I am aware of there were no restrictions on civilians owning firearms or swords or cannons or anything that the military could own.

If the Second Amendment meant something other than that wouldn't restrictions have been emplaced?

 

[AlexanderA]

The article is contributing to the false dichotomy between the individual and the collective right to bear arms. The dichotomy disappears when we realize that the collective (the militia) was made up of individuals that did not lose their individual status by being part of the collective. This was especially true around the time of the Founding, when the militia was thought to be universal.

 

[Tommygunn]

They needed computer based linguistic algorithms to figure out the 2A's meaning?

All I ever needed was my knowledge of the English language .....

 

[patmccoy]

The Second Amendment is made up of two clauses, an independent clause and a dependent clause.

Independent clauses have both a subject and verb, and can stand alone as a sentence.

Dependent clauses lack a verb, and cannot stand alone. THEY depend on the independent clause for their meaning.
(Thanks to the sisters of St Joseph many years ago for hammering this into me.)

Today the anti gunners want to make the meaning of the independent clause dependent on the dependent clause. They'd get an F in English from the Sisters!

 

[Fyrstyk]

Why are "the people" different in the second amendment from those in the first amendment?

 

[Trunk Monkey]

Why are "the people" different in the second amendment from those in the first amendment?

Once they do away with the 2nd Amendment the people in the First Amendment will be just like that so will the people in the 4th amendment and the 5th amendment.

 

[Tommygunn]

Why are "the people" different in the second amendment from those in the first amendment?

They're not.

 

[mcb]

I don't think any of you actually read the article. It is primarily a pro-2A article though it is honest about it and shows where both sides of the Heller vs DC decision, majority and dissenting opinion where wrong in some of their assumptions of the historical meaning of phrases as used at the time period of the writing of the second amendment.

I found it interesting that the phrase "keep and bear arms" is nearly unique to the second amendment having never been used in English law and being found in only two other America documents prior to 1789, the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, and then in a proposal for a constitutional amendment by the Virginia Ratifying Convention.

If you going to defend the 2A you have to be willing to look at it critically and realize that there are flaws in its legal history. You can ignore your weakness if you choose but be assured your enemy will not.

 

[Tommygunn]

I actually did read the article, and while it was interesting, I thought the article tended to actually "over-think" the issue. Where else in English lit or grammar do we try to compare phrasing in modern English?
In archaic English, certainly ....does anyone here know what the phrase "otz my bodkins" means without research? Try reading Chaucer in original Middle English and you'll need a dictionary for almost every other word. Sorta like trying to read German and understanding it based on a few words having a common heritage.

I was more impressed with Joyce Lee Malcolm's TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS and Stephen P. Halbrook's THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED.

 

[LiveLife]

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-second-amendment.856201/page-2#post-11375346

Second Amendment Scholar says Assault Weapons Ban "won't pass constitutional muster"

Since millions of hand guns and long guns are in "common use" and the Second Amendment is worded, "A well regulated militia ... , ("coma") the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" with a deliberate "coma" to differentiate right to keep and bear arms was meant for the people (After much research, intent at the time of the writing of the Constitution applied to individual rights as affirmed by Heller ruling).

The term "Assault Weapon" targets cosmetic features and these popular firearms commonly used are actually legal semi-auto firearms and ban won't pass constitutional muster. Millions of "Assault Weapons" were purchased legally and are "commonly used" with large capacity magazines and ban on firearms and magazines won't pass constitutional muster.​

 

[LiveLife]

FWIW, on related topic, here are more legal review on constitutional carry in public and protection of semi-auto rifles by 2A - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...-second-amendment.856201/page-2#post-11375346

Does the Right to Bear Arms Include a Right to Carry Handguns in Public?



Are Semiautomatic Rifles Protected by the Second Amendment?

 

[GEM]

You are not really discussing the content of the article. As far as what passes constitutional muster - until SCOTUS speaks - no scholar has a definitive opinion.

If we are going to wander off topic - I'll close this. Folks can read the article.

 

[pblanc]

I too think it is rather silly to try to judge the intent of the Founding Fathers based on "linguistic analysis" hundreds of years after the event. The intent of the Founding Fathers should be apparent to those possessing even a cursory knowledge of history of the 17th and 18th centuries in the American Colonies. Individuals had found firearms essential for hunting and protection against hostile native Americans and French since the inception of the American Colonies. And when the Constitution was drafted Americans had just concluded a long war against what they viewed as a tyrannical power, which was only successful because the colonists not only had access to firearms but had proficiency in their use (and help from France).

England was long successful in subjugating Ireland. A big part of the reason was the proximity of England to Ireland but another big reason is that the Irish were relatively unarmed. The Battle of Lexington and Concord which precipitated the Revolutionary War was the direct result of attempts by the English to disarm the colonists. The Founding Fathers were most certainly aware that access to firearms was critical to prevent the populace from being tyrannized by an unresponsive government. The notion that they intended firearm ownership and use to be restricted to those members of an organized military unit given these realities strikes me as inane.

 

[GEM]

I said the content of the article was the topic. This seems to be ignored. Thus, closed.