The Second Amendment, It Still Means What It Says

"THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT"
by J. Neil Schulman'

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwartzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial Coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus. A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a distinguished seventeen-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publishers' Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:


"July 26, 1991

"Dear Professor Copperud:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment 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.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the text of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance.

"Sincerely,

"J. Neil Schulman"

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the following analysis (into which I've inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

[Copperud:] The words "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitute a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying "militia," which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject "the right," verb "shall"). The right to keep and bear arms is asserted as essential for maintaining a militia.

In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman: (1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to "a well-regulated militia"?;]

[Copperud:] (1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people.

[Schulman: (2) Is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right "shall not be infringed"?;]

[Copperud:] (2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia.

[Schulman: (3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well-regulated militia is, in fact, necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" null and void?;]

[Copperud:] (3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.

[Schulman: (4) Does the clause "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," grant a right to the government to place conditions on the "right of the people to keep and bear arms," or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?;]

[Copperud:] (4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia.

[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]

[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.

[Schulman: If at all possible, I would ask you to take into account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written two-hundred years ago, but not to take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated.]

[Copperud:] To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since 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 abridged."

[Schulman: As a "scientific control" on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed."

My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be, Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence, and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict "the right of the people to keep and read Books" only to "a well-educated electorate" -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?]

[Copperud:] Your "scientific control" sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure. There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation.

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all government formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the ACLU, staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will we simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright (c) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited.

All other rights reserved.

Soap Box Ravings says more information on this and other interesting subjects can be found at the following site: www.usconcealedcarry.com/

Public Schools Need to Stick to Reading, Writing and Math All Conducted In The English Language To Accepted State Standards

On Friday, the embattled principal of an Arabic-themed public school in New York resigned after coming under fire for failing to condemn the use of the highly charged word "intifada" on T-shirts.

Soap Box Ravings can't help but wonder how many Puerto Rican, Haitian, Native American or Hindu themed schools exist in the New York City school system. But I point out for example: a school that is 100 per cent full of students of Puerto Rican ethnicity is not the same thing as a Puerto Rican themed school. Soap Box ravings says "Some folks in the leadership positions of the New York City school system should also be resigning for wasting government funds."

Debbie Almontaser was supposed to oversee the Khalil Gibran International Academy in Brooklyn. The New York City's Department of Education says it remains committed to launching the school in September.

A number of conservative Web sites, blogs and other publications have come out against the school. Some have questioned Almontaser's character and tried to paint her as a radical Muslim with a dangerous agenda.

Soap Box Ravings is of the belief that an Arab does not necessarily have to be Muslim. He also believes that all who are believers in the Muslim religion are taught the same things; therefore all who profess to be believers have all the knowledge they need to become "radical Muslims."

Almontaser has said the school will be teaching culture, not religion. The academy, named after the famed Lebanese-American Christian poet who promoted peace, would be one of a few in this country that incorporate the Arabic language and culture.

Soap Box Ravings opinion is if you live in this country, you should learn our culture. If the parents of Arabic children want them to learn the Arabic culture, they should teach them. If the decide they do not like our culture, the entrance door opens both ways. We do not force immigrants who do not like it here to stay here.

Almontaser's departure comes on the heels of an editorial flaying in the New York Post and an article this week that connected Almontaser to Arab Women Active in Art and Media.

That group, Arab Women Active in Art and Media, is selling shirts imprinted with the words "Intifada NYC." It shares office space with the Saba Association of American Yemenis, which counts Almontaser among its board members.

The (unidentified) tabloid asserted the shirts had a subversive meaning: "The inflammatory tees boldly declare 'Intifada NYC' — apparently a call for a Gaza-style uprising in the Big Apple."

Almontaser, a public school teacher with 15 years of experience, told the paper that was a stretch and defined intifada as basically meaning "shaking off." However, in this country the word is most often associated with the violent Palestinian uprising against the Israelis.

She said the shirts provided an "opportunity for girls to express that they are part of New York City society ... and shaking off oppression."

Mayor Bloomberg said on his radio show that "she's certainly not a terrorist" but called her resignation the "right thing to do."

Soap Box Ravings wonders how Mayor Bloomberg can state so positively that "she's certainly not a terrorist." As a retired police officer, I know that many of my peers would like to know how to positively identify whether some one is or is not a terrorist.

So far, 45 students have enrolled in the school, which will eventually cover middle and high school.

Soap Box Ravings wonders what the cost is to the educational system in the State of New York to set up this school for 45 students. I bet there are lot of groups in New York State that could cough up 45 or so students for their own educational system. Somehow, I would bet there are at least 45 Nepalese in need of an eduction. Just think about all the themed schools there could be: misplaced red necks, maple syrup makers, steel workers, street kids, hot rod lovers, biker groups, etc.