That Darned Comma!

As we approach the 4th of July, I thought it would be a good time to investigate the Holy Grail of the NRA, the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution. But first, so I do not come off as just another anti-gun extremist, I have no problem with hunters and their firearms. In fact, I am not sure I have any real problems with people who feel compelled to keep a firearm for home protection. That said, I do have a problem with the proliferation of semi-automatic assault weapons and their attending armor piercing ammunition. One can only wonder why so many citizens of the most powerful country in the world seem to be so paranoid about perceived enemies.

Since the election of Barrack Obama, gun manufacturers in the United States have enjoyed all time record sales. And the guns that are fueling these sales are not hunting rifles, bird hunting shot guns or even revolvers. Instead they are military-like lethal assault weapons, like AR 15s, AK 47s, machine pistols, and the ever popular street howitzer, the short barreled shot gun. In no other modern democracy can weapons like these be purchased by the general public. Not even in Israel can a citizen buy such a weapon, as they are exclusively reserved for members of the IDF (Israeli Defense Force).

So what gives? Avoiding if I may, the urge to discuss the psychological reasons for people who feel so threatened, or powerless, that they can only find solace in the cold caress of blue steel and rifled barrels, I would like to address the legality of armed America. Right now a number of states have eliminated or are about to eliminate most restrictions on citizens packing concealed weapons, and some like Tennessee and Arizona are allowing people to bring these guns into bars and nightclubs. Now there is a great idea. Do any of these mentally challenged legislators not see that the combination of twenty or thirty something males, soaking in testosterone, mixing alcohol, their libidos, and firearms is a guaranteed prescription for OK Corral-like mayhem? Are these spineless morons that afraid of the National Rifle Association?

The answer to the above question is an obvious and resounding "YES." Who knows where all this will end? Maybe we can all start buying Kevlar body armor for our kids and bullet proof glass for our cars. Care to wager on how soon we are going to see a rash of road rage shoot-outs on our freeways?

But, as so often happens. . . I digress. The real purpose of this piece on our most patriotic day, is to take a close look at the Second Amendment. I will address the gun-toting crazies another time. Every flag-waving, anthem-singing, firecracker-throwing, red-blooded and true blue American can at least paraphrase the second half of our most controversial constitutional amendment. But for the record, let us quote directly, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Pretty much sums things up right? Well, maybe not. It turns out that this oft quoted phrase doe not stand alone, indeed, it is a dependent clause supporting a much less famous grammatical subject. The entire amendment reads: "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." Huh?

It seems that the right to bear arms is conditional upon the necessity of the state to maintain a "well-regulated" militia, whatever that is. And why, might you ask is this "sacred' right conditional? Well, it turns out that we can find our answer in the rules of standard American English punctuation and grammar. Dead center in the Second Amendment is a comma. And as we all learned back in elementary school, a comma is used to separate dependent clauses in a sentence. Note the word "dependent." Had Jefferson, Madison, et al wanted to create an unconditional right to pack heat, they would have used a semi-colon, rather than a comma. For a semi-colon is used to separate independent clauses within the same sentence and the "keep and bear arms" segment would in fact be inviolate. But instead, the authors of the Bill of Rights chose to attach this conditional right to the necessity of a sovereign state to maintain a militia.

In the 1790s when this amendment was ratified, militias in every state were made up of bands of citizens, who would be called on in times of emergencies to act as soldiers in a temporary armies. Further, these militia-men were bound to bring their own weapons to the drilling field, as no state could afford to pay for the guns of the militiamen. Thus the need for a right to bear arms. But today, every state in the union has a more formal "well-regulated militia," called the National Guard. Thus, if we interpret the Constitution literally, as most political conservatives demand, the only people among us with a guaranteed right to possess firearms are members of our respective state's National Guard units. But unlike the late 18th century, today's militia-men (and now women) no longer have to take down "Old Betsy" from above the family hearth, and report for weekend training. Today all the weapons are provided by we tax payers, thus rendering the "dependent" clause of the Second Amendment obsolete.

Hey, don't blame me, I didn't write the Bill of Rights, but I do know how to read and I do understand the basic rules of English grammar and punctuation. So as you head out to the back yard with your hot dogs, potato salad, and pre-packaged fireworks to celebrate Independence Day, how about a shout out to the Bill of Rights. All those true American patriots in favor of standing up for our Constitution and banning those assault weapons raise your hand!