Opinion Page

home > weblog > 2005 > july > blog071905.php

Can people read English? I am amazed at the people that I run into that don't have the simple ability to read and understand the simple structures of a sentence.

Let's take a simple sentence:

"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."

You may or may not recognize this sentence. If you were educated in a government school, there is a chance that this simple sentence was not included in your education. But let's look at the sentence and its structure.

The specific phrasing and wording is quite deliberate and specific.

The first part of the sentence, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is there to say that the framers of the Constitution realized that regardless of what we do as individuals, there is an underlying need for the government to maintain armed personnel to secure and maintain our freedoms. In other words, they start off saying that the understand that a "Militia" is a necessity of a Nation ("free State"). But then there is a comma. This is deliberate, and not an accident.

The second part of the sentence, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", stands as a sentence. The first clause is there to substantiate the message of the sentence. In other words, the point of the Amendment is that people have the right bear "Arms" (not just ones that certain government officials like, but ALL arms). The first part of the sentence is there to clarify that this right is separate from the "Militia" that is necessitated to protect that right.

The way the sentence is phrased, they are saying "I know that we need this armed group to protect us from outsiders, but we all still have the right to keep our own arms, and the government does not have the power to take that away from them." The wording is clear, although those who don't agree with its meaning seek to alter their interpretation of it.

So why did the framers put both parts in that sentence?

They had just spent a few years using a militia to secure our new Nation from an oppressive regime. They had organized an armed response to the outside threat and used it to secure our borders.

But at the same time, they recognized that they had also just fought against the regime's attempt to infringe their ability to defend themselves, they had to allow each person to arm themselves, so that the new government cannot evolve into the very thing they had just revolted against.

Why is it important that we retain the right to bear arms? It is the only guarantee we have against tyranny. As long as we possess the ability to overthrow the government, it must respect us, and it recognizes that the power it has, it gets from our consent.

In all of the recent talk about the balance of powers that keep the government in check, we, as citizens, possess the ultimate balance. We have the right, and the ability, to overthrown the government, if it becomes necessary. Luckily, it hasn't been necessary in over 200 years. I pray that it never becomes necessary. But we must always be careful, and mindful, and we must watch those who govern us.

If anyone tells you that individuals do not have the right to bear arms, explain to them how English works as a language. And help them by reminding them to vote on "Super Wednesday".

See what else I have to say Previous day's rant

Go to Top

If you have ideas, comments, or criticisms, tell me about it.

Home