So what's the big deal about English?

[nativetexan]

This is the big deal. People say the pen is mightier than the sword, and there may be no greater truth. Those that we have chosen to govern us are wise to this notion, and those that are out to destroy our way of life are wise to it also. So when our leaders argue amongst themselves about new laws and such, this is what they are arguing about. Some don't take the time to understand why, and live with eternal aggravation with our government. Some use the arguing as a hole through the line to attack. Such as many of the attacks on Bush for the last several bills he vetoed. Reports of "poor little children will suffer" and "Bush hates farmers" were commonplace over the last couple of years when if we the people had simply examined the wording, there may have been something so simple as the usage of a word that would have left things unclear, or a loophole for those who intend to move forward with their agendas that would benefit few instead of all. I lifted this article off the Roanoke Times webpage and I hope you will all read, understand, and try to pass on to others that this is not the way the government works, it's the way the english language works. This guy hit the nail on the head. Since I am an English nut, this also explains why I am often referred to in my circle of friends as the "English Nazi."

In Webster's English

Stephen P. Halbrook

Halbrook, an attorney and research fellow at The Independent Institute, Oakland, Calif., is author of "The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms."

Anticipating the Supreme Court's expected late June decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which will decide the constitutionality of a D.C. law restricting gun-ownership rights, many analysts have turned to the Founders' writings in an effort to understand the Second Amendment. What analysts need to do -- recognizing that language and word usage change over time -- is turn to America's first dictionary.

The Second Amendment states simply, "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 Supreme Court questioned whether the D.C. statute "violate[d] the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes."

For the answer, turn to Noah Webster.

Known as the Father of American Scholarship and Education, Webster believed that popular sovereignty in government must be accompanied by popular usage in language. In "A Compendious Dictionary of the English Language," published in 1806, and "An American Dictionary of the English Language," published in 1828 and adopted by Congress as the American standard, Webster defined all the words in the Second Amendment.

"People" were "the commonality, as distinct from men of rank," and "Right" was "just claim; immunity; privilege." "All men have a right to secure enjoyment of life, personal safety, liberty and property," he wrote.

Thus in the language of Webster's time, "the people" meant individuals and individuals have "rights."

"Keep" was defined as "To hold; to retain one's power or possession; not to lose or part with ... To have in custody for security or preservation"; "Bear" as "to carry" or "to wear; name; to bear arms in a coat"; and "Arms" were defined as "weapons of offense, or armor for defense and protection of the body."

Only civilians would "bear arms in a coat" -- soldiers carried muskets in their hands, while officers carried pistols in holsters.

Thus the words "keep and bear arms" suggest a right to hand-held arms as a person could "bear," such as muskets, pistols and swords, but not cannon and heavy ordnance that a person could not carry.

"Infringe" was defined by Webster as " ... to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance."

"Militia" was defined as "able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades, with officers ... and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations" and "Regulated" as " ... subject to rules or restrictions." A well-regulated militia consisted of civilians, not soldiers.

What about the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State?"

"Necessary" was defined as "that must be; that cannot be otherwise; indispensably requisite"; "Security" as "protection; effectual defense or safety from danger of any kind ... " and "Free" as "In government, not enslaved; not in a state of vassalage or dependence; subject only to fixed laws, made by consent, and to a regular administration of such laws; not subject to arbitrary will of a sovereign or lord."

"State" was defined as "A political body, or body politic; the whole body of people united under one government, whatever may be the form of government ... ." A free state, we must conclude, therefore, encompasses the entire body politic.

During most of our history an exhaustive analysis of the Second Amendment would never have been necessary. The meaning of each word would have been obvious to citizens of the time.

It was only in the late 20th century that an Orwellian view of the Second Amendment gained currency. Within this distorted language prism, "the people" would come to mean the states or state-conscripted militia; "right" would mean governmental power; "keep" would no longer entail custody for security or preservation; "bear" would not mean carry; "arms" would not include ordinary handguns and rifles, and "infringe" would not include prohibition.

The Founders worded the Second Amendment in an easy to understand manner. Individuals have a right to have arms in their houses and to carry them for protection, and the government may not violate that right.

Modern contortions of language can't change that meaning because we can still refer to Noah Webster.

[slugshooter]

Good post NativeTexan. While the words have stayed the same over time, their meanings and value tend to change over time. When reading a passage from 200 years ago, or even fifty years ago, it helps to know the meaning of the writers words of that time period.

[wtnhunt]

Good post NativeTexan. While the words have stayed the same over time, their meanings and value tend to change over time. When reading a passage from 200 years ago, or even fifty years ago, it helps to know the meaning of the writers words of that time period.

While you are correct that some meanings may change, I do not think those words or the context of those words have changed much if any at all.

Agree that this is a very good post.