Stephen A. Frye
safrye at CONCENTRIC.NET
Thu Aug 28 15:09:41 MDT 1997
>"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
>The first part of the amendment (A well regulated Militia, being
>necessary to the security of a free State) is a NON-RESTRICIVE
>clause. It is explanatory, but not an integral part of what follows.
>If you read legal documents, you will note that there are pages of
>"whereas..." before you get to the actual statement that has legal
>bearing. This is exactly that, and nothing more.
The first part is not a clause - hence the definition of a NON-RESTRICTIVE
clause is irrelevant. It is a phrase - specifically, a nominative absolute
- which is syntactically used to modify a clause. To wit: "A parenthetical
phrase which qualifies a whole clause or the rest of the sentence but which
is not grammatically related to it by a connective. It's basic pattern is
usually a NOUN + PARTICIPLE. (This construction is often called a
nominative absolute, a sentence modifier, or simply an adverbial phrase.)"
(Hodges/Whitten, page 423).
>The second part of the amendment (the right of the people to keep and
>bear Arms, shall not be infringed) stands on it's own. It is not
>the right of the militia or the state--it is the right of the
>"people." (You remember, "We the people....")
I will still refrain from agreeing or disagreeing with your interpretation
of the amendment. I take issue only with your interpretation of the grammar.
Stephen A. Frye
More information about the Rushtalk