That quote includes the extra comma that seems to have plagued the Framers of the Constitution. [ The one after 'States' and before 'who'. In modern usage it indicates that all people of the United States are peaceable citizens. Hah.]
At that time, being a "peaceable citizen" would be considered the same as we would call someone a "law abiding citizen" in our day. Laws, back then, were only written to keep the peace for the common good. We have grown up in a time when laws are used to strangle free will and liberty at every turn. The "modern" viewpoint has tainted the ability of the people to understand what the Framers actually were saying.
I believe the "extra comma" you may be referring to is the one that gets put in between "arms" and "shall" in the text of the Second Amendment, itself. I left that comma out, in my OP of this thread, so that it is very clear what the meaning is.
Since I have not actually seen an unabridged, original script of the Second Amendment, written in the author's hand, I can only state that it is questionable as to whether that comma was in the original penning of the Amendment, or not.
These days, very few people spend any time learning American English language with any sense of authority, and just slide by with enough to get out of school. It is rare, even for English Language Scholars to spend the time researching the roots and etymology of each word used in historical documents, or the way that punctuation marks and grammar construction were used in the time of our nation's formation.
A comma can be used in multiple ways, including setting aside a descriptive phrase that modifies the prior sentence portion, pausing for breath in a run-on sentence, interjections, lists, interrupters, antithetical phrases, introductory words, and joining sentences, to name a few.
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.
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.
Reading the two versions above, the first being as I typed it in the OP, and the second being as it is typically printed these days, they can have a different meaning to people who wish to quibble over sentence construction, based on their "modern day view" looking back at the way it was written 240 years ago. This slight differentiation is used by those that would destroy LIBERTY, and enslave men, for the purpose of obfuscating the original intent of the Founders. Their argument is based on their intentional ignorance of the accepted proper usage of a comma when the Amendment was written, and their intention to deny what LIBERTY truly is to the people.
A comma
, when viewed in it's entire spectrum of usage by the learned men of the 1780s, is totally appropriate in it's position between "arms" and "shall," but is inappropriate in our "modern" usage, if the intent of the whole text is to remain the same. It is quite clear, from reading other papers of the time period, what the intent of the Second Amendment is, and what the Framers wanted it to say. it is only the perversion foisted upon us by evildoers, that raises any question about the meaning or intent, when that "pesky comma" is put under scrutiny.
These days, with general grammar, spelling, and punctuation usage falling into the category of functional illiteracy, (even among the supposedly educated "journalists" that spew the unending tidal wave of propaganda from every media outlet), and the abusive destruction of our language on the internet, it is remarkable that we can even communicate with any degree of duplication at all.
Anyone reading my little essay, above, will see a very liberal smattering of commas. Yet, they are all used appropriately, unless I made an error. If there is such an error, I am not averse to being corrected by someone that can give me a correct reference.
