The Classic Ambiguity

I took a grammar class in college (and aced it, natch) so I thought I'd share from my textbook. Pg 200…

"The absolute phrase (also known as the "nominative absolute") is a structure independent from the main sentence;(...) The absolute phrase introduces an idea related to the sentence as a whole, not to any one of it's parts:"

It goes on with examples... I'll skip those.

"Absolute phrases are of two kinds - with different purposes and different effects. (...) ...the first kind: the absolute that explains a cause or condition. (...) the absolute phrase could be rewritten as a "because, "when" or "since" clause:"

 The other type... "The absolute construction, on the other hand, leaves open the possibility for other reasons...." etc.,

"Perhaps the most famous absolute phrase is the one found in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. And, as we know, it is open to more than one interpretation:"

Ah hah! She had a point to this grammar nonsense, you say.




So is the absolute phrase (or "nominative absolute") in the 2nd Am. a phrase that "explains a cause or condition" or is it an "absolute construction?" And what does it mean if it's one or the other?

If it is an absolute construction then "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," leaves open the possibility of other reasons for the rest of it. The militia is just one possible reason for the right to bear arms.

But if it's an absolute phrase that explains a cause or condition? What then?

Recall that in that case it can be rewritten as a "because", "when" or "since" clause.

“Because” a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state... or “Since” a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state... Which means, of course, that the right to keep and bear arms is *in service to* the necessity of a militia to maintain a free state.

STOP! I just know a bunch of you are getting ready to jump down my throat just now. Stop. Look at what I wrote and read the words. The anti-gunners who use this supposed ambiguity to claim that without a militia there is no right to bear arms are completely wrong. Because this clause as a statement isn't ambiguous at all: A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Period. Full stop.

The ambiguity that the gun grabbers depend upon isn’t there since there is no ambiguity in the necessity of a militia, even if it’s the only reason that the right of the people to bear arms can’t be infringed.

But, you say… what if the “cause or condition” is a “when” or even a “while?”

The test phrase "When" a well-regulated militia is necessary to a free state... is invalid because the statement is not something that would normally be a transient condition. (As an example: In the sentence “The day being rainy and foul, we took our picnic indoors.” “The day is rainy and foul.” is a transient condition.)

It’s ridiculous to think that our founders put something in the Constitution that they considered a transient condition or mere temporary concern.

If there is any ambiguity in the 2nd Amendment it's over whether or not the "militia" can be required by law to own and train with weapons or if owning a firearm and training with it is optional.