Thursday, January 7, 2016

The New Yorker: Long lost letters reveal how the Second Amendment came to be


AROUND THE BLOCK

News with a Twist

The New Yorker Takes on the Second Amendment

You can't make this stuff up. On second thought...

Today's AROUND THE BLOCK takes a slight pause to post a piece from the New Yorker entitled "Edits on the Second Amendment." It is published below in it's full, original version and did not require any additional changes and/or commentary.

The Second Amendment: Original Intent
By John Quaintance




 December 5, 1791
James Madison
House of Representatives
Dear James,
How is it almost 1792?! Quick question on the right to bear arms thing in your “Bill of Rights”—the wording and punctuation are slightly confusing. Did you mean that the right of the people serving in the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, or people in general? I’m assuming the former, but don’t want to make an ass of you and me! (Franklin made that up, but I’m using it everywhere!) Could you please send me a quick note whenever to clarify?
TJ
P.S. To be honest, I’m still meh about “Bill of Rights” as a name.
* * *
December 7, 1791
Thomas Jefferson
Office of the Secretary of State

Dear Tom,
I know, it’s so crazy how fast this year has gone—I just got used to writing 1791 on my deeds of purchase (of slaves)!
As far as the amendment, of course it’s the former. If every private citizen had the right to carry a musket, a thousand people would’ve shot Patrick Henry by now, am I right? Don’t worry about it. Everyone will know what it means.
JM
P.S. You’re not back on “The Ten Amendments” are you? It’s trying way too hard to sound Biblical.
* * *
December 9, 1791
James Madison
House of Representatives
Dear James,
Hahaha re: Patrick Henry. And I agree it should be obvious. It’s just, why not make it so clear that even the biggest Anti-Federalist looney tune can’t misinterpret the meaning? I’d add “while serving in the militia” to line three. Also, not to be a grammar redcoat here, but the use and placement of the comma isn’t helping. Can we change it? It will take two seconds.
I know I’m being annoying!
TJ
P.S. How about “Constitution, Part Two?” (Not a serious pitch, unless you like it!)
* * *
December 11, 1791
Thomas Jefferson
Office of the Secretary of State
Dear Tom,
There is literally zero chance that anyone will misconstrue this, and the great news is that if someone actually does, the Supreme Court will set them straight. I don’t want to change it. It won’t take two seconds, because the addition would push a page and I’d have to do the whole rest of it over again and W. is breathing down my neck about it. Plus, I like the way my signature looks on the version I sent you, and you know I always hate the way it looks on important stuff.
Not trying to be snippy, but you’re worrying about nothing.
JM
* * *
December 13, 1791
James Madison
House of Representatives
Dear James,
I know, I know—I’m the worst. Just hear me out. Imagine it’s some two hundred years from now. Musket makers have made new and more powerful muskets—ones that are capable of firing two or even three shots per minute—and, in an effort to sell more, they claim that every homeowner should have the right to own one, or two, or twenty. They bribe politicians to advance their cause, they stoke public fears of crime and federal tyranny, and they manage to exploit this slightly confusing language and comma placement to claim that we originally intended to give every private citizen the right to own as many muskets (and for that manner, cannons!) as they can get their hands on. And because in this version of the future (just bear with me here) we’ve had such a run of Anti-Federalist Presidents, the Court is packed with men who might agree. Isn’t there the slightest chance that this could happen?
TJ
* * *
December 15, 1791
Thomas Jefferson
Office of the Secretary of State
Dear Tom,
You know I love you, but we seriously need to get this ratified, like, today, or W. will have my ass. There is no way that what you’re talking about could come to pass. It’s too ridiculous. The amendment goes before Congress as written.
Besides, if anyone ever needs to confirm our intention two hundred years from now, they need only consult any decent spiritualist to communicate with our ghosts. If muskets can fire three shots per minute in your future, I’m sure mediums will have become even better at their jobs, too.
JM

No comments: