Madison's original text for the second amendment.

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • MaraD

    The Tall Girl
    Aug 15, 2013
    76
    Baltimore, MD
    http://www.constitution.org/bor/amd_jmad.htm

    James Madison originally proposed 20 amendments to the Constitution as the Bill of Rights. 10 were initially adopted by Congress and two were later adopted. His original text for what became the second amendment is very revealing of his views on the right to keep and bear arms.

    “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

    Seems to me the whole militia clause originally applied to conscientious objectors, and had nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
     

    Boom Boom

    Hold my beer. Watch this.
    Jul 16, 2010
    16,834
    Carroll
    More importantly, militia do not have inalienable rights. The Bill of Rights pertains strictly to the inalienable rights and freedoms of each individual.
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,958
    Bel Air
    There really is no "militia clause". One of the huge mistakes people make is reading it in colloquial (21st century) terms and thinking it means exactly the same thing. While it does mean what it says, there are some important points to consider.

    In the 17th and 18th centuries, laws were written with a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause was to give an example of why the law is being written. It is not the only thing the law is meant to encompass. The operative clause of the amendment is what needs to be focused on. It can be read by itself, without the prefatory clause, and still convey the intention.

    The Right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    That is really all you need to know.
     

    Mark75H

    MD Wear&Carry Instructor
    Industry Partner
    MDS Supporter
    Sep 25, 2011
    17,330
    Outside the Gates
    Wasn't the Bill of Rights originally in the early drafts of the constitution, but eliminated to make the original constitution quicker and easier to get ratified?
     

    Afrikeber

    Ultimate Member
    Jan 14, 2013
    6,791
    Urbana, Md.
    There really is no "militia clause". One of the huge mistakes people make is reading it in colloquial (21st century) terms and thinking it means exactly the same thing. While it does mean what it says, there are some important points to consider.

    In the 17th and 18th centuries, laws were written with a prefatory clause and an operative clause. The prefatory clause was to give an example of why the law is being written. It is not the only thing the law is meant to encompass. The operative clause of the amendment is what needs to be focused on. It can be read by itself, without the prefatory clause, and still convey the intention.

    The Right of The People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    That is really all you need to know.


    :thumbsup: Clearly defined and explained.
     

    Boondock Saint

    Ultimate Member
    Dec 11, 2008
    24,553
    White Marsh
    Wasn't the Bill of Rights originally in the early drafts of the constitution, but eliminated to make the original constitution quicker and easier to get ratified?

    Jefferson's draft and the revisions agreed upon by him, Adams and Franklin before going to the full Constitutional Convention did not include a bill of rights. The Bill of Rights came into being four years later, and that only after strenuous debate. Many of the founders believed that the BoR would eventually be seen as the only rights actually guaranteed by the government, when their intent was to merely reinforce them in writing, presupposing that all of our rights were of course inherent. Others believed that our rights would be stripped away absent a list specifically protecting them.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    275,988
    Messages
    7,303,701
    Members
    33,550
    Latest member
    loops12

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom