The Second Amendment

gtodave · Sep 25, 2020

We all know it, we all know what it means, however, many out there try to twist the words to suit a different agenda.

I was reading today that 9/25 is the anniversary of when TWELVE articles were approved by congress as amendments to the Constitution, not ten. The states eventually ratified 10. This made me curious what the other two were.

Some of you probably already know this, but this was a portion of history that I didn't remember (or wasn't taught).

In my reading, I found the first draft of what became the 2A as we know it. I find it very interesting, as it spells out Militia, the People, and Military all separately. The common argument amongst Leftists is that the Militia IS the Military, and therefore the 2A only applies to Military. This draft proves that false. Here's the verbiage:

Fifth Article:
A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.

I'd love to know the debate behind the change to what we now know it as.

Anyway, I thought I'd share. Here's a link to the rest of the Articles, as they were presented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Skipjacks · Sep 25, 2020

Very cool! I have never seen that

I always enjoy Penn & Teller's explanation. It is very well formed and articulated

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8

gremlin42 · Sep 25, 2020

Skipjacks said:
Very cool! I have never seen that

I always enjoy Penn & Teller's explanation. It is very well formed and articulated

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8

This is how I read it as well - the first clause establishes the rationale for the actual right. You can’t have the militia if the people don’t have the arms and the knowledge and ability to use them.

85MikeTPI · Sep 25, 2020

gtodave said:
We all know it, we all know what it means, however, many out there try to twist the words to suit a different agenda.

I was reading today that 9/25 is the anniversary of when TWELVE articles were approved by congress as amendments to the Constitution, not ten. The states eventually ratified 10. This made me curious what the other two were.

Some of you probably already know this, but this was a portion of history that I didn't remember (or wasn't taught).

In my reading, I found the first draft of what became the 2A as we know it. I find it very interesting, as it spells out Militia, the People, and Military all separately. The common argument amongst Leftists is that the Militia IS the Military, and therefore the 2A only applies to Military. This draft proves that false. Here's the verbiage:

I'd love to know the debate behind the change to what we now know it as.

Anyway, I thought I'd share. Here's a link to the rest of the Articles, as they were presented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

That's History, and History is Racist. Dims only believe in Science, not History..

:rolleyes:

babalou · Sep 25, 2020

Yup

gtodave said:
We all know it, we all know what it means, however, many out there try to twist the words to suit a different agenda.

I was reading today that 9/25 is the anniversary of when TWELVE articles were approved by congress as amendments to the Constitution, not ten. The states eventually ratified 10. This made me curious what the other two were.

Some of you probably already know this, but this was a portion of history that I didn't remember (or wasn't taught).

In my re ading, I found the first draft of what became the 2A as we know it. I find it very interesting, as it spells out Militia, the People, and Military all separately. The common argument amongst Leftists is that the Militia IS the Military, and therefore the 2A only applies to Military. This draft proves that false. Here's the verbiage:

I'd love to know the debate behind the change to what we now know it as.

Anyway, I thought I'd share. Here's a link to the rest of the Articles, as they were presented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

I have read the numerous version of the drafts. To me, They made the final version shorter as to not bloviate. Like I have said before they knew what it meant and where aholes try to figure out what an effn comma means is tardzilla.

Remember, too the Federalists did not want these in because it was a “duh” no kidding thought process but the Anti-Federalists knew it would be bastardized and wanted something in writing so the Federalists did. They were not far off from each other, mainly nationalized banking and how much Fed gubbmint control

Skipjacks · Sep 25, 2020

gremlin42 said:
This is how I read it as well - the first clause establishes the rationale for the actual right. You can’t have the militia if the people don’t have the arms and the knowledge and ability to use them.

I have always read it the way Penn and Teller describe

That the nation must have power to protect itself, but a nation that has power is inherently dangerous to the freedoms of the people, therefore the people (specifically distinguished as different from the military) must be afforded the right of defense against the powerful government

But the people are specifically separate from the militia in the text of the amendment

The militia is a thing. The people are a separate thing.

The 2nd amendment was never intended to ensure the people could be militia. It was intended to make sure the militia cannot control the people

1841DNG · Sep 25, 2020

Skipjacks said:
I have always read it the way Penn and Teller describe

That the nation must have power to protect itself, but a nation that has power is inherently dangerous to the freedoms of the people, therefore the people (specifically distinguished as different from the military) must be afforded the right of defense against the powerful government

But the people are specifically separate from the militia in the text of the amendment

The militia is a thing. The people are a separate thing.

The 2nd amendment was never intended to ensure the people could be militia. It was intended to make sure the militia cannot control the people

I thought I remembered the founders in other writings making it clear that the people were the militia? But it has been a while and my brain is fuzzy. But I know that it is not the National Guard like some leftists disingenuously argue.

Skipjacks · Sep 25, 2020

1841DNG said:
I thought I remembered the founders in other writings making it clear that the people were the militia? But it has been a while and my brain is fuzzy. But I know that it is not the National Guard like some leftists disingenuously argue.

In terms of who makes up the militia, sure

But in terms of what the inherent dangers of having an armed government that has the power to suppress the people....the people are a separate entity

In the context of the 2nd Amendment "the militia" does not represent a group of people. It represents the power of government.

It is necessary for government to have that power otherwise Canada will start feeling frisky and try to start something. But government that has the military strength to tell Canada to go eat snow also has the power to tell the people of the USA to give up their freedom, get in the box cars, etc. So the people have to have sufficient means of holding back that tyranny

The founders could have said "The militia is necessary....so the power of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

But they didn't

Men who were VERY careful about how they worded things went out of their way to says "the militia is necessary, therefore the people get to have guns"

Not only does it specifically grant the people to right to keep and bear arms, but it specifically says it is doing so to prevent the government from having too much power and control over the people.

They could have simplified it even further by saying "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Done. Simple. No questioning the result. But the founded wanted to make very clear that they didn't trust the idea of government having control over armed troops and that this was the specific reason the people were guarenteed that right

Glaron · Sep 25, 2020

I really like the Roy Zimmerman Sing Along.

85MikeTPI · Sep 25, 2020

Glaron said:
I really like the Roy Zimmerman Sing Along.

Really? Have you actually listened to that?

Sounds like a Samantha Trevor Stephen Bee Noah Colbert form of humor.. :tdown:

E.Shell · Sep 25, 2020

85MikeTPI said:
That's History, and History is Racist. Dims only believe in Science, not History..

"At this point, what difference does it make?"

Doctor_M · Sep 25, 2020

Some people did some things.

bibitor · Sep 25, 2020

85MikeTPI said:
That's History, and History is Racist. Dims only believe in Science, not History..

They've abandoned "science" too, it's a construct of the white male patriarchy, and what not, that sole exists for their benefit.

jcutonilli · Sep 25, 2020

gtodave said:
We all know it, we all know what it means, however, many out there try to twist the words to suit a different agenda.

I was reading today that 9/25 is the anniversary of when TWELVE articles were approved by congress as amendments to the Constitution, not ten. The states eventually ratified 10. This made me curious what the other two were.

Some of you probably already know this, but this was a portion of history that I didn't remember (or wasn't taught).

In my reading, I found the first draft of what became the 2A as we know it. I find it very interesting, as it spells out Militia, the People, and Military all separately. The common argument amongst Leftists is that the Militia IS the Military, and therefore the 2A only applies to Military. This draft proves that false. Here's the verbiage:

I'd love to know the debate behind the change to what we now know it as.

Anyway, I thought I'd share. Here's a link to the rest of the Articles, as they were presented:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights

Actually 11 of the 12 articles were actually ratified. The first ten amendments of the constitution were articles 3-12 of this bill of rights. The first two articles were not ratified at the time these other amendments.

The second proposed article was eventually ratified as the 27 amendment.

The first article was a method to determine the number of representatives in the House. If it was passed, there would need to be over 6000 representatives in the House (one for every 50,000 people, vs one for every 650,000 people today).

gtodave · Sep 25, 2020

jcutonilli said:
Actually 11 of the 12 articles were actually ratified. The first ten amendments of the constitution were articles 3-12 of this bill of rights. The first two articles were not ratified at the time these other amendments.

The second proposed article was eventually ratified as the 27 amendment.

The first article was a method to determine the number of representatives in the House. If it was passed, there would need to be over 6000 representatives in the House (one for every 50,000 people, vs one for every 650,000 people today).

Yeah I saw that the other had passed, but not until much later. I was referring to the original 10. Thanks for the info!

Robertjeter · Sep 25, 2020

The entire history of how the second amendment was ratified, and through the lens of each state is incredibly interesting. Stephen Halbrook, who I believe may also be an 2A attorney wrote a great book on it. Gives the perspective from the continental congress to each state ratification. Recommend if you found the OP fascinating.

The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms (Independent Studies in Political Economy) https://www.amazon.com/dp/156663971...W8[\URL] Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

davsco · Sep 25, 2020

one other thing to consider is a fair amount of states (i know as VA does) have a 'right to keep and bear arms' section in their constitution. this wasn't a dumb one-time mistake. all that said, it coulda been worded a little better so that there was zero room for interpretation. my guess back then is everyone believed in "it" as "it" just helped create America, so picture perfect wording wasn't really necessary.

another thought is that while it's nice to have formalized 2A protection, do we really need laws 'allowing' us to protect ourselves? there is no 2A for knives but most of us carry those, and there is no reason we shouldn't be able to.

get out and vote (and your spouses and voting-age kids)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

fred55 · Sep 25, 2020

Done. fred55

CaptPrice · Sep 28, 2020

Robertjeter said:
The entire history of how the second amendment was ratified, and through the lens of each state is incredibly interesting. Stephen Halbrook, who I believe may also be an 2A attorney wrote a great book on it. Gives the perspective from the continental congress to each state ratification. Recommend if you found the OP fascinating.

The Founders' Second Amendment: Origins of the Right to Bear Arms (Independent Studies in Political Economy) https://www.amazon.com/dp/156663971...d that! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

JohnnyE · Sep 28, 2020

Governments, corporations, LLC's, associations and other creations of man are artificial entities, and do not themselves have any rights at all. They only exist because people created them.

Only living human beings have rights. These artificial creations of man only have the powers that we, living human beings, grant them...or take away from them if they do not suit our purposes.

The Second Amendment

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Camp pureblood 13R

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Certified Mad Scientist

Kulak

Ultimate Member

Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Senior

Attachments

Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics