Reply With QuoteLeonthecat (03-05-2018)
Members banned from this thread: Jade Dragon |
Thunderstruck
The right to bear Arms? Not necefsarily.
As you can see from the graphic, the original 2nd amendment was quite different from the copied version, which would give rise to men centuries later campaigning to have enemies of the state legally armed. When the amendment was ratified by the States, Jefferson had it copied by some scribe, working by candlelight, with poor glasses and failing eyesight, no doubt exhausted from hours of scribbling, using a quill. Whoever the poor chump was he copied the text incorrectly by removing commas and changing capital letters. That changed the whole meaning of the 2nd amendment.
It went from:
A well regulated Militia, being necefsary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
To:
A well regulated militia being necefsary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
There were five important changes. The M in ‘Militia’ was made into lowercase. The comma behind it was removed. The P in ‘People’ was made into lowercase. The A in ‘Arms’ was made into lowercase. The comma behind it was removed.
The sentence is centuries old and people spoke and wrote differently then, which is why it says ‘necefsary’ instead of ‘necessary’. What you have now is a changed version of the 2nd amendment instead of the original. For centuries it wouldn’t matter since everyone had a gun, but in our amazing and shrinking new world ‘Arms’ have evolved from muskets and horse drawn cannon into nuclear bombs, jets, missiles, machine guns and so on. The word ‘Arms’ comes from ‘Armaments’. People like you and I don’t have armaments. Armies, Navies and Air Forces have armaments.
Given that it was ‘the militia’ the 2nd was referring to, and given that the militia was to be ‘regulated’, it is clear that ‘gun control’ is a part of the 2nd since regulating your militia means controlling its guns. Since the 2nd talks about the militia existing for the security of the state, it is clear that one of their roles would be to disarm the state’s enemies, and as you know, disarming people is gun control. So they were happy to use gun control among themselves and over their enemies.
“The people” are those served by the well regulated Militia. A ninety year old one-legged woman isn’t going to be part of the Militia, but it will still serve her. A mental patient won’t be part of it, but it will still serve him. A six year old blind girl won’t be a part of it, but it will still serve her.
Today we would write the Second amendment as follows:
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.
The bracketed section explains the first part, thus it is clear that a well regulated Militia is the right of the people.
Leonthecat (03-05-2018)
Practically Perfect
The 2nd also uses the term "infringed," rather than "denied." That means no gun control. The regulation of the militia was assumed to be something that would continue on in the traditional New England manner.
"It [the draft] is duty rather than slavery. I part with the author on the caviler idea that individual freedom (whatever that may be to the person) leads to nirvana, anyone older that 12 knows that is BS."
-(Midcan5)
"Allow me to masturbate my patriotism furiously and publicly at this opportunity."
-(Ib1yysguy)
"There is no 'equal opportunity' today unless the government makes it so."
-(apple0154 )
"abortion is not killing Its birth control"
-(Desh)
Verified User
Just complete and utter nonsensical word salad, the meaning is clear, the language is plain.Originally Posted by Rob Larrikin
As you can see from the graphic, the original 2nd amendment was quite different from the copied version, which would give rise to men centuries later campaigning to have enemies of the state legally armed. When the amendment was ratified by the States, Jefferson had it copied by some scribe, working by candlelight, with poor glasses and failing eyesight, no doubt exhausted from hours of scribbling, using a quill. Whoever the poor chump was he copied the text incorrectly by removing commas and changing capital letters. That changed the whole meaning of the 2nd amendment.
It went from:
A well regulated Militia, being necefsary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
To:
A well regulated militia being necefsary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
There were five important changes. The M in ‘Militia’ was made into lowercase. The comma behind it was removed. The P in ‘People’ was made into lowercase. The A in ‘Arms’ was made into lowercase. The comma behind it was removed.
The sentence is centuries old and people spoke and wrote differently then, which is why it says ‘necefsary’ instead of ‘necessary’. What you have now is a changed version of the 2nd amendment instead of the original. For centuries it wouldn’t matter since everyone had a gun, but in our amazing and shrinking new world ‘Arms’ have evolved from muskets and horse drawn cannon into nuclear bombs, jets, missiles, machine guns and so on. The word ‘Arms’ comes from ‘Armaments’. People like you and I don’t have armaments. Armies, Navies and Air Forces have armaments.
Given that it was ‘the militia’ the 2nd was referring to, and given that the militia was to be ‘regulated’, it is clear that ‘gun control’ is a part of the 2nd since regulating your militia means controlling its guns. Since the 2nd talks about the militia existing for the security of the state, it is clear that one of their roles would be to disarm the state’s enemies, and as you know, disarming people is gun control. So they were happy to use gun control among themselves and over their enemies.
“The people” are those served by the well regulated Militia. A ninety year old one-legged woman isn’t going to be part of the Militia, but it will still serve her. A mental patient won’t be part of it, but it will still serve him. A six year old blind girl won’t be a part of it, but it will still serve her.
Today we would write the Second amendment as follows:
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.
The bracketed section explains the first part, thus it is clear that a well regulated Militia is the right of the people.
First of all genius the signed handwritten copy in the National Archives was the version which was passed by Congress which is irrelevant because it is the second version without the comma that was actually ratifies by the state's.
Can you provide another right of "the people," found in the Constitution which is not an individual right? I thought not.
The militia is made up of the common citizenry, so if the populace isn't armed then who is it that will fill the militias ranks?
The 2nd amendment doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," it says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," they believed that militias were necessary to insure liberty is maintained and without the individual right to keep and bear arms then militias could not be formed, it was written in the context of an individual right, that was the view of the founders and the SCOTUS has ruled as such.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
Last edited by PraiseKek; 03-03-2018 at 11:45 PM.
Rune (03-04-2018), Truth Detector (03-06-2018)
Thunderstruck
Infringed just meant as applied to the right to have an Armed Militia. That right would not be infringed.
A modern version would be "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."
'Infringed' means to limit or undermine.
Thunderstruck
The sentence you just wrote is word salad. It should have been written thus:
That is just complete and utter, nonsensical word salad! The meaning is clear. The language is plain.”
Aside from the word salad, your statement is wrong. The original meaning is reasonably clear, but styles change over the centuries, and that makes it difficult for people to understand today. Add to that the fact that after the bad scribing (Jefferson had an injured right wrist) the meaning changed even further, making it easy for gun nuts to change the meaning altogether.
Better still, show me any instance where individual ownership of muskets was an issue. Obviously there was no such instance, so why would Founders put such a “right” in the constitution. It would be like including the right to have a broom.Provide another right of "the people," found in the Constitution which is not an individual right. The militia is made up of the common citizenry, so if the populace isn't armed then who is it that will fill the militias ranks?
No, it said:The 2nd amendment doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed," it says "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.
Read the OP to see what this meant.
Wrong. It was already understood that everyone had a musket – that was never in question. What was needed was a Militia, and that’s what the 2nd was about. A Militia.they believed that militias were necessary to insure liberty is maintained and without the individual right to keep and bear arms then militias could not be formed, it was written in the context of an individual right, that was the view of the founders and the SCOTUS has ruled as such.
Now, regarding all your quotes, most of them are either wrong, uncertain or mashups, and I’ve been this a hundred times. Gun nuts love their misquotes. I’m not going to go through them all again for you. Go do your research and find out what is correct, before putting up quotes about guns or the tooshun.
#SEEYOUINCOURT
Complete and utter bullshit
As you can see from the graphic, the original 2nd amendment was quite different from the copied version, which would give rise to men centuries later campaigning to have enemies of the state legally armed. When the amendment was ratified by the States, Jefferson had it copied by some scribe, working by candlelight, with poor glasses and failing eyesight, no doubt exhausted from hours of scribbling, using a quill. Whoever the poor chump was he copied the text incorrectly by removing commas and changing capital letters. That changed the whole meaning of the 2nd amendment.
It went from:
A well regulated Militia, being necefsary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
To:
A well regulated militia being necefsary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
There were five important changes. The M in ‘Militia’ was made into lowercase. The comma behind it was removed. The P in ‘People’ was made into lowercase. The A in ‘Arms’ was made into lowercase. The comma behind it was removed.
The sentence is centuries old and people spoke and wrote differently then, which is why it says ‘necefsary’ instead of ‘necessary’. What you have now is a changed version of the 2nd amendment instead of the original. For centuries it wouldn’t matter since everyone had a gun, but in our amazing and shrinking new world ‘Arms’ have evolved from muskets and horse drawn cannon into nuclear bombs, jets, missiles, machine guns and so on. The word ‘Arms’ comes from ‘Armaments’. People like you and I don’t have armaments. Armies, Navies and Air Forces have armaments.
Given that it was ‘the militia’ the 2nd was referring to, and given that the militia was to be ‘regulated’, it is clear that ‘gun control’ is a part of the 2nd since regulating your militia means controlling its guns. Since the 2nd talks about the militia existing for the security of the state, it is clear that one of their roles would be to disarm the state’s enemies, and as you know, disarming people is gun control. So they were happy to use gun control among themselves and over their enemies.
“The people” are those served by the well regulated Militia. A ninety year old one-legged woman isn’t going to be part of the Militia, but it will still serve her. A mental patient won’t be part of it, but it will still serve him. A six year old blind girl won’t be a part of it, but it will still serve her.
Today we would write the Second amendment as follows:
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.
The bracketed section explains the first part, thus it is clear that a well regulated Militia is the right of the people.
1) Britain tried confiscating guns from the Colonists which is why the Founders included this Amendment
2) The term “regulated” as it was used back then did not describe government regulation, it meant “well trained”.
3) The original intent of the US Constitution was to limit the power of the federal government not expand it.
4) you will never win a gun control battle. I don’t care how many times you trot out Boss Hogg out on PMSNBC.
Rune (03-04-2018)
Thunderstruck
Oh dear. And you were off to such a good start.
1) Britain tried confiscating guns from the Colonists which is why the Founders included this Amendment
The reason they wanted States to have well regulated, Armed Militia was because they were worried the government itself could turn into a tyrant. It had nothing to do with wars of the past. Nor did it have anything to do with individuals owning muskets.
It meant both. A well regulated Militia needs training and regulations. Otherwise every twit will be running around naked shooting off his musket and drinking whisky.2) The term “regulated” as it was used back then did not describe government regulation, it meant “well trained”.
You limit the government’s power by giving the States their own Militia, not by bringing up irrelevant issues like the individual’s right to own a broom.3) The original intent of the US Constitution was to limit the power of the federal government not expand it.
Gun control has been around since guns were invented. Every time a sheriff shot a bad guy who was about to draw, it was gun control, since the bad guy’s gun was being controlled.4) you will never win a gun control battle.
serene
"3) The original intent of the US Constitution was to limit the power of the federal government not expand it." TD #6
As a dyed in the wool conservative I revere George Will.
George Will commented on the argument that 2A is not intended as an enumerated RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE.
"In order to argue your point of view you have to say 3 things.
1st of all that only the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights does not protect individual rights, it protects the rights of the government.
2nd you have to say that George Mason widely called the father of the Bill of Rights was wrong when he said by the militia we mean the whole People.
3rd you have to say the Founders were clumsy framers of the Constitution because if they wanted to do what you say they did with the [2nd] Amendment which is say, States can have militias, all they needed to say was, Congress shall have no power to prohibit State militias period. They didn't. They talked about the rights of the People." George Will ABC-TV This Week 02/05/12
"It should be obvious to anyone why conservatives and libertarians should be against Trump. He has no grounding in belief. No core philosophy. No morals. No loyalty. No curiosity. No empathy and no understanding. He demands personal loyalty and not loyalty to the nation. His only core belief is in his own superiority to everyone else. His only want is exercise more and more personal power." smb / purveyor of fact 18/03/18
Thunderstruck
In my case I'm not arguing that the people's right to a Militia is not their right. It is their right. The Founders were never talking about individuals owning muskets since it was never an issue. As for the Founders, they weren't clumsy but Jefferson had an injured wrist and used scribes, as did others. Scribes often worked at night in candlelight, with scratchy quills, poor eyesight, sore eyes, poor glasses, and sometimes capitals and commas were missed. In the Second's case, the bad copying caused huge misunderstandings centuries later.
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
But we're not talking about a "modern version"; because the Constitution is what it is.
SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
And where you fail, is that the "individuals" were and are the Militia and that's why it says "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
It doesn't say or imply that it's the "right of the Militia" or the "right of the Military"; because if that's what the framers wanted it to say, then that's what it would say.
The framers wanted the PEOPLE to have the right; so that they could stand against a tyrannical Government, if one should arise, just like they stood against the one they rebelled against.
Words have meaning and that doesn't change, no matter what someone else THINKS they say.
SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.
Minister of Truth (03-04-2018)
Get Off My Lawn
Common sense is not a gift, it's a punishment because you have to deal with everyone who doesn't have it.
#SEEYOUINCOURT
This is funny stuff. Now the left is claiming the 2nd Amendment is a typo. Good stuff. Bottom line is you will lose on this issue. No amount of word smithing will change it. If lefties feel so strongly about changing the 2nd Amendment or banning AR15s and they believe the nation is behind them, then I suggest they make it a major campaign theme for 2018 mid terms. Think they will? I don’t think they have the balls
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Verified User
Yes and no. The framers did intend government to be limited thus enumerated specific rights but coupled it with necessary and proper
clause. Wrong though relative to the articles of confederation which was thought to have created an imperfect union and insuffcient
power in the central government. Read varioously the Federalist Papers which were, severally, a brochure to sell a strong federal government,
and that set of documents, more than any other, held sway over the constitution as adopted. Now with guns we are talking the bill of rights,
so I am convinced the right does apply to people, not just a militia. But the drafting was indeed loony. The commanding portion of the right
IMO is not limited by the precatory language. But I'm the only one here who knows what the hell Im talking about so I'll shut up.
I wish the debate in modern context would concede the negative liberty infringement of say students trying to learn while have to fear the positive liberty assertion
of gun crazies 2nd amendment rights.
Thunderstruck
They didn’t have typewriters in those days, so no, it was simply poor scribing. See how you go copying great long pages of the constitution late at night by candlelight, using a quill, with RSI, a sore back and syphilis. You’ll be lucky if you can do one page without making fifty errors. All we’re talking about here are a few capital letters and a couple of commas.
Posting Rules
Bookmarks