Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here is the text as reprinted from my encyclopedia:
"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"
BTW, the 2A as ratified by the states, only had one comma in it, not three. It was between the word "State" and the word "the".
That was the version sent to the states for ratification, after Congress approved it for ratification.
Only after it was ratified by the states, was it returned to New York (which was the seat of government at the time), where a Committee of Style and Prose made slight changes, including adding two more commas the the 2nd amendment, thought to make no significant difference to its meaning. That's what was published when the Bill of Rights was officially announced.
But a few people have since tried to make an argument that "A Well Regulated Militia" was the main subject of the amendment instead of "the right of the people", due to its being set off by commas. But in fact it was not so set off, when the states were ratifying it. Ratification was the actual act of "enacting" the law, and only the version on the table during ratification, was the "official" version - the version with only one comma.
kokonutty:
I never said ALL rights originate from the right to defend oneself. I said "other rights". And again, I'm not talking about how State's may have changed the wording of their constitutions.
I'm not trying to be quarrelsome here but I think it is important, if we are going to talk about "interpretation of the Second Amendment", that we have some sort of origin from which to proceed. For instance, Roboteer points out how the addition of two commas AFTER the 2nd Amendment was ratified under it's previous wording, have caused much consternation about it's meaning but how many people today know this? I certainly didn't and these two commas seem to be very important to the amendment's meaning to many people.
The Federal government and the State's pass laws quite frequently that are later ruled unconstitutional and they pass unconstitutional laws that go unchallenged so their "understanding" of the constitution leaves as much to be desired in some cases as does that of any individual. And sometimes they do it knowing it is unconstitutional but won't be challenged in the day they are concerned with the law.
kokonutty:
I never said ALL rights originate from the right to defend oneself. I said "other rights". And again, I'm not talking about how State's may have changed the wording of their constitutions.
I'm not trying to be quarrelsome here but I think it is important, if we are going to talk about "interpretation of the Second Amendment", that we have some sort of origin from which to proceed. For instance, Roboteer points out how the addition of two commas AFTER the 2nd Amendment was ratified under it's previous wording, have caused much consternation about it's meaning but how many people today know this? I certainly didn't and these two commas seem to be very important to the amendment's meaning to many people.
The Federal government and the State's pass laws quite frequently that are later ruled unconstitutional and they pass unconstitutional laws that go unchallenged so their "understanding" of the constitution leaves as much to be desired in some cases as does that of any individual. And sometimes they do it knowing it is unconstitutional but won't be challenged in the day they are concerned with the law.
Actually it is a minute percentage of federal laws that are overturned as being unconstitutional, states are very different in that regard as some seem to have a history of not considering the constitutional requirements if they get in the way of making a statement.
Attempts to rewrite the Second Amendment by altering the placement of commas is neither new nor proper as are the unsupported claims that some, or all, the states may have ratified improperly prepared documents.
The wording of various state provisions, even in their founding documents hold no bearing on the Constitution.
The order of the Bill of Rights is simple: its not importance, but how they relate to the Constitution - they are ordered to the sections they modify. Most folks don't know that the House approved 17 amendments; the Senate 12 and those 12 were sent to the states of which only 10 passed. The first two, apportionment of members of the House and pay, didn't pass. Thus, the third became the first of those 12.
BTW, the 2A as ratified by the states, only had one comma in it, not three. It was between the word "State" and the word "the".
That was the version sent to the states for ratification, after Congress approved it for ratification.
Only after it was ratified by the states, was it returned to New York (which was the seat of government at the time), where a Committee of Style and Prose made slight changes, including adding two more commas the the 2nd amendment, thought to make no significant difference to its meaning. That's what was published when the Bill of Rights was officially announced.
But a few people have since tried to make an argument that "A Well Regulated Militia" was the main subject of the amendment instead of "the right of the people", due to its being set off by commas. But in fact it was not so set off, when the states were ratifying it. Ratification was the actual act of "enacting" the law, and only the version on the table during ratification, was the "official" version - the version with only one comma.
Interesting. I never knew that. I only had my Funk and Wagnalls Encyclopedia to consult and they had the version with the three commas. Do you know how frequent the original version is mentioned in text?
The order of the Bill of Rights is simple: its not importance, but how they relate to the Constitution - they are ordered to the sections they modify. Most folks don't know that the House approved 17 amendments; the Senate 12 and those 12 were sent to the states of which only 10 passed. The first two, apportionment of members of the House and pay, didn't pass. Thus, the third became the first of those 12.
Thanks for indicating what the first 2 failed amendment were among the final 12 proposed. I tried to find them but could not. I thought maybe they would be something important, but it looks like they aren't important to my personal rights. Not like the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th, 10th are.
Most people don't seem to realize that the 9th amendment is to the People what the 10th amendment is to the States. Both virtually obsolete now after a long serious of usurpations and power grabs by the overreaching federal government, but on paper, they are wonderful protecting our freedoms from the fed gov. The lasted at least until the Civil War, if not right up to around 1913 when the Progressives stomped on out rights. Don't even get me started about FDR?
Off topic? I don't think so. Prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968, we were a very gun friendly nation with very few restrictions. Not only have I heard a parade of stories about school children bringing guns to school to use after school back in the day, but I have also heard a parade of stories about people buying all manner of guns from catalogues, with no restrictions whatsoever.
The funny thing is, homicides and crime are 10 times worse today under draconian gun control then they were 60 years ago when restrictions on the Second Amendment were mild at best, being almost unknown with respect to and semi-automatic guns, and manually operated guns.
In fact, before the National Firearms Act of 1934 which was passed in response to soaring crime by prohibition era gangsters, focused mainly on full automatic weapons like the BAR and Thompson submacine gun, as well as silencers. It really left everything alone. But that was the beginning of gun control right there. The laws didn't prevent any gangsters from using any of those weapons then any more than they stop criminals today.
Thanks for indicating what the first 2 failed amendment were among the final 12 proposed. I tried to find them but could not. I thought maybe they would be something important, but it looks like they aren't important to my personal rights. Not like the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th, 10th are.
If you have ever visited the National Archives in Washington, D.C. you can view the federal government's copy. As you approach the center Rotunda, the Original 7 Articles are displayed. To the left is the Government's signed copy of the Declaration of Independence, badly faded from years of light exposure, but you still make out some names, especially John Hancock. To the right is the government's copy of what was sent to the states for ratification.
They are listed, not as Amendments, but as Articles. Article the first, Article the second, etc. Here is a text version.
It can sometimes be difficult to enter into an argument (debate) with someone that has already made up their mind about a topic and their biased notions create an unfertilized field to hope for a growth in knowledge.
The OP (Urban Peasant) started this topic off with comments like:
Quote:
I am not against the Second Amendment in its entirety...
Quote:
My biggest gripe is how some communities allow ordinary people, not police, to openly carry guns out in the public even in the name of self-defense.
Quote:
Then we sometimes even have individuals walking around openly with handguns claiming self-protection once again.
So Urban Peasant immediately admits he supports the Civil Rights of people, only if it falls within his limited parameters. This is a dangerous approach to inclusiveness and accepting that we are all equals.
The next two quoted comments from the OP are expressed disdain for the Rights of the People to provide for their own self-defense. It is important to point out here, that the 2nd Amendment is not a limitation on the rights of the people, but a limitation upon the government. The People have a right to self-defense, regardless of the offender and regardless of the arms used.
The fact that "ordinary" People can and do "openly carry guns out in the public" is not a concern. What is a concern is what bad people do with those guns. As we have seen in history, some recently, that a badge and a uniform does not make one extraordinary, nor does it make that person a good person. It is not the badge, the uniform and especially not the gun that defines us. It is the actions that an individual takes. A bad person with a gun is often stopped by a good person with a gun, and that gun often is wielded by an "ordinary" person in an extraordinary situation.
I say all of this as an armed good person that spent a career in uniform.
Last edited by Cavalry_Chief; 09-05-2020 at 11:12 PM..
Reason: Typo correction
It can sometimes be difficult to enter into an argument (debate) with someone that has already made up their mind about a topic and their biased notions create an unfertilized field to hope for a growth in knowledge.
The OP (Urban Peasant) started this topic off with comments like:
So Urban Peasant immediately admits he supports the Civil Rights of people, only if it falls within his limited parameters. This is a dangerous approach to inclusiveness and accepting that we are all equals.
The next two quoted comments from the OP are expressed disdain for the Rights of the People to provide for their own self-defense. It is important to point out here, that the 2nd Amendment is not a limitation on the rights of the people, but a limitation upon the government. The People have a right to self-defense, regardless of the offender and regardless of the arms used.
The fact that "ordinary" People can and do "openly carry guns out in the public" is not a concern. What is a concern is what bad people do with those guns. As we have seen in history, some recently, that a badge and a uniform does not make one extraordinary, nor does it make that person a good person. It is not the badge, the uniform and especially not the gun that defines us. It is the actions that an individual takes. A bad person with a gun is often stopped by a good person with a gun, and that gun often is wielded by an "ordinary" person in an extraordinary situation.
I say all of this as an armed good person that spent a career in uniform.
I started this thread with a misunderstanding about the phrase "A Well Regulated Militia" that I am sure many others have also made but others here have since corrected me. I actually took in a lot of worthy information I did not know about the amendment and I appreciate it but if you're going to try to argue that I am myopic in my views, then we can end it here.
I started this thread with a misunderstanding about the phrase "A Well Regulated Militia" that I am sure many others have also made but others here have since corrected me. I actually took in a lot of worthy information I did not know about the amendment and I appreciate it but if you're going to try to argue that I am myopic in my views, then we can end it here.
It was a good topic you started, Urban Peasant, and I think that we can all agree that a lot of us learned some interesting things.
Thank you for starting this topic, and thanks to everyone else for participating in it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
