Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A new perspective on the 2nd Amendment - clarity
A Century of Lawmaking ^ | 12-03-2015 | Founders, j argese

Posted on 12/03/2015 3:59:22 AM PST by j.argese

"Chatting" with a FB friend and discussing the 2nd. Send me to wikipedia for a quick view and noticed the following:

"There are actually two different versions: As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives, with the rest of the original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights prepared by scribe William Lambert:[29] (p)

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[30]

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.

Notice the difference? You should. The first has that nasty "double comma" that makes it so difficult for Constitutional scholars to interpret. The second, a single comma, that provides clarity. It takes away the cudgel the Progressive Left has beaten the American citizenry over the head with for decades.

I went to the footnote 30 link to find this:

memory.loc.gov

If someone else knows better how to post the image of the page, that would be great.

(Excerpt) Read more at memory.loc.gov ...


TOPICS: General Discussion; Issues
KEYWORDS: 2nd; 2ndamendment; banglist; california; constitution; demagogicparty; guncontrol; memebuilding; partisanmediashill; partisanmediashills; rkba; sanbernadino; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

1 posted on 12/03/2015 3:59:22 AM PST by j.argese
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: j.argese; All

I obviously wasn’t the author of either the document in question or the book. Just wanted to make that clear before somebody gets a wild hair across.


2 posted on 12/03/2015 4:01:06 AM PST by j.argese (/s tags: If you have a mind unnecessary. If you're a cretin it really doesn't matter, does it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: j.argese

My interpretation of it in either forms is that it acknowledges the need for a regulated Militia which by its own right would necessitate citizens arming themselves.

That notwithstanding, under no circumstances should the INDIVIDUAL’s right to bear arms be infringed for any purpose.

Seems pretty clear to me.


3 posted on 12/03/2015 4:02:47 AM PST by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: j.argese

Ummmm, that is not a “new” discussion point. Been in my 2A knowledge base for 30 years, maybe more.


4 posted on 12/03/2015 4:03:29 AM PST by mad_as_he$$ ("It gets late early around here..." Yogi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: j.argese

5 posted on 12/03/2015 4:03:42 AM PST by cripplecreek (Pride goes before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: j.argese

Clearer is the first version submitted for approval, which was much more verbose and made it very clear it was a right of the people.


6 posted on 12/03/2015 4:05:36 AM PST by ctdonath2 (History does not long entrust the care of freedom to the week or the timid. - Ike)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: j.argese
Here's image ...


7 posted on 12/03/2015 4:07:13 AM PST by tinyowl (A equals A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: j.argese

As important are all the supplimentary texts by authors of the time along with at least one state consitution. All these make it crystal clear what the intent was. So, for ‘scholars’ to have difficulty understanding its meaning is disingenuous at best.


8 posted on 12/03/2015 4:09:12 AM PST by 556x45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: j.argese

It’s also important to remember that natural rights exist apart from the bill of rights. Self defense is seen in nature and is essential to the maintenance of personal freedom. I don’t need a piece of paper, even one so lofty as the constitution, to tell me that.


9 posted on 12/03/2015 4:10:33 AM PST by GoDuke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: j.argese

“A well educated Public, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Books, shall not be infringed.”


10 posted on 12/03/2015 4:10:44 AM PST by Flag_This (You can't spell "treason" without the "O".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: j.argese
The first version clearly wastes the taxpayers commas. That is the only precedent set in motion by that iteration and the reason the left prefers it.
11 posted on 12/03/2015 4:12:33 AM PST by outofsalt ( If history teaches us anything it's that history rarely teaches us anything.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: j.argese

also note that “bear” is not qualified as concealed or not.


12 posted on 12/03/2015 4:26:54 AM PST by fruser1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: j.argese
while either version might grant the government the power to regulate militias, neither reading gives the government the power to infringe on the peoples' right to bear arms.
13 posted on 12/03/2015 4:27:34 AM PST by muir_redwoods (Freedom isn't free, liberty isn't liberal and you'll never find anything Right on the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: j.argese; All
Thanks to all.

But a quick question, why was I not able to separate the image from the text to post?

14 posted on 12/03/2015 4:35:07 AM PST by j.argese (/s tags: If you have a mind unnecessary. If you're a cretin it really doesn't matter, does it?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: j.argese

The other comma makes no difference at all in the meaning of the amendment.. It doesn’t matter what is on the left side of the comma or the second comma, the right side is the operative clause. Either way, the left side merely sets forth the reason for the right side. It could say Oreos, being bad for the health of the people, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The status of the Oreos in any way you break it down has no bearing on the words after the comma. Even if Oreos are proven to be good for the health of the people, the RKBA is still the operant clause. It does not matter what rationale is given for the RKBA. The RKBA is unaffected. That’s the English of it.


15 posted on 12/03/2015 4:36:19 AM PST by arthurus (Het is waar. Tutti i liberali sono feccia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

Regulate, as in well-regulated, means equipped, not restricted.

Just sayin’


16 posted on 12/03/2015 4:37:23 AM PST by teeman8r (Armageddon won't be pretty, but it's not like it's the end of the world.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: teeman8r

I don’t care what it means, as written only the militia is subject to regulating, not arms.


17 posted on 12/03/2015 4:39:28 AM PST by muir_redwoods (Freedom isn't free, liberty isn't liberal and you'll never find anything Right on the Left)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: j.argese

18 posted on 12/03/2015 4:44:02 AM PST by DocRock (All they that TAKE the sword shall perish with the sword. Matthew 26:52 Gun grabbers beware.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: j.argese

The other parts are an introduction for the last part that makes it quite clear what the FF meant.......

“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

It doesn’t change the meaning if there is a comma after people. They are saying the people. Not martians, not animals, not fish, not insects, but people, their right shall NOT be infringed, but is infringed anyway because we have traitors who are allowed to stay in office even though they took an oath to protect and defend the constitution.


19 posted on 12/03/2015 4:47:35 AM PST by GrandJediMasterYoda (B. Hussein Obama: 20 acts of Treason and counting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DocRock

So true, as Ted Nugent would say it’s “blindingly obvious”. The only reason the treasonists put it under a microscope is that they are looking for that “a-ha” moment where they can come up with an excuse to infringe upon it or even repeal it which they are frothing at the mouth to do. And then they get into these arguments about “militia” trying to say it means only the military can be armed, but then that pesky “people” thing at the end trips them up.


20 posted on 12/03/2015 4:52:15 AM PST by GrandJediMasterYoda (B. Hussein Obama: 20 acts of Treason and counting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-46 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
RLC Liberty Caucus
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson