Thoughts On Our 2nd Amendment And The Original Intent

[bblhd672]

Yes, clearly the founders could not possibly foresee that things would evolve. They had seen the evolution of weaponry from pointed sticks and rocks, to swords and bows, then crossbows, then the invention of gunpowder and the firearm. These same folks surely thought that weapons would never, ever, continue to evolve. Yet they were somehow able to foresee that a great future thinker named Al Gore would develop the internet, and a modern Ben Franklin named Zuckerberg would spur an explosion of social media. So we need to limit the 2nd Amendment to only weapons that were in existence when the constitution was written, but the 1st Amendment applies to every form of communication that exists today.

Do liberals really believe that we are this stupid? Here's an even scarier thought - maybe they are right......

Maybe liberals are right about what?

[Abraham]

Liberals are left, not ahem, right.

[Soccerdad1995]

Yes, clearly the founders could not possibly foresee that things would evolve. They had seen the evolution of weaponry from pointed sticks and rocks, to swords and bows, then crossbows, then the invention of gunpowder and the firearm. These same folks surely thought that weapons would never, ever, continue to evolve. Yet they were somehow able to foresee that a great future thinker named Al Gore would develop the internet, and a modern Ben Franklin named Zuckerberg would spur an explosion of social media. So we need to limit the 2nd Amendment to only weapons that were in existence when the constitution was written, but the 1st Amendment applies to every form of communication that exists today.

Do liberals really believe that we are this stupid? Here's an even scarier thought - maybe they are right......

Maybe liberals are right about what?

Right about people, in general, actually being stupid enough to believe their lies.

[bblhd672]

Yes, clearly the founders could not possibly foresee that things would evolve. They had seen the evolution of weaponry from pointed sticks and rocks, to swords and bows, then crossbows, then the invention of gunpowder and the firearm. These same folks surely thought that weapons would never, ever, continue to evolve. Yet they were somehow able to foresee that a great future thinker named Al Gore would develop the internet, and a modern Ben Franklin named Zuckerberg would spur an explosion of social media. So we need to limit the 2nd Amendment to only weapons that were in existence when the constitution was written, but the 1st Amendment applies to every form of communication that exists today.

Do liberals really believe that we are this stupid? Here's an even scarier thought - maybe they are right......

Maybe liberals are right about what?

Right about people, in general, actually being stupid enough to believe their lies.

They are right about approximately 50% of the people being stupid enough to believe their lies.

[bblhd672]

There is no need to guess what the second amendment means. Most of our founding fathers were prolific writers and they wrote a great deal about it. It doesn't take much research to learn where they were coming from and what they meant.

Do yourself a favor... Get and read a copy of The Second Amendment Primer.

Bought copy of Second Amendment Primer yesterday from Amazon (delivered last night - gotta love Amazon same day delivery in DFW!).

Also bought copy of Hillsdale College's "The U.S Constitution: A Reader"
https://www.amazon.com/Constitution-Hil ... ion+reader

[jd9]

Within the past couple months, I read an interesting report on this subject, I believe it was written by a US Senate subcommittee in the 1980s. It referenced the Federalist papers, original wording of the 2nd, and other writings of the founding fathers that gave good insight into their intentions. I went back to re-read it a while later, but couldn't find the email that had the link. Any chance anyone here is familiar with the report?

[Pawpaw]

Is this it? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 9880,d.cGc

[jd9]

The was it. Thanks, Pawpaw!

[joe817]

Is this it? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 9880,d.cGc

Excellent article! Thanks for posting!

[XinTX]

There is no need to guess what the second amendment means. Most of our founding fathers were prolific writers and they wrote a great deal about it. It doesn't take much research to learn where they were coming from and what they meant.

Do yourself a favor... Get and read a copy of The Second Amendment Primer.

Not only were they prolific writers, the minutes of the Constitutional Convention are a matter of record. Those also shine a clear light on the original intent. You can see the arguments, counter arguments, and which one ruled the day.

[txcharvel]

There is no need to guess what the second amendment means. Most of our founding fathers were prolific writers and they wrote a great deal about it. It doesn't take much research to learn where they were coming from and what they meant.

Do yourself a favor... Get and read a copy of The Second Amendment Primer.

Not only were they prolific writers, the minutes of the Constitutional Convention are a matter of record. Those also shine a clear light on the original intent. You can see the arguments, counter arguments, and which one ruled the day.

I wrote the original post simply to highlight the use of the word State, hoping to get some interesting conversation going. It was not my intent to debate the meaning of the 2nd Amendment. If you know history, the meaning is crystal clear.

There were of course several decisions that led to the eventual revolution, but the events that sparked the first shots were all about the British and General Gage's strategy of disarming the colonists to avoid war.

The first large scale disarming happened in Sommerville, MA when a contingent of regulars raided the town powder house and confiscated a few cannon along the way. To prevent this from happening again, the colonists (who were very well organized) came up with a system called the Powder Alarm. The British were never again successful in any future raids. Paul Revere's famous ride was about warning the colonists of the British moving to seize the arms and powder stored in Concord.

After the events at Lexington and Concord, General Gage moved to seal off Boston. As part of this strategy, the British confiscated all privately owned firearms in the city. After this, they silenced the press by accusing the remaining newspaper publishers in the city of owning illegal firearms.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
George Santayana

I you want a fascinating read that not only gives the history behind the man, but also about the politics and the society at the time these events, check out Paul Revere's ride.

[NotRPB]

Third Amendment was written 45 minutes later with the same "mindset"

From prior posts here, so as not to re-type ... color coding added to some for consistency
Soldiers/Standing Army/Militia/well regulated Militarized Government controlled entity
People/Property Owners/ Tea Partiers/ General Population in American Revolution who mistrusted the British Army Military & didn't want a repeat of that situation
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... er#p822819

My thoughts on the 3rd Amendment to the Constitution given us by our Founding Fathers: Most do not even know what this one is.
"No soldier in time of peace be quartered in any house,w/o the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner perscribed by law."
The reason this Amendment was added is that the American colonists were required under threat of force & even death to quarter, feed many of the British soldiers.
Now folks it is no stretch of any sane persons reasoning to know that under those circumstances the ladies of the house were not treated well all the time. The men of the house either had to stay home to protect them or go on to work in the field or @ their trade. Many of those redcoats entertained themselves while quartered there.
Our Founding Fathers knew the women needed protection.

Fast forward to 2013:
No one who knows me very well or has attended my CHL class has any difficulty understanding my contemp, utter disdain, & scorn for TSA.
I have been told by one woman "Dont like it but that is part of it so you endure it & go on."
I have often wondered if it was the same w/ our "Founding Mothers."
There is nothing new under the sun. The evil of today is the same evil of yesterday.
It is called Tyranical Government Oppression.

http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... er#p636262

I was under the impression that the Founding Fathers tried to avoid a National standing-army and hoped to rely exclusively on the Militias of the various colonies (states).

In my mind, the Militia IS the People, and vice versa.

Then that would mean the Soldiers who want to force you to quarter them are the people/property owners

I am not sure how you drew that conclusion.

The term "Soldiers" imply membership of a standing-army. Occupiers. Foreign or Domestic.

The 2 categories of persons in the two Amendments below are color coded... understand the People's mistrust of Standing Armies we had immediately surrounding the Revolution and the relation of the Third Amendment to the Second Amendment, which were written about 45 minutes apart...

Third Amendment
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in manner to be prescribed by law.

Second Amendment
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

"being necessary" means it was recognized that a military/militia/armed "officials"/soldiers/police/defenders from Indians ... was needed as "a necessary evil" ... compromise to get it ratified ...


Town militias"NECESSARY" "a necessary evil"
Colonial era, pre-1774
The early colonists of America considered the militia an important social structure, necessary to provide defense and public safety. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%2 ... C_pre-1774" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
^ Wills, Garry (1999). A Necessary Evil, A History of American Distrust of Government Page 27. New York, NY; Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0684844893

So, your big East town folk weren't as likely to get Indian killed, so they'd have less need for a Militia, and guns ... and your frontier folk have more need for a militia, and guns to protect from both Invasion AND the Militia/standing army/police/ distrust) So we elected Rick Perry and they Elected Bloomberg ... (not much changed) but the compromise got it ratified by all

http://www.texaschlforum.com/posting.ph ... &p=1103817
Militia:

Chronology:
Militia Acts were not until 1792 and Militia Act of 1862

However the Bill of Rights, Second and Third Amendments in Articles 3 to 12, approved on September 25, 1789 and sent to the states for ratification ratified December 15, 1791

At that time, we were very suspicious of the power of a standing Federal army (Militia)
We had just gotten rid of British army controlling us, confiscating our stuff (3rd Amendment).
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... y#p1019598

I think earlier in this thread I linked to

Richard Henry Lee, in his widely read pamphlet "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican" worried that the people might be disarmed by modeling the militia . http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... et#p677651

So, Amendment 2 was written 45 minutes before Amendment Three, with the same "mindset" mental process of allowing the People/property owners/population to protect themselves and their property from a militarized government.
If a general militia/standing army is a necessary evil, (comma) the right of the People shall not be infringed ...
(Also, The People/property owners needed protection from Quartering armed Soldiers, hence, Amendment 3 was written about 45 minutes after Amendment 2, with Amendment 2 providing the ways and means to ensure Amendment 3

Amendment 3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner ...

--------------------------
Grammar and Right
Well regulated refers to the LEFT side of the comma, well regulated standing army militia.
Well regulated does not refer to the RIGHT side of the comma, the RIGHT of the Property Owners PEOPLE (which shall not be infringed

2
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.
3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law
===============

Hopefully Judges understand Grammar and the history and relationship of 2A and 3A when reading about how THE PEOPLE (Citizenry/Property Owners) relate to the army/militia/soldiers which need to be well regulated instead of the People
(Which is precisely what prompted a revolution and Boston Tea Party, over regulation by the government)
THAT is why we have 2A and 3A to protect US PEOPLE FROM GOVERNMENT over-regulation, quartering soldiers them confiscating our "stuff" etc.


My neighbor explained it well (skip to 4:40 if you want)

[TEX]

The founders envisioned and intended for the average able bodied law abiding male to have access to and possession of a basic infantry weapon which today, if you take that literally, means and M4 with M203 attached and the ammunition to run it. It is debatable whether it would include a SAW or LAW, but I would think not, and that those items in modern terms would be kept at the armory run by the local militia for use in a major engagements.

States rights were all but eliminated when the War of Northern Aggression (better know as the Civil War) was declared won by the North. Had the war come to a stalemate and meaningful fruitful negations undertaken, the Federal Government would not be bullying the states as they do now. I have no doubt that the states would have reunited under better terms that would have led to the eventual elimination of slavery anyway. Although slavery was a big issue in the Civil War, it was really a war of State's rights verses Federal powers. Texas made a really big mistake by not staying out of the whole mess and I believe this decision is what eventually led to Sam Houston's death in 1863 - he was heart broken and had strongly advised on staying neutral.