OT The Original Wording of The Second Amendment
From : napalmheart
Q: http//memory.loc.gov80/cgi-bin/ampagecollid=llac&filename=001/llac001.db&recnum=227 .
Replies:
From : miles
geekboy wrote and a group of people opposing tyranny or oppression using weapons would be fighting. at the time the fear was from foreign invasion. look at when the 2nd amendment was passed. thats where the interest was. the states had no local police force and needed regulated militias military for their own protection from foreign such as british invasion. .
From : geekboy
geekboy wrote and a group of people opposing tyranny or oppression using weapons would be fighting. at the time the fear was from foreign invasion. look at when the 2nd amendment was passed. thats where the interest was. the states had no local police force and needed regulated militias military for their own protection from foreign such as british invasion. sure but thats not why the second amendment is there. its to enable citizens to thwart off an opressive government. the same kind that started the colonial revolution in the first place. cant do that if the military is supportng the government and people have no weapons. .
From : steve b
geekboy wrote and a group of people opposing tyranny or oppression using weapons would be fighting. at the time the fear was from foreign invasion. look at when the 2nd amendment was passed. thats where the interest was. the states had no local police force and needed regulated militias military for their own protection from foreign such as british invasion. sure but thats not why the second amendment is there. its to enable citizens to thwart off an opressive government. the same kind that started the colonial revolution in the first place. cant do that if the military is supportng the government and people have no weapons. geekboy you are arguing with people who already have their minds made up. i have brought up this exact point many times only to be corrected each time. so i still believe it was for the purposes you state and the ones i originally believe ..... protection against tyrannical government instead of outsiders now i just keep it to myself and stand back and watch all this intellectual masturbation and try to dodge the ejaculate. hth steve .
From : ed h
iirc...a well armed and 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. or as in the text from the link...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. i have read all of the federalist papers and can post them if you wish but i dont think you have the fortitude to read them all. as a matter of instruction the federalist papers where written under the pen name of publius by such authors as alexander hamilton thomas jefferson james madison and others as a means of explaining to the public what the proposed constitution a replacement to the articles of confederation meant. when the constitution was written militia meant every able bodied man. no membership in a military service was required to be a member of the militia yet being a member of the militia was to render military service hence the allowance that anyone with religious objection would not be compelled to be a member of the militia. barrol roll you would do well to study history and language. napalmheart wrote http//memory.loc.gov80/cgi-bin/ampagecollid=llac&filename=001/llac001.db&recnum=227 rearranged wording and a semicolon rather than a comma. its about an armed and regulated militia even referring to membership as military service. -- mean people suck .
From : geekboy
iirc...a well armed and 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. or as in the text from the link...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. i have read all of the federalist papers and can post them if you wish but i dont think you have the fortitude to read them all. as a matter of instruction the federalist papers where written under the pen name of publius by such authors as alexander hamilton thomas jefferson james madison and others as a means of explaining to the public what the proposed constitution a replacement to the articles of confederation meant. when the constitution was written militia meant every able bodied man. no title10 of the us code has that very wording. i cannot recall the section. though itsays a able bodied man is 17-45 years of age except if they have been in the armed services then that number goes up to 65. membership in a military service was required to be a member of the militia yet being a member of the militia was to render military service hence the allowance that anyone with religious objection would not be compelled to be a member of the militia. barrol roll you would do well to study history and language. napalmheart wrote http//memory.loc.gov80/cgi-bin/ampagecollid=llac&filename=001/llac001.db&recnum=227 rearranged wording and a semicolon rather than a comma. its about an armed and regulated militia even referring to membership as military service. -- mean people suck .
From : beryl
ed h. nra propagandist iirc...a well armed and 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. or as in the text from the link...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. i have read all of the federalist papers and can post them if you wish but i dont think you have the fortitude to read them all. as a matter of instruction the federalist papers where written under the pen name of publius by such authors as alexander hamilton thomas jefferson james madison and others as a means of explaining to the public what the proposed constitution a replacement to the articles of confederation meant. when the constitution was written militia meant every able bodied man. august 24 the house sent the following version to the u.s. senate 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. september 4 the senate voted to change significantly the language of the second amendment by removing the definition of militia and striking the conscientious objector clause a well regulated militia being the best security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/secondamendmenttotheunitedstatesconstitution no membership in a military service was required to be a member of the militia yet being a member of the militia was to render military service hence the allowance that anyone with religious objection would not be compelled to be a member of the militia. so it means that anyone with objections to personally bearing a gun would not be compelled to own a gun. should that surprise anybody barrol roll you would do well to study history and language. relative to the bear arms meanings an extensive study found ...that the overwhelming preponderance of usage of 300 examples of the bear arms expression in public discourse in early america was in an unambiguous explicitly military context in a figurative and euphemistic sense to stand for military service35 further the oxford english dictionary on historical principles declares that a meaning of to bear arms is a figurative usage meaning to serve as a soldier do military service fight. http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/secondamendmenttotheunitedstatesconstitution napalmheart wrote http//memory.loc.gov80/cgi-bin/ampagecollid=llac&filename=001/llac001.db&recnum=227 rearranged wording and a semicolon rather than a comma. its about an armed and regulated militia even referring to membership as military service. -- mean people suck .
From : geekboy
ed h. nra propagandist iirc...a well armed and 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. or as in the text from the link...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. i have read all of the federalist papers and can post them if you wish but i dont think you have the fortitude to read them all. as a matter of instruction the federalist papers where written under the pen name of publius by such authors as alexander hamilton thomas jefferson james madison and others as a means of explaining to the public what the proposed constitution a replacement to the articles of confederation meant. when the constitution was written militia meant every able bodied man. august 24 the house sent the following version to the u.s. senate 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. september 4 the senate voted to change significantly the language of the second amendment by removing the definition of militia and striking the conscientious objector clause a well regulated militia being the best security of a free state the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/secondamendmenttotheunitedstatesconstitution no membership in a military service was required to be a member of the militia yet being a member of the militia was to render military service hence the allowance that anyone with religious objection would not be compelled to be a member of the militia. so it means that anyone with objections to personally bearing a gun would not be compelled to own a gun. should that surprise anybody barrol roll you would do well to study history and language. relative to the bear arms meanings an extensive study found ...that the overwhelming preponderance of usage of 300 examples of the bear arms expression in public discourse in early america was in an unambiguous explicitly military context in a figurative and euphemistic sense to stand for military service35 further the oxford english dictionary on historical principles declares that a meaning of to bear arms is a figurative usage meaning to serve as a soldier do military service fight. and a group of people opposing tyranny or oppression using weapons would be fighting. http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/secondamendmenttotheunitedstatesconstitution napalmheart wrote http//memory.loc.gov80/cgi-bin/ampagecollid=llac&filename=001/llac001.db&recnum=227 rearranged wording and a semicolon rather than a comma. its about an armed and regulated militia even referring to membership as military service. -- mean people suck .
From : beryl
steve b wrote geekboy wrote and a group of people opposing tyranny or oppression using weapons would be fighting. at the time the fear was from foreign invasion. look at when the 2nd amendment was passed. thats where the interest was. the states had no local police force and needed regulated militias military for their own protection from foreign such as british invasion. sure but thats not why the second amendment is there. its to enable citizens to thwart off an opressive government. the same kind that started the colonial revolution in the first place. cant do that if the military is supportng the government and people have no weapons. geekboy you are arguing with people who already have their minds made up. i have brought up this exact point many times only to be corrected each time. so i still believe it was for the purposes you state and the ones i originally believe ..... protection against tyrannical government instead of outsiders now i just keep it to myself and stand back and watch all this intellectual masturbation and try to dodge the ejaculate. hth steve who do you think geekboy is arguing with. me he agreed that the 2nd amendment is about fighting tyranny and oppressive govt. ill go along with that. miles he has foreign invasions planted firmly in his mind. i think hes stretching it but ill happily go along with that anyway. looks like we all see a military meaning in the amendment. -- mean people suck .
From : steve b
beryl terrapin@coolmail.com wrote who do you think geekboy is arguing with. me he agreed that the 2nd amendment is about fighting tyranny and oppressive govt. ill go along with that. sorry. the order of the posts becomes so convoluted it takes a full 4 x 8 blackboard with pictures and diagrams to keep it all straight. heres what i should have written written in the generic cleansed version second person plural so as to include everyone exclude no one and be politically correctly vague enough so no one gets offended you are arguing with people who already have their minds made up. i have brought up this exact point many times only to be corrected each time. so i still believe it was for the purposes you state and the ones i originally believe ..... protection against tyrannical government instead of outsiders now i just keep it to myself and stand back and watch all this intellectual masturbation and try to dodge the ejaculate. hth steve .
From : miles
geekboy wrote sure but thats not why the second amendment is there. its to enable citizens to thwart off an opressive government. the same kind that started the colonial revolution in the first place. cant do that if the military is supportng the government and people have no weapons. the 2nd amendment was written while the country was still trying to assert its own independence from foreigners. thats where peoples mindset was. it was written by the federalists not the anti-federalists that your viewpoint agrees with. .
From : beryl
napalmheart wrote http//memory.loc.gov80/cgi-bin/ampagecollid=llac&filename=001/llac001.db&recnum=227 rearranged wording and a semicolon rather than a comma. its about an armed and regulated militia even referring to membership as military service. -- mean people suck .
From : miles
steve b wrote geekboy you are arguing with people who already have their minds made up. i have brought up this exact point many times only to be corrected each time. so i still believe it was for the purposes you state the problem with your view is that the amendment was written by the federalists and not the anti-federalists of the time. the latter is who is in agreement with you...but they arent the ones to have written it. .
From : miles
beryl wrote miles he has foreign invasions planted firmly in his mind. i think hes stretching it but ill happily go along with that anyway. if the anti-federalists had been the ones to have written it i might go along with the protection from inside theory. however it was the federalists who wrote it. .
From : steve b
steve b wrote geekboy you are arguing with people who already have their minds made up. i have brought up this exact point many times only to be corrected each time. so i still believe it was for the purposes you state the problem with your view is that the amendment was written by the federalists and not the anti-federalists of the time. the latter is who is in agreement with you...but they arent the ones to have written it. im sorry but you are all wrong. it was actually written at a masonic lodge in poughkeepsie. and like you all i am absolutely sure that i am correct and am the only one that knows the truth about this manner. i would explain it to you but am bound by vows of secrecy. i probably shouldnt be telling you this much. ooooops. gotta go or ill be late to my skull and bones buffet night. steve .
From : geekboy
geekboy wrote sure but thats not why the second amendment is there. its to enable citizens to thwart off an opressive government. the same kind that started the colonial revolution in the first place. cant do that if the military is supportng the government and people have no weapons. the 2nd amendment was written while the country was still trying to assert its own independence from foreigners. thats where peoples mindset was. it was written by the federalists not the anti-federalists that your viewpoint agrees with. uh...what foreigners the people of the colonies were british citizens and so were the people they were fighting. the government they considered to be oppressive and tyrannical to them. only foreigners were the german mercenaries the british crown hired to help them. .
From : miles
geekboy wrote the people of the colonies were british citizens and so were the people they were fighting. the government they considered to be oppressive and tyrannical to them. only foreigners were the german mercenaries the british crown hired to help them. the 2nd amendment was written several years after the declaration of independence. neither was written by the british government but you knew that already. .
From : geekboy
geekboy wrote the people of the colonies were british citizens and so were the people they were fighting. the government they considered to be oppressive and tyrannical to them. only foreigners were the german mercenaries the british crown hired to help them. the 2nd amendment was written several years after the declaration of independence. neither was written by the british government but you knew that already. so the anti-federalists you keep mentioning were against federalism from fear from a strong government that would have too much power. turns out they were right. hence they supported the 2nd for protectionism against corrupt government. .
From : miles
geekboy wrote so the anti-federalists you keep mentioning were against federalism from fear from a strong government that would have too much power. turns out they were right. hence they supported the 2nd for protectionism against corrupt government. that is true but the amendment was written by the federalists not the anti-federalists. my point is regarding the origination and history of the amendment and the intent of those that wrote it. yes they reworded it slightly so the antis would pass it but the entire history of why it was created in the first place was from the federalists point of view. .