doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Two Different Worlds

I wasn't familiar with the multiple comma version of the 2nd Amendment. Found this clarification on Wikipedia. (I liked and recommend reading Wikipedia's description of the amendment's historical context.)

"There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights. One version was passed by the Congress, while another is found in the copies distributed to the States and then ratified by them.

As passed by the Congress:
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, Secretary of State:
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."

Punk,punk,punk,punkuation! Good thing they let TJ clear out those commas in the Congressional draft or we'd have some maroon arguing that a well regulated militia shall not be infringed. That maroon would be me as I'm in favor of everybody a boot as you know, Jay.

jack

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Anyone have a problem understanding this in stand alone mode?

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
Anyone care to explain what this means as a stand alone statement?

2nd Amendment re-written for clarity by yours truly:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed due to a well regulated militia* being necessary to the security of a free state.**

*The contemporary definitions of "militia" generally describe them as comprising all able bodied men
therefore by definition the 2nd Amendment is an individual right.

**I re-wrote this changing the actual wording as little as possible to stay within what I believe was the original intent. Hopefully it's clearer now that I've taken the first part out of the subordinate clause category.

Here are Thomas Jefferson's thoughts on this subject:

Thomas Jefferson, of Virginia:
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."


BTW Rabbit:
We're still waiting for you to explain which of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights aren't individual rights. Free Speech? Unreasonable Search and Seizure? Self Incrimination?

R U dense? As a "stand alone" statement the first phrase contains a form of the verb "to be" (I don't remember what part 'o speech it be; I'll let you Googlists lookitup) which for right-thinking men who were reasonably well-eddycated schoolboys stands in lieu of the sentence: "We gathered here accept the notion that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free people.": It is NOT a dependent clause; IT IS AN ELLIPTICAL CLAUSE and in addition NOT NO WAY NO HOW A DEPENDENT ONE!!!! BYE

I've stated here on a number of occasions that I believed there were some among us who harbored anti-gun rights, or anti-hunting rights motives. For that, I was sometimes excoriated and admonished for being too hard on the Snakes. At least jack is honorable enough to tell us, in his own cockney/aristocrat/nit-wit style, that he believes the Second Amendment provides only a collective, not individual, right to keep and bear arms. Thanks for being honest.

I suppose we could go on debating recently settled law, and endlessly arguing over the placement of commas, or what constitutes a meaningful clause or phrase... or we could do the intelligent thing and actually look at the intent of the framers of the Constitution. They extensively wrote and debated about the content before they put their pen to parchment. To ignore what they said and wrote is exhibiting moral bankruptcy. From Washington's letters to Jefferson's papers, to Mason's and Henry's speeches, to The Federalist, there is nothing to be found that would convey the idea that they intended the Second Amendment RKBA to be anything other than an individual right which made the militia possible, but which also went beyond the scope of a militia purpose, i.e., defense of self, and home, and property.

Read their words and weep jack, for if the boys who drafted the document had any other intentions, it is one of the best kept secrets of the late 1700's.

I was going to provide some quotes or links to their writings, speeches, and editorials, but that would be a silly waste of time, for your mind is clearly made up on the matter. This discourse should be instructive to those who still think we're just preaching to the choir and that we're all on the same page, or spooning together in some big happy tent. We needed a poster boy, and by golly, we've got one!

As for your assertion that we'll eventually lose RKBA to some "nominally" conservative, and possibly Republican occupant of the White House... I'd still rather take my chances with that than someone who thinks like you AND Obama.

I'd be a bit careful spooning with the boys in the Big Tent, Keith. Where's that :rolleyes: thing when you need it? Now that Charlaton [sic] has left the theatre, Ted Nugent might make a better poster boy for you scenery chewers. Happy to oblige as whipping boy du jour but tomorrow's another day, bud. Think on't.

jack

Keith :
I thought of responding to "Rabbits" last inane comments but decided to just stop there. I will discuss or debate with anyone who puts forth logical thought out arguments even though I may strongly disagree with their position. I don't know what meds this guy may be on or if he perhaps has a drug/alcohol problem but each post he makes is more bizarre than the last. I sincerely hope he gets some professional help.
I for one am done with this thread unless someone comes on here with some sensible position. I am only posting this so you will know the reason for my silence.
Jim

Hey Rabbit, only one question for you. Do you own a gun?

By your own argument, you shouldn't. I'll await your answer to see where you stand on Mt. Hypocrisy.

Let's take this discussion in another direction. I think we can all learn something from Justice Scalia on this issue. Outreach and education. We need to be mindful that gun ownership is guaranteed in a document that can be changed by political process - the god-given right to drink was denied to Americans for a few years due to a consitutional amendment, after all.

As gun rights advocates, we should spend less time behaving like Charlton Heston and more time following Justice Scalia's lead. Most (roughly 65%) Americans don't own guns and many have never even handled one. If these non-owners have qualms about gun ownership, it is based on that lack of experience and the nonsense they see in Hollywood movies and video games. I would argue that popular entertainment today is the biggest threat to gun rights in the US - it is all black guns and dead bodies. (And if you want to talk about hypocrisy, how about those Hollywood producers making big money on Bruce Willis movies and publicly condemning gun violence and gun rights?) What was the last movie that you saw involving a Fox or Parker or Woodward taking upland game?

I understand that the NRA engages in various forms of public outreach and education, but I would suggest that we as individuals should do our own as well. The future of gun rights in the US will benefit more from getting non-shooting friends out to the skeet field than screaming about prying guns out of our cold dead fingers.

IMHO, at least.

Doverham:
I regularly practice what you're preaching above. My wife is an active shooter as well and I have no idea how many non-shooters we have taken to our club. No they all haven't become shooters but I think we've taken positive steps in removing the demonization placed on firearms by those who want them banned.
Keep in mind that the NRA has repeatedly offered to utilize it's "Eddie Eagle" gun saftey program in elementary schools and has been blocked each time by the Teachers Union which is one of the most left wing liberal controlled unions* in this Country. My point here is you're dealing with a mind set here that hates guns and the only truly effective way of dealing with these people is through elections and the courts.
Jim
* Just look at the financial damage they caused in the State of Wisconsin before the very courageous Governor had their lock on "Insurance" reversed. Their very cretin behavior after this shows the mob mentality of groups of this type.