Skip to main content

View Diary: The Second Amendment Myth (199 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  And (1+ / 0-)

    If it meant "a right for the people to bear arms" why didn't it just say that?

    In fact, a draft version of the 2nd amendment that says just that was abandoned.  Clearly the wording in there was always intended to mean something other than the NRA version.  Stevens' dissent (which is anything but "thin") discusses this.

    •  It does say that. (10+ / 0-)
      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.
      •  no (1+ / 0-)

        Read Stevens' dissent.  A plain text simple amendment that says what you claim the current amendment means was considered but not adopted.  Why?  

        •  Can I try? (5+ / 0-)

          perhaps to clarify the reason behind the amendment? or maybe the right to keep arms is to provide a check on government, ergo, that right, by necessity,  belongs to the individual.  Heck, it is better than  Madison's first proposal  :P

          I kinda like the Pennsylvania take on it:
          “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

        •  Can I try? (5+ / 0-)

          Maybe because there was no "plain text simple amendment" that was offered?  first up on the table was: "that 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 conscientious objector shall be compelled to render military service in person." Next up?  "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 person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." Well, people being people still couldn't agree and it went back to the House where it was tweaked some more then forwarded to the Senate.  There, the Senate did their own tinkering with it and we ended up with as it now stands.

          perhaps to clarify the reason behind the amendment? or maybe the right to keep arms is to provide a check on government, ergo, that right, by necessity,  belongs to the individual.  Heck, it is better than  Madison's first proposal  :P

          I kinda like the Pennsylvania take on it:
          “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

    •  Might I suggest you read up on the actual history (6+ / 0-)

      of our Bill Of Rights and how they became what they are?

      Here let me help you out a bit.

      http://www.dailykos.com/...

      New Hampshire actually presented their right to bear arms as the following:

      http://www.usconstitution.net/...

      XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

      If you read why we have the Bill Of Rights, you'll find that tentative support Virginia, New York, and the majority of the original States gave when ratifying our current constitution was about to be removed because the First Congress did nothing in the first year of their service to move the presented Amendments out of committee.  New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia started the Article V Amendment process without the Congress.  

      Congress realized very quickly they were about to lose all control and had to move to appease the States wishes and finally debated and passed the Bill Of Rights. It was in this haste that we got the 2nd A as it is written.

      Once you understand how volatile the first few years of our Republic were, you will see that we came very close to not having said Republic.

       

      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

      by gerrilea on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 07:47:56 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site