Skip to main content

View Diary: The Second Amendment Myth (199 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  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.”

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site