Extraction

K

Kelly J

New member
PATRIOT VOL. 07 NO. 12 | 21 MARCH 2007 | PATRIOTPOST.US | SUBSCRIBE - IT'S RIGHT, IT'S FREE
CURRENT NEWS | TODAY'S OPINION | RESEARCH & POLICY | PRINTER FRIENDLY
THE FOUNDATION
“There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily.” —George Washington
WEDNESDAY CHRONICLE


I extracted this Quote from the Patriot.


“[The Founders] made the Second Amendment second only to the First, which protects the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and worship. They did that because individual dignity and self-respect, which are essential to self-government, are related to a readiness for self-defense—the public’s involvement in public safety.” —George Will
 
False premise.

The second amendment is only the second, because it was the 2nd of 12 amendments submitted to the States, of which only 11 were ratified (the 27th amendment - Proposed 9/25/1789, Ratified 5/7/1992 - was part of the original 12).

It could have easily been the 10th amendment.
 
Boy, when I word something wrong, I go all out! Let me say this again:

The second amendment is only the second, because it was the 2nd of the 12 amendments submitted for ratification to the States, and actually ratified. (of which only 11 were ratified (the 27th amendment - Proposed 9/25/1789, Ratified 5/7/1992 - was part of the original 12)).

What we call the Second Amendment was actually the 7th listed amendment proposed by Madison in a list of 17 amendments. When it made its way to the States, it was actually the 4th article of amendment. The first article has never passed (although it theoretically could still be passed). The third article was passed as the 27th amendment in 1992.

Technically, what we call the second amendment could have been the 1st, 3rd or 4th, instead of the second.
 
Antipitas, There you go again trying to teach an old dog new tricks, I do apreciate the lesson but, to be fair the article was written in relation to the current Bill of Rights, as Written in the Constitution of today.
 
Without the guns we wouldnt have the other amendments today. :eek: Hard to win a revolution with sticks and stones.
 
to be fair the article was written in relation to the current Bill of Rights, as Written in the Constitution of today.
Click to expand...
So, are you saying that the actual history of the document is of no value? That we accede to the "Living Constitution" doctrine?

I'll take history for $100, Alex.

George Will can write some good stuff. But sometimes he is wrong. Here, his methodolgy is wrong.
 
But no worse than the scurrilous pronouncements of the antis. He acknowledges the importance of the Second, and, while his reasoning may be fuzzy, his point was well made. By the way, Mr. Will hasn't always been a friend to the Second. He converted several years ago after reading everything he could by the various Constitutional Scholars. :)

I'd much rather have him on our side than one of his peers, William Raspberry.
 
Perhaps it will help if we understand that the number of the amendment is not a ranking in importance. All of the amendments concerning the rights of the people were (and are) considered to be equally vital to the establishment of freedom from tyranny. The entire constitution was envisioned to be a foundation for the establishment and operation of a government of free peoples.

The only real variable is the definition of "the people". In the days of slavery it didn't mean black people. During the expansion of the country it didn't mean indiginous native people. Today a lot of folks think it doesn't apply to illegal alien residents. Truth is, if it doesn't apply to everyone, it has no value to anyone.

Now lets see if that starts anything.
 
Antipitas,

Quote:
To be fair the article was written in relation to the current Bill of Rights, as Written in the Constitution of today. (My Statement)

So, are you saying that the actual history of the document is of no value? That we accede to the "Living Constitution" doctrine? (Your reply)

(Absolutely not, only pointing out that my statement was in regard to the printed document of today, and I do not believe in the Constitution as a Living Document in any way). The Constitution is one of my most scared Documents, aside from the King James! (My answer)

I'll take history for $100, Alex.

George Will can write some good stuff. But sometimes he is wrong. Here, his methodolgy is wrong.
s,
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top