What does it matter how many commas are in the Second?
- Thread starter Jack 99
- Start date
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Is this kind of discussion going to win support of the country to stop the eventually banning of all firearms in the USA - except for ducky guns? NO.
You will be arguing this when your guns are destroyed or they are buried in PVC and you are waiting for the ATF.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Unless, proponents of the RKBA can convince the political middle of the gun that gun ownership is a good thing, then it's all over.
If the country turns against the RKBA then even the most favorable Supreme Court decision will lead to legislation or an Amendment that will void the 2nd.
Presenting these hermaneutic or Talmudic arguments to any anti public or audience is a joke.
You will be arguing this when your guns are destroyed or they are buried in PVC and you are waiting for the ATF.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Unless, proponents of the RKBA can convince the political middle of the gun that gun ownership is a good thing, then it's all over.
If the country turns against the RKBA then even the most favorable Supreme Court decision will lead to legislation or an Amendment that will void the 2nd.
Presenting these hermaneutic or Talmudic arguments to any anti public or audience is a joke.
Nestor Rivera
New member
http://www.nara.gov/exhall/charters/billrights/billmain.html
has both a transcription and a jpeg of the original 12 amendments of which the last 10 were ratafied by the states thus making the 2nd originally the Fourth.
has both a transcription and a jpeg of the original 12 amendments of which the last 10 were ratafied by the states thus making the 2nd originally the Fourth.
Nestor's find shows THREE commas. I still assume there is a final version that shows what we call the "2nd Amendment" as "Article the Second" instead of "Article the Fourth".
Glenn: yes, the RKBA fight does not hinge on the number of commas. There are, however, fights going on at many levels, including one that may care about the number of commas. We want to win at ALL levels, as even small battles add to the overall momentum. We just have to remember to keep our priorities straight.
Glenn: yes, the RKBA fight does not hinge on the number of commas. There are, however, fights going on at many levels, including one that may care about the number of commas. We want to win at ALL levels, as even small battles add to the overall momentum. We just have to remember to keep our priorities straight.
Dennis, you're daughter certainly has good taste! My copy is one of many different books from my great, great grandfather's library, of that time period, and before. He was a U.S. Congressman, from Arkansas, and received the book while he was in office.
As you said, very interesting reading. J.B.
As you said, very interesting reading. J.B.
MONDAY, August 17, 1789.
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.
The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. BOUDINOT In the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth
proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "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."
Mr. GERRY.-This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all
cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give
an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must he evident, that, under this provision, together
with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Govern ments mean to
invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great
Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The
Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by
the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.
Mr. SENEY wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.
Mr. GERRY replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they
{ pages 778, 779 }
stood. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom.
Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this
reason, he wised the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of bearing arms.
Mr. JACKSON did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in
case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at
the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."
Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was
proposed by Virginia and Carolina. he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.
Mr. JACKSON was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render
military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
Mr. SHERMAN conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are
equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute
necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless
when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of an sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn
out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such
favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.
Mr. VINING hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute,
which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.
Mr. STOKE inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of bearing arms? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
Mr. BENSON moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms," struck out. He would always leave it to the
benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No. man can claim this
indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government.
If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it
comports with this declaration or not. It is, extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.
I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they
ought to be left to their discretion.
The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative-22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.
Mr. GERRY objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free
State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty
of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.
Mr. GERRY'S motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,
Mr. BURKE proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous
to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two
thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall he subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded,
Mr. VINING asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the
clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.
Mr. BURKE feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any
amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.
Mr. HARTLEY thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a
majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.
{ page 780 }
The question on Mr. BURKE'S motion was put and lost by a majority of thirteen. the fourth clause of the fourth proposition was taken up as follows: "No soldier
shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without, the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a-manner to be prescribed by law.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=390
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.
The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. BOUDINOT In the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth
proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "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."
Mr. GERRY.-This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all
cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give
an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must he evident, that, under this provision, together
with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Govern ments mean to
invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great
Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishment of an effective militia to the eastward. The
Assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by
the organization of the militia; but they were always defeated by the influence of the Crown.
Mr. SENEY wished to know what question there was before the committee, in order to ascertain the point upon which the gentleman was speaking.
Mr. GERRY replied that he meant to make a motion, as he disapproved of the words as they
{ pages 778, 779 }
stood. He then proceeded. No attempts that they made were successful, until they engaged in the struggle which emancipated them at once from their thraldom.
Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. For this
reason, he wised the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of bearing arms.
Mr. JACKSON did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians; consequently, one part would have to defend the other in
case of invasion. Now this, in his opinion, was unjust, unless the constitution secured an equivalent: for this reason he moved to amend the clause, by inserting at
the end of it, "upon paying an equivalent, to be established by law."
Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was
proposed by Virginia and Carolina. he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.
Mr. JACKSON was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render
military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
Mr. SHERMAN conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are
equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. Many of them would rather die than do either one or the other; but he did not see an absolute
necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary Government, said he, and the States, respectively, will have the government of the militia, unless
when called into actual service; besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of an sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn
out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. Certainly it will be improper to prevent the exercise of such
favorable dispositions, at least whilst it is the practice of nations to determine their contests by the slaughter of their citizens and subjects.
Mr. VINING hoped the clause would be suffered to remain as it stood because he saw no use in it if it was amended so as to compel a man to find a substitute,
which, with respect to the Government, was the same as if the person himself turned out to fight.
Mr. STOKE inquired what the words "religiously scrupulous" had reference to: was it of bearing arms? If it was, it ought so to be expressed.
Mr. BENSON moved to have the words "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms," struck out. He would always leave it to the
benevolence of the Legislature, for, modify it as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No. man can claim this
indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the Government.
If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the Judiciary on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it
comports with this declaration or not. It is, extremely injudicious to intermix matters of doubt with fundamentals.
I have no reason to believe but the Legislature will always possess humanity enough to indulge this class of citizens in a matter they are so desirous of; but they
ought to be left to their discretion.
The motion for striking out the whole clause being seconded, was put, and decided in the negative-22 members voting for it, and 24 against it.
Mr. GERRY objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed. A well regulated militia being the best security of a free
State, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read, "a well regulated militia, trained to arms;" in which case it would become the duty
of the Government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.
Mr. GERRY'S motion not being seconded, the question was put on the clause as reported; which being adopted,
Mr. BURKE proposed to add to the clause just agreed to, an amendment to the following effect: "A standing army of regular troops in time of peace is dangerous
to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept up in time of peace but from necessity, and for the security of the people, nor then without the consent of two
thirds of the members present of both Houses; and in all cases the military shall he subordinate to the civil authority." This being seconded,
Mr. VINING asked whether this was to be considered as an addition to the last clause, or an amendment by itself. If the former, he would remind the gentleman the
clause was decided; if the latter, it was improper to introduce new matter, as the House had referred the report specially to the Committee of the whole.
Mr. BURKE feared that, what with being trammelled in rules, and the apparent disposition of the committee, he should not be able to get them to consider any
amendment; he submitted to such proceeding because he could not help himself.
Mr. HARTLEY thought the amendment in order, and was ready to give his opinion on it. He hoped the people of America would always be satisfied with having a
majority to govern. He never wished to see two-thirds or three-fourths required, because it might put it in the power of a small minority to govern the whole Union.
{ page 780 }
The question on Mr. BURKE'S motion was put and lost by a majority of thirteen. the fourth clause of the fourth proposition was taken up as follows: "No soldier
shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house, without, the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a-manner to be prescribed by law.
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=390
When the constitutional convention debated the second amendment the concern was two-fold. First, how would the citizens of the new country protect themselves from a standing army. The country's recent history shows a militia (meaning armed civilians trained in the art and science of war) was the best protection.
The second concern was how to keep the population from being disarmed by the civil authorities. Tyranny was foremost in everyone's mind. The countries left behind (that is Europe) all prohibited private ownership of firearms. The constitutional debate revolved around concern with defeating a standing army should it show up, AND gauranteeing private citizens the continued right to bear arms.
The second amendment was written in the language of the 18th century and should not interpreted in light of 21st century language.
------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater--1964
The second concern was how to keep the population from being disarmed by the civil authorities. Tyranny was foremost in everyone's mind. The countries left behind (that is Europe) all prohibited private ownership of firearms. The constitutional debate revolved around concern with defeating a standing army should it show up, AND gauranteeing private citizens the continued right to bear arms.
The second amendment was written in the language of the 18th century and should not interpreted in light of 21st century language.
------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater--1964
When the constitutional convention debated the second amendment the concern was two-fold. First, how would the citizens of the new country protect themselves from a standing army. The country's recent history shows a militia (meaning armed civilians trained in the art and science of war) was the best protection.
The second concern was how to keep the population from being disarmed by the civil authorities. Tyranny was foremost in everyone's mind. The countries left behind (that is Europe) all prohibited private ownership of firearms. The constitutional debate revolved around concern with defeating a standing army should it show up, AND gauranteeing private citizens the continued right to bear arms.
The second amendment was written in the language of the 18th century and should not interpreted in light of 21st century language.
------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater--1964
The second concern was how to keep the population from being disarmed by the civil authorities. Tyranny was foremost in everyone's mind. The countries left behind (that is Europe) all prohibited private ownership of firearms. The constitutional debate revolved around concern with defeating a standing army should it show up, AND gauranteeing private citizens the continued right to bear arms.
The second amendment was written in the language of the 18th century and should not interpreted in light of 21st century language.
------------------
Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.
Barry Goldwater--1964