Quote:
Originally Posted by Iriemon
According to this source, Samuel Adams pressed for an amendment stating that the "Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." This kind of amendment, which unequivocably provides for the right to keep arms irrespective of the purpose, was not adopted.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by DivineComedy  Wow, why not post the whole quote before you make such a charge, that it was rejected for your inability to read the English language; let me teach you how to define words, you national guard thing, you are not people worthy of any of the other rights of people, you have no right to vote, as this is a government of the people, and you are NOT people; did he say in the part you left out that no black person should ever be in a position of power over a white, like honest Abe, or did he say black things are not people?
"..." What does that mean? I do not understand that "..." legal code, so please spell it out for me. |
I wasn't trying to misstate the meaning of Adam's proposal. The elipses were not mine but from the source I quoted it from.
I found another source with the entire proposal:
And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions. http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_about/arms
Two points, which interrelate.
1. The proposal (and the one in the second amendment) was directed at the US Congress, it would forbid the US Congress from interfering with these rights. Regulation could be done by the states, however.
2. The quote about forbiding Congress to raise a standing army reflects the views of some (anti-Federalists like Adams) that a regular army was to be feared as a potential means of usurption of power by the federal government. By forbidding the federal government from having an army, while ensuring that states maintained militias through trained armed citizens, was viewed as the best way to address the fear of a federal government with an army behind it.
Of course, today we are far away from the model that folks like Samuel Adams enivisioned as being necessary for the security of a free state. Today we have not only a standing army but one made up of professional soldiers, not the general citizenship, and no effective indepedent state militias. And this is continued with the recent Supreme Court decision in Heller, rejecting the view of the 2A as a means of providing well regulated citizen militias with weapons that would be capable of insurrection, and limiting the scope of the right to guns commonly owned by law abiding citizens for lawful purposes.
If we really wanted to apply the 2A in the way that the founders meant, we'd abolish the armed forces, and reinstate well regulated militias with citizens armed with modern military weapons.
But it is of course speculation whether the founders would have written the amendment the way they did if they realized the destructive power that modern military weapons have.