• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The right to bear Arms? Not necefsarily.

Rob Larrikin said:
That is the usual interpretation these days, and has been for quite a while. We hear it over and over every day, from every quarter, and it’s wrong. It is a misunderstanding that happened because the second draft was not copied properly. Gun owners have clung to the badly copied version ever since, using it as their bible when it comes to justifying the keeping of any kind of gun – including guns the Founders would have balked at. In their day the only firepower that would equal an MP7 for instance would be a whole column of soldiers with muskets. The punk with the MP7 could take out those men easily, while they were busy loading. The Founders would never allow the punk to walk around free, with what they would call a weapon of mass destruction. You know that’s true. We all do.
Click to expand...

NO! It is an interpretation based on debates in those State legislatures who pressed for it's inclusion, as well as the Federalist v. Anti-Federalist commentaries...and a study of the general writings of public commentary and the correspondence of the major players of the era.

You also make the argument of many gun-control (read gun banning) members of our society...that common citizens cannot face the technological, financial, and military might of our central government today. No matter how well-armed they may be.

That argument was also made back Pre-1776 by those citizens who opposed the Revolution or who were fence-sitters in the process. It is a favorite argument throughout history of those content with, or indifferent to, the excesses of their government.

It has also been proven false; not only by the example of our Revolutionary War, but by every successful insurrection and guerilla war since.

But even the failures prove it's value, since the right to revolt expressed in the Declaration of Independence is not a right to succeed...merely the right to attempt to do so.
 
Last edited:
Rob Larrikin said:


As you can see from the graphic, the original 2nd amendment was quite different from the copied version, which would give rise to men centuries later campaigning to have enemies of the state legally armed. When the amendment was ratified by the States, Jefferson had it copied by some scribe, working by candlelight, with poor glasses and failing eyesight, no doubt exhausted from hours of scribbling, using a quill. Whoever the poor chump was he copied the text incorrectly by removing commas and changing capital letters. That changed the whole meaning of the 2nd amendment.

It went from:

A well regulated Militia, being necefsary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To:

A well regulated militia being necefsary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

There were five important changes. The M in ‘Militia’ was made into lowercase. The comma behind it was removed. The P in ‘People’ was made into lowercase. The A in ‘Arms’ was made into lowercase. The comma behind it was removed.

The sentence is centuries old and people spoke and wrote differently then, which is why it says ‘necefsary’ instead of ‘necessary’. What you have now is a changed version of the 2nd amendment instead of the original. For centuries it wouldn’t matter since everyone had a gun, but in our amazing and shrinking new world ‘Arms’ have evolved from muskets and horse drawn cannon into nuclear bombs, jets, missiles, machine guns and so on. The word ‘Arms’ comes from ‘Armaments’. People like you and I don’t have armaments. Armies, Navies and Air Forces have armaments.

Arms

“Weapons; armaments.”

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/arms​
​


Given that it was ‘the militia’ the 2nd was referring to, and given that the militia was to be ‘regulated’, it is clear that ‘gun control’ is a part of the 2nd since regulating your militia means controlling its guns. Since the 2nd talks about the militia existing for the security of the state, it is clear that one of their roles would be to disarm the state’s enemies, and as you know, disarming people is gun control. So they were happy to use gun control among themselves and over their enemies.

“The people” are those served by the well regulated Militia. A ninety year old one-legged woman isn’t going to be part of the Militia, but it will still serve her. A mental patient won’t be part of it, but it will still serve him. A six year old blind girl won’t be a part of it, but it will still serve her.

Today we would write the Second amendment as follows:

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.

The bracketed section explains the first part, thus it is clear that a well regulated Militia is the right of the people.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Hadn't seen the original draft before. I don't see a real difference in meaning between it and the final product. Scalia went off the grammatical rails in describing the first clause as being merely "prefatory". It is an ordinary dependent clause, controlling the meaning of the entire sentence. The first clause of the sentence, like any dependent clause, is there for a reason.

Such as: "The wedding having been concluded, the right of the couple to hurry up to bed could not be infringed."
 
Rob Larrikin said:
Yeah - that's the modern notion, and it's flawed. There was no need to protect people from not having guns. Everyone had muskets and nobody ever suggested taking them away.
Click to expand...

It seems odd, then, that the Framers felt it necessary to include this particular protection.

Doesn't that seem odd to you if the idea of taking guns away had never been considered?
 
Rob Larrikin said:
That is the usual interpretation these days, and has been for quite a while. We hear it over and over every day, from every quarter, and it’s wrong. It is a misunderstanding that happened because the second draft was not copied properly. Gun owners have clung to the badly copied version ever since, using it as their bible when it comes to justifying the keeping of any kind of gun – including guns the Founders would have balked at. In their day the only firepower that would equal an MP7 for instance would be a whole column of soldiers with muskets. The punk with the MP7 could take out those men easily, while they were busy loading. The Founders would never allow the punk to walk around free, with what they would call a weapon of mass destruction. You know that’s true. We all do.
Click to expand...

That's fine....you can cling to your interpretation.

I'll continue on with the historical interpretation and intent, and the interpretation of the SCOTUS as it applies to the law of the land....because in the end, that's the only one that mattes.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
That is the usual interpretation these days, and has been for quite a while. We hear it over and over every day, from every quarter, and it’s wrong. It is a misunderstanding that happened because the second draft was not copied properly. Gun owners have clung to the badly copied version ever since, using it as their bible when it comes to justifying the keeping of any kind of gun – including guns the Founders would have balked at. In their day the only firepower that would equal an MP7 for instance would be a whole column of soldiers with muskets. The punk with the MP7 could take out those men easily, while they were busy loading. The Founders would never allow the punk to walk around free, with what they would call a weapon of mass destruction. You know that’s true. We all do.
Click to expand...

First, let me apologize for that part of my prior response in post #26 which follows this section:

Captain Adverse said:
NO! It is an interpretation based on debates in those State legislatures who pressed for it's inclusion, as well as the Federalist v. Anti-Federalist commentaries...and a study of the general writings of public commentary and the correspondence of the major players of the era...
Click to expand...

I "speed-read" some of your sentences and misread the intent. I still agree with my comment in a general sense, but it had nothing to do with your reference to modern vs then-current arms of the Revolutionary period. Please accept this "edit" as the correct response. :)

Do you honestly think that the founders were so limited in their thinking that they would not take into consideration the fact that technology advances with time?

That when they framed the Bill of Rights they were only concerned with the "Then," and not what might happen in the future. Our "Now?"

I don't agree, since the whole intent of the Amendments were to create protections against future government power and corruption.

That as technology advanced, the document would allow protections to adapt to technology, and common citizens would retain the ability to keep and bear arms adapted to the times.

Your argument mirrors some in this Forum and out in society that the document is somehow static, remaining stagnant for that era and having little or no merit in our new high-tech society.

These are the members who argue that the right only applied to weapons of that time, and have no problem allowing unlimited access to weapons...as long as they are muskets and pistols from back in that era.

That is a specious position. The right is there to allow citizens the ability to act in defense of liberty, property, and self. Regardless of changes in technology.

So while they may not have envisioned MP7's, I am certain they would say the right adapts to the changes in technology just as it adapts to any other changes in time.

Meanwhile...those who don't agree always have the option to attempt to amend the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
Polar Bum said:
Not sure what this has to do with the final finished product?

The Heller decision simply reaffirmed what we all knew.
Click to expand...

No it didn’t. Scalia reinterpreted the Amendment in Heller to say that its single sentence doesn’t limit arms in the way the language suggests - to militias, but does permit “reasonable regulations”, which would mean allowing limitations in ways the language does not suggest. Linguistically the opinion is a mess. Constitutionally it opens the way to measures of Court approved gun contro
 
Captain Adverse said:
NO! It is an interpretation based on debates in those State legislatures who pressed for it's inclusion, as well as the Federalist v. Anti-Federalist commentaries...and a study of the general writings of public commentary and the correspondence of the major players of the era.
Click to expand...

They can all argue until they’re blue in the face, but that won’t make the ownership of private guns an issue in 1789, unless they wish to make up history. The establishment of a State Militia was the issue, and it was taken for granted that everyone would bring their muskets, since EVERYONE HAD ONE. Muskets. Not AR15’s.

Modern scholars Thomas B. McAffee and Michael J. Quinlan have stated that James Madison "did not invent the right to keep and bear arms when he drafted the Second Amendment; the right was pre-existing at both common law and in the early state constitutions." In contrast, historian Jack Rakove suggests that Madison's intention in framing the Second Amendment was to provide assurances to moderate Anti-Federalists that the militias would not be disarmed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution​
​

You also make the argument of many gun-control (read gun banning) members of our society...that common citizens cannot face the technological, financial, and military might of our central government today. No matter how well-armed they may be.
Click to expand...

Madison wanted State Militia to fend off potential tyrants, and in those days a Militia, made up of men with their own muskets and cannon, could do that, since any such tyrant would also be using muskets and cannon. These days a bunch of hillbillies with AR15s has no hope of fending off the United States military, with its nukes, missiles, jets, satellites, tanks, ships, helicopters, subs, marines, sailors and soldiers, with all their technology. It’s a nice dream that hillbillies have, but no, when some giant socialist like Obama came along to wreck America, they did absolutely nothing. Not a pop. Not a bang. Nothing. So if there ever is a tyrant they will need to use much more than their popguns.
 
Rob Larrikin said:


As you can see from the graphic, the original 2nd amendment was quite different from the copied version, which would give rise to men centuries later campaigning to have enemies of the state legally armed. When the amendment was ratified by the States, Jefferson had it copied by some scribe, working by candlelight, with poor glasses and failing eyesight, no doubt exhausted from hours of scribbling, using a quill. Whoever the poor chump was he copied the text incorrectly by removing commas and changing capital letters. That changed the whole meaning of the 2nd amendment.

It went from:

A well regulated Militia, being necefsary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

To:

A well regulated militia being necefsary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

There were five important changes. The M in ‘Militia’ was made into lowercase. The comma behind it was removed. The P in ‘People’ was made into lowercase. The A in ‘Arms’ was made into lowercase. The comma behind it was removed.

The sentence is centuries old and people spoke and wrote differently then, which is why it says ‘necefsary’ instead of ‘necessary’. What you have now is a changed version of the 2nd amendment instead of the original. For centuries it wouldn’t matter since everyone had a gun, but in our amazing and shrinking new world ‘Arms’ have evolved from muskets and horse drawn cannon into nuclear bombs, jets, missiles, machine guns and so on. The word ‘Arms’ comes from ‘Armaments’. People like you and I don’t have armaments. Armies, Navies and Air Forces have armaments.

Arms

“Weapons; armaments.”

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/arms​
​


Given that it was ‘the militia’ the 2nd was referring to, and given that the militia was to be ‘regulated’, it is clear that ‘gun control’ is a part of the 2nd since regulating your militia means controlling its guns. Since the 2nd talks about the militia existing for the security of the state, it is clear that one of their roles would be to disarm the state’s enemies, and as you know, disarming people is gun control. So they were happy to use gun control among themselves and over their enemies.

“The people” are those served by the well regulated Militia. A ninety year old one-legged woman isn’t going to be part of the Militia, but it will still serve her. A mental patient won’t be part of it, but it will still serve him. A six year old blind girl won’t be a part of it, but it will still serve her.

Today we would write the Second amendment as follows:

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.

The bracketed section explains the first part, thus it is clear that a well regulated Militia is the right of the people.
Click to expand...

Since when do we legally arm felons?
 
Rob Larrikin said:
The changes in the final draft made it very confusing, so they weren't the result of deliberate 'editing'. They happened because the scribe was tired and the candlelight was poor, and because they didn't appear to matter at the time. They were of little importance then. Only after centuries of gun evolution and misinformed judges did they become important, and then VERY important. None of the scribes at the time could have imagined that a couple of commas and a few capital letters would matter at all, and Jefferson would have hardly noticed the errors.
Click to expand...


How do you know this?
 
JackA said:
Interesting. Hadn't seen the original draft before. I don't see a real difference in meaning between it and the final product. Scalia went off the grammatical rails in describing the first clause as being merely "prefatory". It is an ordinary dependent clause, controlling the meaning of the entire sentence. The first clause of the sentence, like any dependent clause, is there for a reason.

Such as: "The wedding having been concluded, the right of the couple to hurry up to bed could not be infringed."
Click to expand...

Let’s see how we can stuff it up completely with a few commas and some capitals:

The wedding having been concluded, the right of the couple to hurry up to bed could not be infringed.

The wedding, having been, concluded The Right, of the Couple to hurry Up to bed could not be infringed.

Now people will say it meant The Right concluded that an important couple were right to hurry their son Up off to bed after their wedding. Bad writing; fiddling with commas and capitals, not copying properly, and look what you get.
 
code1211 said:
It seems odd, then, that the Framers felt it necessary to include this particular protection.

Doesn't that seem odd to you if the idea of taking guns away had never been considered?
Click to expand...

Madison was worried about future tyrants, and wanted armed State Militia to exist to fend the State from said tyrants, but those tyrants would have been no better armed than the members of said militia. Muskets and canon, horses, carts, oxen, sleds, mud, blood and whisky. Yippee!

There were no AR15s, jets, missiles, etc. Just good old muskets. Everyone had one. Even your grandma. You needed one to hunt, and to defend yourself against wolves, bears, Indians and varmints. There were no telephones, and you were easy pickings in those days. A musket was like a broom, a bathtub or a door. Every house had one, and the "right" of people to have them was never in question.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
Every Tom Dick and Harry is talking about the second amendment on this forum in case you didn't notice, mostly because it is a hot political issue since the last massacre.

Yes, I've read all the usual ideas people have been pedaling for many decades, and they're wrong. Judges aren't gods - they make mistakes. The 2nd was not easy for them to figure out, mostly because English has evolved.
Click to expand...

I don't see how what you pointed out changes the meaning.
 
Polar Bum said:
That's fine....you can cling to your interpretation.

I'll continue on with the historical interpretation and intent, and the interpretation of the SCOTUS as it applies to the law of the land....because in the end, that's the only one that mattes.
Click to expand...

Yes, you cling to your idea that everyone was running around saying, "Omigosh, the gun grabbers want to take our muskets away! We gots to have it in the tooshun that we can keep our beloved muskets!"

"A well regulated Militia, being necefsary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It means Madison wanted a State Militia to protect against tyrants - to keep and bear ARMS (armaments). Private people, then and now, don't have armaments.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
The changes in the final draft made it very confusing, so they weren't the result of deliberate 'editing'. They happened because the scribe was tired and the candlelight was poor, and because they didn't appear to matter at the time. They were of little importance then. Only after centuries of gun evolution and misinformed judges did they become important, and then VERY important. None of the scribes at the time could have imagined that a couple of commas and a few capital letters would matter at all, and Jefferson would have hardly noticed the errors.
Click to expand...

Why is it confusing?
 
Captain Adverse said:
Please accept this "edit" as the correct response. :)
Click to expand...

Sure – I didn’t see this until now.

Do you honestly think that the founders were so limited in their thinking that they would not take into consideration the fact that technology advances with time?
Click to expand...

Yes, but seeing what will happen centuries into the future is very difficult for most people, even great men like the Founders. If their children asked them how they imagined a future centuries distant, regarding muskets, they would probably have said, “I imagine that by then they will have muskets that shoot two, or maybe even three or four rounds, without having to re-load. That will make hunting so much easier, not to mention shooting the British!”
“How about horses and buggies, papa, how will they change?”
“Oh, I imagine they will have buggies that are twice as light, and with stronger wheels and axles, that don’t break down as often, and perhaps they will have lights that can light up the road ahead much better than now.”
“And dresses, pa? Will they change?”
“I’m sure they will. They’ll probably be much shorter, going right up to the knee!”
“No way!”
“It wouldn’t surprise me at all…”

I don't agree, since the whole intent of the Amendments were to create protections against future government power and corruption.
Click to expand...

Yes, which they could partly do by providing a State Militia, bearing Arms to combat enemies. Arms are armaments borne by Armies, not individuals.

These are the members who argue that the right only applied to weapons of that time, and have no problem allowing unlimited access to weapons...as long as they are muskets and pistols from back in that era.

That is a specious position. The right is there to allow citizens the ability to act in defense of liberty, property, and self. Regardless of changes in technology.
Click to expand...

Yes, in a Militia (army), with Arms (armaments), for the security of the State. That has nothing to do whatsoever with letting every Tom Dick and Harry have an AR15, so they can hoon about until one of their murderbrats steals the weapon and shoots up his school. “Well regulated” Militia do not allow such things.

So while they may not have envisioned MP7's, I am certain they would say the right adapts to the changes in technology just as it adapts to any other changes in time.
Click to expand...

They would be horrified if they knew what guns have become, and who can buy them under the umbrella of their mangled, misinterpreted Amendment II.

Meanwhile...those who don't agree always have the option to attempt to amend the Constitution.
Click to expand...

You can leave it as it is and merely interpret it correctly, but you’ll need sensible judges not swayed by the power of gun nuts and their lawyers.
 
holbritter said:
Since when do we legally arm felons?
Click to expand...

It's what many gun nuts want. They include libertarians and hillbillies, and I imagine many ex-felons online. I've argued with swarms of them online, for years. They are very peeved they aren't allowed guns, as they believe they've done their time, and not letting them buy guns legally is 'agin the tooshin'.
 
holbritter said:
How do you know this?
Click to expand...

Scribes were commonly used in those days, especially for tiresome copying, but often this was done in candlelight, with quills, on yellowing parchment. Aside from this, and more importantly, Jefferson had injured his wrist, making the use of scribes more essential than ever.

In September 1786, Thomas Jefferson dislocated his right wrist in a fall. An entry in his memorandum book records payment to two surgeons on September 18th. According to contemporary reports, the injury occurred when Jefferson attempted to jump a fence in the Cours-la-Reine in Paris. Two surgeons set his bones, but not well, and he suffered wrist pain for the rest of his life.

The accident forced Jefferson to stay in his house for a month and his secretary, William Short, had to write his letters for him. For a few months, he used his left hand to write letters including the famous "Head and Heart" letter on October 12 to Maria Cosway.1 The dislocation also cut short sightseeing with Maria Cosway and postponed his journey to the south of France."

https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/wrist-injury-1786​
​

If you scroll down that same page you’ll see examples of letters and notes he wrote and received about his wrist, from 1786 to the end of 1788, when Amendment II was ratified.

As Wikipedia points out, “The Second Amendment was relatively uncontroversial at the time of its ratification.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Since it wasn’t controversial it’s the kind of thing that Jefferson would almost certainly have left to his scribe to copy, especially given the state of his wrist.
 
CLAX1911 said:
No it isn't.

How did the few internet trolls decide they knew more about constitutional law then the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...

Up until they said white and black people could marry, the Supreme court said they couldn't. According to you the Supreme Court is infallible. Hah hah ha ha. Infallible. What a joke. All you have to do is check out Ruth Bader Ginsburg to see how wrong that notion is. Yes, it's the highest court of the land, which is why Democrat Presidents try and fill it with their loony tunes democrat judges.
 
Rob Larrikin said:
Scribes were commonly used in those days, especially for tiresome copying, but often this was done in candlelight, with quills, on yellowing parchment. Aside from this, and more importantly, Jefferson had injured his wrist, making the use of scribes more essential than ever.

In September 1786, Thomas Jefferson dislocated his right wrist in a fall. An entry in his memorandum book records payment to two surgeons on September 18th. According to contemporary reports, the injury occurred when Jefferson attempted to jump a fence in the Cours-la-Reine in Paris. Two surgeons set his bones, but not well, and he suffered wrist pain for the rest of his life.

The accident forced Jefferson to stay in his house for a month and his secretary, William Short, had to write his letters for him. For a few months, he used his left hand to write letters including the famous "Head and Heart" letter on October 12 to Maria Cosway.1 The dislocation also cut short sightseeing with Maria Cosway and postponed his journey to the south of France."

https://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/wrist-injury-1786​
​

If you scroll down that same page you’ll see examples of letters and notes he wrote and received about his wrist, from 1786 to the end of 1788, when Amendment II was ratified.

As Wikipedia points out, “The Second Amendment was relatively uncontroversial at the time of its ratification.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Since it wasn’t controversial it’s the kind of thing that Jefferson would almost certainly have left to his scribe to copy, especially given the state of his wrist.
Click to expand...

So you don't know and are just guessing. It would have been easier for you to just about that.
 
braindrain said:
So you don't know and are just guessing. It would have been easier for you to just about that.
Click to expand...

I'm using my brain, which is more than I can say for most gun nuts, who chant a series of boring slogans over and over, which they learned from fellow gun nuts. Now if you would like to go back in time and force poor Jefferson to dismiss his scribe and write out the Second himself, you'll soon see the capitals and commas appear again, as they were meant to be. The writing will be pretty bad though because he'll probably be using his left hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom