Ran across another guy last night asking
I have some questions around the 2nd Amendment; Are the two main statements linked together in anyway, or are they standalone statements:
1) "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,"
2) "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
In other words does a person have to belong to a "well regulated militia" to have the "right to keep and bear arms"?
The Liberals like to
make much of the missing comma between what Congress passed and what was ratified.
But of course Liberals would never dream of looking up the discussions and actually seeing what was said or why:
"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 person religiously scrupulous of of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person" - First draft proposal of by James Madison in the House, June 8, 1789.
Notice the semi colon. Because we want men available for Militias, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Revolutionary Militias were made up of independent men- each who OWNED AND MAINTAINED THEIR OWN WEAPONS.
Later revisions became
"A Well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed" (Enrolled Resolution Sept 28th,1789"
Which Bears out that interpretation .As do the very events of the revolutionary war in which individuals - not in service prior to the British invasion, were able to form militias to respond to the British as they were needed. Everyone has the right to bear arms so they can form a well regulated militia when required. The amendment protect individual's right to bear arms and individuals rights to form into militias.
A well regulated Militia hat met and drilled continuously would have been considered an standing army, a prohibition on which was almost added to the 2nd amendment.. Remember the Army sent to fight the colonists WAS THEIR OWN. They were British subjects.
"A Standing army of regular troops in a time of peace, is dangerous to public liberty, and such shall not be raised or kept in time of peace but from necessity and for the security of the people" - Proposed addition to Amendment II Aug 18, 1789
The idea was to have an army of citizens at the ready. Normal people, leading normal lives, and working in their normal trades, who could be mustered to form a militia when needed.
Massachusetts wanted to add
"The Constitution may never be construed to authorize congress to infrige upon the the justliberty of the press, or the rights of conscience, or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping thier own arms" - Mass Convention, Feb 6, 1788
Hew Hampshire Convention June 21, 1788:
" Congress shall never disarm any citizen unless such are or have been in actual rebellion"
North Carolina Convention Aug 1st, 1788:
"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state"
Pennsylvania Dec 12th 1787 :
"that the people have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for the disarming of the people or any of them"
Mass. Constitution 1780 ( John Adams)
"the people have the right to to keep and bear arms for the common defense"
New York Constitution 1777
"Whereas it is of the utmost importance to the Safety of every state that it should always be in a condition of defense ; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society , to be prepared and willing to defend it.
Pennsylvania Constitution , 1790
"That the right of citizens to bear arms, in defense of themselves and the state shall not be questioned"
Still have a question about what they meant?
June 8th, 1789 - First Congress:
" This Declaration of Rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government..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.... Whenever government 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"- Mr. Gerry
August 20th,1789:First Congress
Mr. Scott objected to theclause inthe 6th Amendment,"No person religiously scrupulous, shall be compelled to bear arms" He observed that if this becomes part of the Constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can the equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. This would lead to the violation of another article in the Constitution, which secures to the people the right of keeping arms"
Mass. January 24th, 1788 -State Convention
The Hon. Mr. Sedgwick..is it possible, he asked,than an army could be raised for the purpose of enslaving themselves and their brethren? Or if raised, whether theycould subdue a nation of freemen, who know how to prize liberty, and who have arms in their hands?
North Carolina, July 30th, 1788 - State Convention
Mr Lenior "If the laws of the union were opressive, they could not carry them int effect, if the people were possessed of a proper means of defense"
Pennsylvania, December 6, 1787 -State Convention
I object to the power of congress over the Militia and to keep a standing army.. When a Selected militia is formed;the people in general may be disarmed
Virginia, June 14th, 1788
George Mason :"When against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defense, yeomanry, unskillful and unarmed, -- what chance is there of preserving freedom?.. Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was Governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people, that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let it sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."
Most of the discussion around Militias revolved around the worry that the Government would not sufficiently arm or train them, having a preference for a "standing army"
There is no doubt, what-so-ever that the clauses and their meanings were separate. We the People had the right to bear Arms in defense of ourselves - from all enemies - foreign and domestic. We the people have the right to form Militias for the defense of the State. Two Separate topics.
God I had Liberals and how they try to twist everything to their meaning without ever once actually trying to figure it out.
