[Sarah_W]

A little history on the Second Amendment.

James Madison is credited as the father of the Constitution. There were many equally important delegates representing their respective States during the debates and drafting of the Constitution. One of the most important in attendance was George Mason of Virginia. He was the architect of the Virginia Declaration of Rights which was the template for our Bill of Rights.

Several delegates, including Mason, refused to sign the Constitution because Rights were not enshrined within its text. For the majority, including Madison, they did not want to enshrine the Rights within the Constitution because they were concerned it would be construed to limiting the Rights of the People to just those enumerated with the Constitution, a "parchment barrier". Many states made it clear their legislatures would not ratify the Constitution unless the Rights of the People were addressed.

The delegates struck a compromise and decided to handle this via Amendments and the Bill of Rights. Madison submitted 20 Amendments to the House of Representatives. These were debated and on August 24, 1787 the House approved 17 Amendments and sent them to the Senate. The Senate approved some, rejected some, and rewrote some, sending 12 Amendments back to the House. The House approved the 12 Amendments and sent them back to the Senate who also approved them. The Senate sent the 12 Amendments to the State legislatures on September 28, 1787. By December 17, 1791 the required 3/4 State approval had been reached on 10 Amendments which became our Bill of Rights. Two of the Amendments were rejected. One of the rejected Amendments was finally passed in 1992 becoming the 27th Amendment.

It is worth noting that the Rights were not enumerated in priority order. Our 1st Amendment was originally the 3rd Amendment, our 2nd Amendment was originally the 4th Amendment and the 27th Amendment was originally the 2nd Amendment.

*******

On the 2nd Amendment text.

This is the text as it was proposed by the House of Representatives to the Senate:

"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 one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The Senate rewrote the text and this is what was sent to the States and approved.

"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."

Now, we can look at the words above in Samuel Johnson's Dictionary, which was the dictionary used by the Founding Fathers.

Definitions

Well regulated means to make regular as in well trained, such as the British Regulars.

Militia means trainbands or the part of the community trained to martial exercise

necessary means indispensably requisite

security means protection or defense

free means not enslaved

State means the public or community

Right means just claim

keep means to retain in custody

bear means to carry

arms means weapons of offense or armour of defense

infringed means violate, destroy or hinder

We can rewrite the 2nd Amendment using these definitions and it would be:

"A part of the community well trained to martial exercise, being indispensably requisite to the protection or defense of an unenslaved public, the just claim of the people to retain in custody and to carry weapons of offense or armour of defense, shall not be hindered, violated or destroyed."

I think it is important to note that for the first two years of the Revolutionary War it was fought entirely with privately owned arms. It was not until 1777 and the agreement with France were arms imported for the war effort.

The original text, the original meaning of the words, and the very writings of our Founding Fathers clearly, at that time and thereafter, expresses their intent to ensure that the People would always remain Free and not enslaved to a tyrannical government. It is understood that a government assumes its powers by the consent of the governed. Without the ability to withdraw that consent, by force when necessary, a people is enslaved to that government.

In 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to John Adams son-in-law regarding the newly drafted Constitution. In his letter he stated:

"God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

I would encourage everyone who has not read the Declaration of Independence in a while to do so. It clearly expresses the mindset of our Founding Fathers.

Publius Returns – Sheltered in the shade of the Tree of Liberty is what separates Americans from the rest of the world.

[Sarah_W]

For anyone interested. I've started a new club in The Villages called the Constitution Study club. It can be found in the drop down menus above: Entertainment/Clubs and then search for Constitution.

It is new and we have not had a meeting yet. I'm reaching out to secure a meeting place at one of the Rec centers. I'm thinking of Bacall in the beginning and if it grows in size i'd like to move it to Eisenhower. Once I get that approval I will post the day and time.

I'm very passionate about the Constitution and have found when I speak in public on the topic it is truly a non-partisan topic. I still believe our Constitution is the answer to the distractions we face daily. In my personal library I have over 70 books on the Constitution and our Founding Fathers at least half of my books are over 100 years old, the oldest being Samuel Johnson's Dictionary printed in 1785.

[Taltarzac725]

Second Amendment | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This is interesting.

I had Constitutional Law at the U of MN Law School. It was taught by Daniel Farber. This was way back in 1986-1987 though.

He co-wrote one of the texts used by many law schools back then. This looks like one of the more current ones-- Farber, Eskridge, Frickey, and Schacter's Cases and Materials on Constitutional Law: Themes for the Constitution's Third Century, 6th - 9781634607643 - West Academic

The Second Amendment in Law and History | The New Press


Sorry! Something went wrong!

Guns Carl T. Bogus, Professor of Law, Roger Williams University.

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

For anyone interested. I've started a new club in The Villages called the Constitution Study club. It can be found in the drop down menus above: Entertainment/Clubs and then search for Constitution.

It is new and we have not had a meeting yet. I'm reaching out to secure a meeting place at one of the Rec centers. I'm thinking of Bacall in the beginning and if it grows in size i'd like to move it to Eisenhower. Once I get that approval I will post the day and time.

I'm very passionate about the Constitution and have found when I speak in public on the topic it is truly a non-partisan topic. I still believe our Constitution is the answer to the distractions we face daily. In my personal library I have over 70 books on the Constitution and our Founding Fathers at least half of my books are over 100 years old, the oldest being Samuel Johnson's Dictionary printed in 1785.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Second Amendment | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

This is interesting.

I had Constitutional Law at the U of MN Law School. It was taught by Daniel Farber. This was way back in 1986-1987 though.

He co-wrote one of the texts used by many law schools back then. This looks like one of the more current ones-- Farber, Eskridge, Frickey, and Schacter's Cases and Materials on Constitutional Law: Themes for the Constitution's Third Century, 6th - 9781634607643 - West Academic

The Second Amendment in Law and History | The New Press


Sorry! Something went wrong!

Guns Carl T. Bogus, Professor of Law, Roger Williams University.

I had Constitutional Law at University of California (Santa Barbara) but don't recall the professor's name. My interest has gone far beyond law studies to dig deeper in my own understanding and research for myself the original meanings. In that context I consider myself an Originalist to the text of the Constitution. It is, after all, the People document putting limitations on government not putting limitations on the People.

We are a nation of laws and the People are the final arbiters of those laws as reflected by those we elect to create said laws. I think we forget that.

Consider taking part in the Constitution Study club.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by Lindsyburnsy

If it is so awesome to own any weapon and in many places, without a background check, age minimum, then why won't the gun loving NRA allow them in at their conventions....and yet those folks don't complain? But, openly carrying assault weapons into a grocery store, is perfectly sane.

Where are these "many places" that don't require a background check? If you purchase a firearm from a licensed dealer you are required to pass a background check. That is federal law and cannot be disregarded. Some states require a background check on sales between private individuals, however under federal law the sale is legal without a check. The law states that prohibited persons cannot purchase or possess a firearm, it is a felony crime.

I went to the NRA convention in Nashville a few years back and the convention center where the event was held, a property owned by the city of Nashville, had the policy of no firearms on the premises, not the NRA. The NRA doesn't own convention centers, the organization rent the facilities and must follow the rules of the owning authority.

[Blueblaze]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

Amazon.com

The weapons Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and others considered as "arms" are far different from the arms of 2022.

So are you trying to say that the damage from a 75 caliber black powder Brown Bess was less devastating than a modern 22 caliber AR15 round?

Ignoring an astounding level of ignorance of weaponry, have you considered the fact that the height of emergency care in 1776 was a tourniquet and a bone saw without anesthesia -- if you were lucky enough to get shot in a limb (rather than the body or head) -- and within screaming range of a doctor?

Thank heavens lunatics have access to so-called "military grade" weapons! Otherwise, they might be forced to use a really devastating weapon, like a common semi-automatic 30-06 deer rifle! The reason the AR15 uses such a small 22 caliber round is so that a soldier can carry more of it for their fully-automatic M4 rifles. In a true wartime environment, with fully-automatic weapons, quantity is more deadly than caliber. This is not the case, with a single-shot, non-automatic weapon like a 30-06 or AR15 -- or for that matter, a 1776 English Brown Bess.

Believe me, if you have a choice between being shot by a modern AR15 or 250-year-old, 75 Caliber Brown Bess, take the AR15!

[TNLAKEPANDA]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

https://www.amazon.com/TIME-LIFE-His.../dp/1683304314

The weapons Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, and others considered as "arms" are far different from the arms of 2022.

So what! Everyone has a right to defend themselves and their family. Legally armed citizens are NOT the problem. Guns are NOT the problem either.

Wake up!

[ThirdOfFive]

Originally Posted by Blueblaze

So are you trying to say that the damage from a 75 caliber black powder Brown Bess was less devastating than a modern 22 caliber AR15 round?

Ignoring an astounding level of ignorance of weaponry, have you considered the fact that the height of emergency care in 1776 was a tourniquet and a bone saw without anesthesia -- if you were lucky enough to get shot in a limb (rather than the body or head) -- and within screaming range of a doctor?

Thank heavens lunatics have access to so-called "military grade" weapons! Otherwise, they might be forced to use a really devastating weapon, like a common semi-automatic 30-06 deer rifle! The reason the AR15 uses such a small 22 caliber round is so that a soldier can carry more of it for their fully-automatic M4 rifles. In a true wartime environment, with fully-automatic weapons, quantity is more deadly than caliber. This is not the case, with a single-shot, non-automatic weapon like a 30-06 or AR15 -- or for that matter, a 1776 English Brown Bess.

Believe me, if you have a choice between being shot by a modern AR15 or 250-year-old, 75 Caliber Brown Bess, take the AR15!

Interesting post, and points. Appreciated.

One has to consider the efficiency of the weapon within the context of how it was used. From the Revolution up to (and through, in many cases) the Civil War, armed conflicts, excluding of course guerrilla-type fighting, armies fought rank upon rank, shoulder to shoulder. In that type of fighting the Brown Bess was devastating, particularly because many troops adopted the "buck and ball" load: a single ball of the caliber of the musket in question (in the case of the Brown Bess, a .75 caliber ball, though the concept was adopted for other similar weapons as well), with several round lead balls of smaller caliber rammed on the top of the large ball. It wasn't very accurate but a distances of 50 yards or less (the average distance between the combatant forces) but it didn't have to be. The effect was similar to a shotgun with single- or double-00 buckshot, "devastating" is a mild word to use. No good at anything approaching long range, but it didn't have to be.

Modern arms are governed (more or less) by the Hague Convention of 1899, which evolved, more or less, into the Geneva Convention rules, which didn't exist back then. No exploding rounds, no expanding bullets, etc. But the post to which this response is directed is correct. I don't want to be shot by anything, but if I had no other choice BUT to be shot, I'd choose the .223 round over the Brown Bess and similar weapons' "buck and ball" load any time.

[Lindsyburnsy]

Imagine those big white wigs, short heavy pants, ruffled shirts and vests being worn now? Not any crazier looking than saggy pants and backward hats.

[Taltarzac725]

Sickness and Disease in the Continental Army | David W. Johnston

Lack of knowledge about medicine and supplies were a huge problem for Revolutionary War soldiers.

Wound infection was depressingly common. Battlefields were often farmland that had been contaminated with bacteria containing animal feces for years. Surgical procedures were carried out with no understanding of antisepsis and no attempt to prevent wound contamination. In fact, it was universally accepted that wounds would not heal until they had begun to drain so-called laudable pus, a situation that we now understand to be the result of staph infection. During the Revolution, approximately 25 percent of the wounded who were admitted to hospitals died, and the vast majority of those succumbed to unrelated infections. In the final analysis, bacteria killed far more soldiers in the early republic than did bullets.

Science gets better in most areas.

We should try to do better, though, with the understanding of mental illness. That science has a very long journey ahead of it to get anywhere near knowledge of the human body.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

We've all seen many statements like this, and as many rebuttals. I've seen nothing original, either side, for decades now.

Maybe we need to look not so much at banning the tool but to act in a way that ensures, as much as possible, that it is used lawfully. And in my mind this should consist of two things:

First, consequate misuse severely. All too often, someone or several someones get convicted of a crime in which a gun was used (whether or not it was fired), only to find out that the charge of illegal use of a firearm, if indeed it ever was part of the original list of charges, was plea-bargained away. I'd like to see legislation to the effect that if ANYONE commits a crime in which a gun was involved, that that person gets an extra "X" number of years (ten) of incarceration tacked on to the end of his sentence. No exceptions, and every one of those years need to be served out before Mr. Prisoner is back on the street.

Second, quit the over-dramatizing and publicizing every "mass shooting" that comes down the pike. There has been lots of research done on this and it has been proven conclusively that such histrionics on the part of media encourages "copycat" crimes. The numbers vary, but I've seen statistics that show anywhere from 50% to 75% or more of these crimes, especially the ones that involve AR-15 - style firearms, are "copycat". Some disgruntled kid, or employee with an ax to grind decides that going out with a huge bang is preferable to the status quo, decides to off a bunch of people, and of course chooses the ONE weapon that media has anointed as the chief Satan: the AR-15. So he does--and media gets another huge plateful of red meat to sensationalize for weeks. What would the public reaction be if such shootings (or any shooting) were reported on the way media reports, say, the stock market fluctuations, or the weather? The REPORTING is still there, meaning that the public has access to the facts, but reporting is far different from sensationalizing.

Do these two things, and I'll guarantee you that crimes in which guns are used would fall dramatically.

Australia ended its mass murder problem when it got rid of semi-auto rifles. The US could do that as well.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by ThirdOfFive

"Where the people fear the government you have tyranny. Where the government fears the people you have liberty." (Thomas Jefferson--among others).

So true. Our system was set up so that the government SERVES the people, not the other way around.

Our system is on shaky ground due to newer media that can confuse people and bend the truth. Some of that bending originates in Russia. Like buyer - beware.....we now have media consumer - beware!

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by MartinSE

I don't and my post was snarky. I apologize. It seems so many one liners, I thought maybe that is all some can focus on.

And uh, yes, we DO close the bars, there are operating hours.

And uh, yes, the AR-15 is just a tool that is the tool of choice for killing children in schools. Only HERE, no where else in the world (at our rate).

And no, removing all AR15's (can't be done) would not solve the problem, and I have NEVER advocated that. I would like it, but I know it is not possible. So, instead I am for things like universal background checks - n o responsible gun owner can come up with any explanation why they is bad - but many try with things like "the government has no rights to do that, I have a right to a gun". And so, for what 50 years now, we have been arguing while children die.

Australia eliminated all AR-15 and ANY other semi-auto rifle and their mass murder rate dropped to zero. That is what a smart country that is not dominated by gun manufacturers does for its citizens. They put citizens' lives above the profits of the gun manufacturers. They still allow bold action rifles to be used by hunters and target shooters.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

I view the National Guard as what the Founding Fathers meant as to a well regulated militia. And the gunpowder, artillery, etc., for this militia would be kept under lock-and-keys.

The individual private citizens would become members of this militia. And would use the arms they use for hunting and defending themselves against natural threats like bears, wolves, etc., and Native Americans on the war path.

Wolves were hunted pretty much out of existence in New England.

The Outside Story: Northeastern wolves: Then and now | Opinion | benningtonbanner.com

Hunters are fine with bolt actions. Many of the best trophy hunters use a single-shot rifle because it is lighter. They hunt in the more rugged territory and walk and stalk for greater distances because they pass up shots. A semi-auto rifle makes a hunter more likely to spray bullets around and hope rather than concentrating on ONE ACCURATE shot.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Normal

Ya, we never will get nukes. But deterrence is important too. Of course speaking of wolves, they are one of the few instances where a large capacity semiautomatic rifle is needed. When a pack tries to take down a head of cattle, ranchers are happy to have several shots available.

At the 1st shot, the wolves will spook and move so fast that even a semi-auto can't load fast enough to get a 2nd shot off. A large magazine is just extra weight and would not EVEN help with shooting prairie dogs. They go underground after the 1st shot.