In before the gun confiscation NUTS.....
- Thread starter Capt Ron 1
- Start date
Why was the Bill of Rights drafted in the first place? What had recently happened in US history and what was the mindset of the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?
Before you click the spoiler below and get a 3rd grade civics lesson, see below.
First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
By your logic, "people" is more than one person. So the gov't, in your view, can limit ANY gathering of more than two people.
Do you see how both interpretations are ridiculous and are in direct contradiction to the entire reason the first 10 Constitutional Amendments were drawn?
Here is the second:
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.
And this is the historical framework in which it was drafted. If you continue with your current argument you're being intentionally obtuse, in other words trolling. This is abundantly clear.
Second Amendment:
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.
Historical surveys of the Second Amendment often trace its roots, at least in part, through the English Bill of Rights of 1689,1 which declared that subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law.2 That provision grew out of friction over the English Crown’s efforts to use loyal militias to control and disarm dissidents and enhance the Crown’s standing army, among other things, prior to the Glorious Revolution that supplanted King James II in favor of William and Mary.3
The early American experience with militias and military authority would inform what would become the Second Amendment as well. In Founding-era America, citizen militias drawn from the local community existed to provide for the common defense, and standing armies of professional soldiers were viewed by some with suspicion.4 The Declaration of Independence listed as greivances against King George III that he had affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power and had kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.5 Following the Revolutionary War, several states codified constitutional arms-bearing rights in contexts that echoed these concerns—for instance, Article XIII of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights of 1776 read:
Similarly, as another example, Massachusetts’s Declaration of Rights from 1780 provided:
Mistrust of standing armies, like the one employed by the English Crown to control the colonies, and anti-Federalist concerns with centralized military power colored the debate surrounding ratification of the federal Constitution and the need for a Bill of Rights.8 Provisions in the Constitution gave Congress power to establish and fund an Army,9 as well as authority to organize, arm, discipline, and call forth the militia in certain circumstances (while reserving to the states authority over appointment of militia officers and training).10 The motivation for these provisions appears to have been recognition of the danger of relying on inadequately trained soldiers as the primary means of providing for the common defense.11 However, despite structural limitations such as a two-year limit on Army appropriations and certain militia reservations to the states, fears remained during the ratification debates that these provisions of the Constitution gave too much power to the federal government and were dangerous to liberty.12
In the Federalist, James Madison argued that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be more than adequate to counterbalance a federally controlled regular army, even one fully equal to the resources of the country.13 In Madison’s view, the advantage of being armed, together with the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.14 Nevertheless, several states considered or proposed to the First Congress constitutional amendments that would explicitly protect arms-bearing rights, in various formulations.15
Tasked with digesting the many proposals for amendments made by the various state ratification conventions and stewarding them through the First Federal Congress,16 James Madison produced an initial draft of the Second Amendment as follows:
The committee of the House of Representatives that considered Madison’s formulation altered the order of the clauses such that the militia clause now came first, with a new specification of the militia as composed of the body of the people, and made several other wording and punctuation changes.18
Debate in the House largely centered on the proposed Amendment’s religious-objector clause, with Elbridge Gerry, for instance, arguing that the clause would give the people in power the ability to declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms.19 Gerry proposed that the provision be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of bearing arms, but his proposed addition was not accepted.20 Other proposals not accepted included striking out the entire clause, making it subject to paying an equivalent, which Roger Sherman found problematic given religious objectors would be equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent,21 and adding after a well regulated militia the phrase trained to arms, which Elbridge Gerry believed would make clear that it was the duty of the Government to provide the referenced security of a free State.22
As resolved by the House of Representatives on August 24, 1789, the version of the Second Amendment sent to the Senate remained similar to the version initially drafted by James Madison, with one of the largest changes being the re-ordering of the first two clauses.23 The provision at that time read:
The Amendment would take what would become its final form in the Senate, where the religious-objector clause was finally removed and several other phrases were modified.25 For instance, the phrase referencing the militia as composed of the body of the People was struck, and the descriptor of the militia as the best security of a free State was modified to necessary to the security of a free State.26 Several other changes were proposed and rejected, including adding limitations on a standing army in time of peace and adding next to the words bear arms the phrase for the common defence.27 The final language of the Second Amendment was agreed to and transmitted to the states in late September of 1789.28
Terrible analogy! "The people" would include every single person.
So "arms" defines only two guns and "the people" means every person? 😆
Aside from this ridiculous argument, tell me why the 2A was drafted, and why was it important enough to be the second of ten amendments?
I've given you the answer, all you have to do is read.
I can't understand why we have an echo chamber here with so many posters like you presenting good-faith arguments that should lead to healthy debates.
One of life's mysteries, I guess...
Thankfully, this is not the echo chamber you desire.
I think the question is: What do YOU desire? Your trolling attempt over 'bear arms' meaning only 2 but 'people' means everyone is.....accomplishing what, exactly?
What was your goal in doing this?
@FresnoGator this is why we have an echo chamber.
I hope you know better than that.
Arms doesn't only define two guns but, if you have two guns, you have arms.
His point is YOU know better than that.
Again, what is your goal here? This is just bad trolling that does nothing but lead to more bad trolling.
And the dreaded 'echo chamber'.
What do I desire? I'm fine with you saying whatever crazy thing you want to say. I expect to find people on a messageboard with whom I strongly disagree on various subjects.
Then you are acting against what you claim you want.
Trolling leads to an echo chamber. Stop trolling and start intelligently engaging in conversations, and you kill the echo chamber.
If we have an echo chamber here, it's because of posters like you who would rather troll than engage intelligently.
Do better, or at least have the shame to admit you are the problem.
I'm sorry for messing up your board.
I love Trump and I love guns and there is absolutely no downside to either.
Is that better?
We're going in circles.
So what does the 2A allow, as written, in your humble opinion?
What does it say I can possess?
And you still haven't answered ANY questions about the historical context in which it was added, which is instrumental in understanding intent.
We're absolutely going in circles. Pretty much no one ever gives an inch in these discussions.
The 2nd says that your right to bear arms shall not be infringed. Literally, that means government will not stand in the way of anyone bearing arms. So you can theoretically get all the guns you want until they tell you to stop which they have the right to do once you've achieved 'bearing arms' status.
You're overthinking it. You think if you can reason with him, he will see the obvious breaks in his attempted logic.
He knows they are there. He's just trolling.
It's an amazing life, don't overthink it.
So what is that status? Who decides what that threshold is?
Or, do you think the Founders meant to not have a threshold. There's more to the 2A....what do you think they meant by:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
Read the first three paragraphs in my citation above, it has all of the answers to my questions. This is really, really simple. Don't be afraid of the truth, the people who wrote our founding documents were great Statesmen, historic scholars - they looked into antiquity and saw what had worked and what didn't. They created this unique way to govern a country that created one of the most prosperous and free countries in known history. Be proud of it, don't run from it, even if you don't like guns.
It's ok, it never hurts to re-read some of this history. It's been awhile since I reviewed the iterations of the 2A.
And who knows, maybe others reading it will learn something even if Theo refuses to...I'm not trying to make the horse drink, just leading it to water.
What does shall not be infringed mean IYO?
You've got to be trolling...if not, good Lord.
Hilarious that "shall make no law" resonates with you but "shall not be infringed" seems to confuse the hell out of you. For your consideration, here's the definition again...
Infringe-(verb) act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
So shall not be infringed means shall not be limited, shall not be undermined and shall not be encroached upon.
This isn't that hard to understand.
And on this subject, that is all we will ever do with him. None are so blind as those who refuse to see.
It doesn’t. Just like the first amendment doesn’t restrict the amount of speech. That was the point that flew WAYYY over his head.
Both are there to restrict the Government. Not the other way around.
That’s why his views are that of an extremist not a “moderate”. Extremists want government to control the people, and that’s what Theo advocates for.
And that is why they must not be allowed to regain control of the Right. They are NO different than the left.
ITT we all got confirmation of what many of us have been saying for years. There is ONE party. Thank you Theo for helping to open more eyes. Take a bow sir, quite an amazing self own.
You're right it doesn't.
But it also doesn't stop them from imposing restrictions as long as they still allow you to 'bear arms'.
On the other hand, the first amendment says there will be NO LAW restricting free speech. The second doesn't say there will be NO LAW.....only that you can 'bear arms'.
What shall not be infringed?
Your right to unlimited guns or your right to bear arms?
He struggles with basic trolling. All our trolls here do.
Every other board I have EVER been on the internet, if you call out someone for trolling, they go 'Haha, you got me!' and that's the end of it.
When you catch our trolls trolling (which is woefully easy), they deny and double-down. If you continue to point out they are trolling, they claim YOU are in the wrong and THIS is why we have an echo chamber. If you ignore them, they complain that you AREN'T RESPONDING TO THEIR TROLLS (This one stuns me every time I see it).
For some inexplicable reason, our trolls are the only ones on the internet that believe the purpose of a troll is to get a response.
Every other troll on the internet knows the purpose of a troll is to fool someone into thinking you are serious.
We truly do have the dumbest trolls on the internet, I've never seen anything like it.
Yep. Knew he was a troll from the minute he said he voted Kasich.
No one can be that stupid.
@GatorTheo is starting to twist words to fit his own narrative like my good dear friend @kalimgoodman continually does when confronted with facts.
Notice a pattern? Folks who claim “independent”, then get exposed as leftist, have alot in common with “moderates”
Shocking.
Your access to a dictionary has certainly been infringed.
Stop trolling and act like an adult. That's better. You can do both and still not prefer Trump.
It actually does. The Constitution doesn't place a limit on how many guns can be bought.
You've been told this repeatedly. Please stop trolling. You are the problem with this board. If you don't like the 2nd Amendment fine, but be an adult about your dislike. Don't lie about what it says, that's something a child does.
We don't want children or trolls here. They are the problem.
TDS makes folks do the most bizarre things.
The sad part is that most don’t and can’t point to why they don’t like Trump.
The media is an incredible psyop.
All they can do is repeat the talking point that the media has fed them: Trump's an asshole and an asshole shouldn't be President.
Same people that also blindly believed the media when it said that obama was a wonderful human being when apparently he was a crackhead engaging in gay sex with strangers in the back of limos.
Honestly, Obama having gay sex with strangers is way better than the pounding he gave the American public ...
So does TWS.
Like thinking the only reason people think Trump is an asshole is because the media tells them so.
Last edited:
Is Trump a bigger asshole than Steve Spurrier?
Every Gator fan loves Spurrier. As they should, he won a lot of games.
Yet I've never heard a single Gator fan in my life that said he should have been fired cause he was an asshole, or that Florida should 'cancel' him and his legacy cause he's an asshole.
That would be ridiculous, it would be idiotic.
Yet there's no shortage of people who think Trump is an asshole, and claim him being an asshole means they can't support him. Despite that he accomplished more good for this country than any President in your lifetime.
No one has a problem with you thinking Trump is an asshole. Anyone with a brain has a problem with you thinking Trump being an asshole is more important than all the good he did and continues to do for America.
