SmarterthanYou
rebel
EVERY commentary presented to WE THE PEOPLE stipulated ALL arms were ours. your revisionist history of falsehoods will not prevail.
The right to bear Arms? Not necefsarily.
- Thread starter Rob Larrikin
- Start date
EVERY commentary presented to WE THE PEOPLE stipulated ALL arms were ours. your revisionist history of falsehoods will not prevail.
What's with the f's, dumbass?
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.
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.
Leonthecat
Racism Watchdog
I love it when a dumbass calls someone else a dumbass, revealing to the world that he himself is a dumbass.
LOL
The long, medial, or descending s (ſ) is an archaic form of the lower case letter s. It replaced a single s, or the first in a double s, at the beginning or in the middle of a word (e.g. "ſinfulneſs" for "sinfulness" and "ſucceſsful" for "successful"). The modern letterform is known as the short, terminal, or round s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_s
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
Of course all Arms are the people's, through their armies and militia, but when Homer Simpson tries to get a nuke, the answer is no, capisce?
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
'Necefsary' is how use to spell 'necessary'. You can see it in the original. It helps remind people how old the document is, and that English evolves over time, as does the meaning slightly. For instance, we say, "Fuck me!" these days. 400 years from now a researcher may say, "Apparently he wanted to be fucked..." because the style or fashion of saying, "Fuck me" will no longer make sense to them. Fashion changes.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
wrong, again. your history revision will not take. It is the absolute height of stupidity to believe that the framers would craft an Amendment guaranteeing the right of the government, through a 'militia' the right to bear arms after having just won independence from a government that tried to take their arms. any weapon that the government would bring to bear upon we the people is a weapon that we the people have the right to keep and bear.
Homer Simpson works at a nuclear plant...
Cancel 2019.1
Verified User
You do know that's a cartoon character.
Maybe you should tell the fool who keeps referring to him, don't ya think?
Cancel 2019.1
Verified User
What's up Doc?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Coward
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
Gun nuts have been trying to cut the 2nd into pieces for a long time, and that is what you are doing here. The wording is 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.
In modern language we would write it 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.
So you can see that right listed is simply for a free State to have an Armed, well regulated Militia. Simple. The mountains of rigmarole and doubletalk gun nuts have generated to try to turn that around is extraordinary. If they did the same thing with baseball, a bunch of baseball nuts could take the eighth commandment, “Thou shalt not steal,” and pretend it was about stealing bases.
Give each State the right to have an Armed, well regulated Militia, as it is the right of the people of that State according to the Constitution.
Now when are you going to answer the question you avoided like a rabid dog, about where this ‘threat to individual musket ownership’ was supposed to be, that you think triggered the need for a right about it back in the Founders’ day?
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
The case is wide open because guns have become crowd-killers, and the twisted use of the 2nd to suit gun nuts cannot be sustained.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
And.....??
Did you write this with a quill pen, on parchment paper, and had a guy on horseback deliver it; because that's what was available when the 1st amendment was written?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
modern language fails. what the 2nd meant when it was ratified is exactly what it means today. no single entity can redefine the terms. and the constitution SPECIFICALLY FORBIDS the states from having their own troops, without the consent of congress. so again, you fail.
see above
if you haven't read the historical commentaries and constitutional debate minutes, then why are you here? go read them, ALL OF THEM, then come back with the correct knowledge.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
then you have only one choice. ban guns and try to take them from us. you will lose. your move.
Rob Larrikin
Thunderstruck
I know, and it causes problems because of typos and misunderstandings. 99% of the time it's fine, but then an issue like mass murder comes along and we have to start being adults about it.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
You keep posting via the internet.
When are you going to do as was intended, when the Constitution was written, and start writing this with a quill pen, on parchment paper, and send by someone on a horse?