The Founders on the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms

It all seems to boil down to our right to keep and bear arms is now and has been under assault from the left.

If they can not comprehend the article two of the Bill of Rights, then all they need to do is have someone like the supreme court of the United States of America folks read it for them.

I blame the left wing media and our outhouse based education system for much of the marginalizing and demonizing of the folks that understand and exorcise their right to keep and bear arms.

If we allow this trend to continue we may lose our way of freedom for ourselves and our children.

The ballot box is the best way to avoid bloodshed, and don't kid yourself about the blood that may be needed to secure preserve, protect, and defend the US Constitutional way of life we now enjoy.

It can happen here just as it has in every other nation that fell asleep on the job.

a reply to: Leonidas

I don't think he's being a "loon". Most everybody I know has a sniper rifle, not to mention great hunting rifles with incredible scopes. From afar is the advantage.

Anyways, the 2nd amendment isn't up for modification and never will be. Anti-gun nuts can keep trying, though. brick wall brick wall brick wall
In other words, talk to the hand....or the finger....I guess it depends on who you ask

It may help us to go back to the beginning and take another look at what was written by the founders...

Notice the first ten are the Bill of Rights and what follows are call amendments, not articles!


On September 25, 1789, the First Congress of the United States proposed to the state legislatures 12 amendments to the Constitution that met arguments most frequently advanced against it. Articles 3 to 12, ratified December 15, 1791, by three-fourths of the state legislatures, constitute the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights. Article 2 concerning “varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives” was ratified on May 7, 1992 as the 27th Amendment to the Constitution. The first amendment, which concerned the number of constituents for each Representative, was never ratified.



Transcript of the Joint Resolution of Congress, known as the Bill of Rights, ratified on December 15, 1791

Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New-York, on
Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty nine.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.
RESOLVED by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, two thirds of both Houses concurring, that the following Articles be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States, as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, all, or any of which Articles, when ratified by three fourths of the said Legislatures, to be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of the said Constitution; viz.
ARTICLES in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.

Article the first... After the first enumeration required by the first article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the second... No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

Article the third... 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.

Article the fourth... 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.

Article the fifth... No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Article the sixth... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Article the seventh... No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Article the ninth... In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Article the tenth... Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Article the eleventh... The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Article the twelfth... The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

ATTEST,

Frederick Augustus Muhlenberg, Speaker of the House of Representatives

John Adams, Vice-President of the United States, and President of the Senate

John Beckley, Clerk of the House of Representatives.

Sam. A Otis Secretary of the Senate

Amendments 11-27

a reply to: waltwillis

If you are going to copy and paste, the very least you can do is get it right. You are missing large and relevant entire passages. Either you have an agenda to misinterpret information wholesale, or you haven't done your homework.

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: waltwillis

If you are going to copy and paste, the very least you can do is get it right. You are missing large and relevant entire passages. Either you have an agenda to misinterpret information wholesale, or you haven't done your homework.

I passed the psychological with a score of 90% and you could help me understand the way your mind works by taking the same exam.

a reply to: waltwillis

I do not wish to pick on you. I wouldn't tell too many people about your test or the score you got.

I am glad you feel your rights are secure and you are happy. Have a fantastic weekend.

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: waltwillis

I do not wish to pick on you. I wouldn't tell too many people about your test or the score you got.

I am glad you feel your rights are secure and you are happy. Have a fantastic weekend.

Why would you want to pick on me for telling you that my score was the highest my chief seen in all his 17 years as a cop?

My critical thinking skills were over the top and the bazar thinking was non existent.

The logic I have given here is based on better then normal thinking in reason.

All I ask is to lay your cards on the damn table!

Your world view matters in what you say.

a reply to: waltwillis


See, now...here's the thing, I tried to help you out but you have chosen to keep digging.

And frankly, the 2A is not dependent on your worldview, I dont know where you would get THAT nugget from.

Best let it lie for the night. Trust me on this one.

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: waltwillis

If you are going to copy and paste, the very least you can do is get it right. You are missing large and relevant entire passages. Either you have an agenda to misinterpret information wholesale, or you haven't done your homework.

what exactly did he omit?

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: waltwillis


See, now...here's the thing, I tried to help you out but you have chosen to keep digging.

And frankly, the 2A is not dependent on your worldview, I dont know where you would get THAT nugget from.

Best let it lie for the night. Trust me on this one.

See, your not very forth coming with why you think the way you do...

Forgot to say that I got a 100% score on the verbal understanding test and got done the test in less then half the time as the first to turn in the test paper.

I do understand what you are trying to say, but I just do not agree with your understanding of the law as written.

If you would just allow me to hear the logic of your thinking it may help me understand the why you believe that the gun is the problem and if it were removed from the face of the earth, the murders would all stop.

The facts are available if you know where to look.

The ILA of the NRA may be able to help you in that regard.

We may both want the same thing as far as the great reduction in crime, but you seem to be fixated on the tool being used and I look at the fact that many of the murderers were on psychotropic medications.

The point that I'm trying to make is, the sick people will find another way to express themselves in murdering others because they are sick in the head.

Just find a way to keep the guns out of the hands of the criminally insane.

a reply to: waltwillis

So a cop wants to know what my beliefs are about guns. Interesting. It is all there, read it.

My views have been laid out for all to see in this thread and a number of people understand exactly where I am "coming from". Sorry if they don't fit into a neat box for you to click, that is how the world works.

originally posted by: spirited75

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: waltwillis

If you are going to copy and paste, the very least you can do is get it right. You are missing large and relevant entire passages. Either you have an agenda to misinterpret information wholesale, or you haven't done your homework.

what exactly did he omit?

what exactly did he omit?

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: waltwillis

If you are going to copy and paste, the very least you can do is get it right. You are missing large and relevant entire passages. Either you have an agenda to misinterpret information wholesale, or you haven't done your homework.

that is a lie.
everything posted on ATS is exactly word for word from the website.
You know what people who lie are called, right?

a reply to: waltwillis
Isn't it strange how a prescribed drug has potenially caused more trouble that the illicit ones?

a reply to: Leonidas
I don't like the way police are vilified any more than I like how some treat vets,IT'S A TOTALLY F##KED UP thankless job that chews up and spits out good men who are ground down by a system that works against them and the friggin legions of SPARTA here.
There are bad police we see that ,but what would we do otherwise? Do you want VETS on the street killing perps we don't like?
I would of course eat it up but THAT is why I CANNOT be an LEO and I know it.

originally posted by: Leonidas
a reply to: waltwillis

So a cop wants to know what my beliefs are about guns. Interesting. It is all there, read it.

My views have been laid out for all to see in this thread and a number of people understand exactly where I am "coming from". Sorry if they don't fit into a neat box for you to click, that is how the world works.

why do you think waltwillis is a cop.
oh it is your thought process that led you there.

a reply to: spirited75
Hold on, I thought so too.

I wasafuss, but now happily retired.

A little side note to the issue of having been a cop...

After leaving the military I took the entrance exam under the GI education bill and maxed the verbal test with a score of 100%, so they put me into the criminal justice studies.

Did not want to be a cop at all, because I don't like to tell others how to behave.

I like to shoot in competition at paper targets and not at any living thing.

Yes, there are some very bad actors in all professions...Police included.

Most cops do care about others just as a sheepdog would want to protect the sheep.

It all comes down to who you elect into office and the chiefs they hire to run the police departments.

You vote counts more then you know.

Your county sheriff is the chief law enforcement officer over all others and needs to be held accountable to the people.

He should be able to recite the "Bill of Rights" word for word.

Good luck this next November!

a reply to: spirited75

No, it was reading his posts in this thread that lead me there.