The history of the 2nd Amendment

[baldeagle]

This is an article by a law professor - http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf

I found this very interesting - "The purpose of this Article is only to define those shares of liberty the Framers intended to retain and those given up in the context of the Second Amendment. By way of preview, this Article will contend that the original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect each individual's right to keep and bear arms, and to guarantee that individuals acting collectively could throw off the yokes of any oppressive government which might arise. Thus, the right envisioned was not only the right to be armed, but to be armed at a level equal to the government."

[NotRPB]

Thanks, good article

Thus, the right envisioned was not only the right to be armed, but to be armed at a level equal to the government."

Shorter:
Color Coded:

AT THE TIME OF THE WRITING (not later re-interpretations of each male being a militia member)
Soldiers = Militia/Standing Army which was un-trusted, but a NECESSARY evil
People=Property Owners (Only Property owners could vote)

=====================================================================

3rd Amendment
written 45 minutes Later with same mental process, affecting the same two parties on opposite sides of the Commas

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.

======================================================================

2nd Amendment
written 45 minutes earlier with same mental process, affecting the same two parties on opposite sides of the Commas

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."
======================================================================

This is what Former Representative Dr S. Hupp from up around Kempner Texas, meant by saying "It was written to protect US from YOU" (Not for hunting)

[allisji]

Thanks for this! This just made the 2nd Amendment so much easier to understand and defend.

The argument that I have heard and read against the 2nd A is that in this day and age we don't need or have a militia, thus why do we need armed citizens if they can't or wouldn't ever form a militia.

Clearly, this is talking more about citizens right to protect themselves and their property from unjust intrusions by anyone up to and including the Whitehouse/pentagon/military.

Thus naturally, if we have the right to protect ourselves from the military then we have the right to have the firepower (if you have means to legally obtain it) that it takes to defend yourself from the most advanced troops in the world.

It's a total gamechanger.

[NotRPB]

A rationale (not THE ONLY rationale) for defeat of the "only have the (2A) right inside your house" laws similar to one Chicago had ... is :

If a family member goes outside, picking berries, crops to eat, shopping or whatever and a soldier kidnapped that unarmed family member, they could use that hostage as leverage forcing you to "quarter soldiers" inside your house, therefore the 2A right is not limited to just inside the house, but extends outside so the "property owner/People have the 2A right (of self-defense) outside too..

[rotor]

Government has always been the largest killer of it's citizens. We saw this with Germany, we see it now in Syria and even ISIL is a government. We are armed to protect us from the government which can turn and be oppressive- ask those that survived the holocaust. The right to bear arms predates the constitution. Without it we would still be under British rule. The left just doesn't get it.