Rewriting the Second Amendment

CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior MemberPosts: 4,584 Senior Member
The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

Ayn Rand

Replies

  • Jim TomJim Tom Member Posts: 338 Member
    Its just like a message I received today from the sec. of Labor (Perez) celebrating Constitution Day. The first sentence, and I'm paraphrasing a bit here, told us "we were celebrating today because of the freedom and opportunity our GOVERNMENT GRANTED US in the US constitution." So dang nice of them, eh?

    What's so sad is nobody else at work could figure out why it galled me so. Ninety-five percent of the population doesn't even realize what the revolution was about. No wonder we're loosing our freedom!
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,803 Senior Member
    Yep, you got that right. But the way you wrote out the Second Amendment makes it lose it's punchf course, the way Congress passed it loses a little punch also.

    As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:
    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.

    However, as Jefferson and several of the Framers saw it:

    As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[23]
    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 way Jefferson believed it to be put emphasis on the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But the way Congress passed it and it is stored in the National Archives, it leaves question whether it may have given the right to a militia more than giving the individual the right to keep and bear arms.

    My problem with that is, the constitution gives the government the right to have an army. And nowadays a militia is like the national guard. So why would the framers of the Constitution need to give us a right to have a national guard? It don't compute in my mind. So I tend to side with one of the founders and the author of the Declaration of Independence, since his type of thinking was predominate in those days. I have never seen one of the founders or the framers who was anti gun. Maybe I missed one. But they probably hung him, whoever it might have been.
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,803 Senior Member
    Jim Tom wrote: »
    Its just like a message I received today from the sec. of Labor (Perez) celebrating Constitution Day. The first sentence, and I'm paraphrasing a bit here, told us "we were celebrating today because of the freedom and opportunity our GOVERNMENT GRANTED US in the US constitution." So dang nice of them, eh?

    What's so sad is nobody else at work could figure out why it galled me so. Ninety-five percent of the population doesn't even realize what the revolution was about. No wonder we're loosing our freedom!

    Yes wasn't it so good of our "Government" to give us these rights? People today on average don't have a clue. They have been brainwashed by our illustrious media to believe that we were "Granted" these rights by some benevolent ruler. They don't realize that the people who composed that declaration and that wonderful Constitution of ours were people like us, not rulers. They were people who had suffered under a Monarchy and believed that man was given rights by his Creator. How many people have I heard curse history in school saying it was a waste of their time? But if they would have paid attention and learned the lessons it could have taught them then maybe we wouldn't have all these libtards today trying to take those rights who our forefathers fought and died for away from us. They don't realize that their actions can re-enslave us!!!
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,269 Senior Member
    Teach the same lie for a few generations, and the truth just quietly goes away. Most governments have known that for centuries and it's not uncommon for them to teach a falsified version of their own history if they have any control at all over the education system. That's why the "progressives" are so dangerous to America- - - -they have co-opted virtually all the institutions of higher education and the process has been going on since at least the Woodrow Wilson era. Once the teachers become fully indoctrinated in teaching revisionist history, the truth becomes a casualty of the reformers' agenda.
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 21,803 Senior Member
    Teach wrote: »
    Teach the same lie for a few generations, and the truth just quietly goes away. Most governments have known that for centuries and it's not uncommon for them to teach a falsified version of their own history if they have any control at all over the education system. That's why the "progressives" are so dangerous to America- - - -they have co-opted virtually all the institutions of higher education and the process has been going on since at least the Woodrow Wilson era. Once the teachers become fully indoctrinated in teaching revisionist history, the truth becomes a casualty of the reformers' agenda.
    Jerry

    Man! Ain't that the Truth!
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,816 Senior Member
    One of my favorite quotes from the Serenity series by Capt. Malcolm Reynolds, "Half of writing history is hiding the truth." Lot of truth in that quote. History is littered with revisionist history. Our own U.S. history has been revised many times to fit the agenda at the time.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • 5280 shooter II5280 shooter II Senior Member Posts: 3,923 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    :The way Jefferson believed it to be put emphasis on the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But the way Congress passed it and it is stored in the National Archives, it leaves question whether it may have given the right to a militia more than giving the individual the right to keep and bear arms.

    My problem with that is, the constitution gives the government the right to have an army. And nowadays a militia is like the national guard. So why would the framers of the Constitution need to give us a right to have a national guard? It don't compute in my mind. So I tend to side with one of the founders and the author of the Declaration of Independence, since his type of thinking was predominate in those days. I have never seen one of the founders or the framers who was anti gun. Maybe I missed one. But they probably hung him, whoever it might have been.

    Think again......a Militia is compromised of common citizens called to arms......the citizens must have arms to be called upon.....therefore their rights to have said arms shall not be infringed upon. A state's National Guard is not a militia.......it's an army of the state with a preordained infanstructure.

    Also.........the Constitution warrants against a standing army, yet allows for a permanent navy.

    Reread the Constitution and put yourself in the frame of mind of the creators and of the time. We were breaking away from English rule and firearms were a necessity for survival in a "wilderness". England had "gun control" way before the phrase became popular.....so we wrote a document that protects a common citizen's rights to have one........for individual usage and for security of the province should they be called to arms.
    God show's mercy on drunks and dumb animals.........two outa three ain't a bad score!
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,570 Senior Member
    snake284 wrote: »
    Yep, you got that right. But the way you wrote out the Second Amendment makes it lose it's punchf course, the way Congress passed it loses a little punch also.

    As passed by the Congress and preserved in the National Archives:
    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.

    However, as Jefferson and several of the Framers saw it:

    As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, then-Secretary of State:[23]
    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 way Jefferson believed it to be put emphasis on the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But the way Congress passed it and it is stored in the National Archives, it leaves question whether it may have given the right to a militia more than giving the individual the right to keep and bear arms.

    My problem with that is, the constitution gives the government the right to have an army. And nowadays a militia is like the national guard. So why would the framers of the Constitution need to give us a right to have a national guard? It don't compute in my mind. So I tend to side with one of the founders and the author of the Declaration of Independence, since his type of thinking was predominate in those days. I have never seen one of the founders or the framers who was anti gun. Maybe I missed one. But they probably hung him, whoever it might have been.
    The "Militia" was every able bodied man aged 17 to 45 years old and still is. Google U.S. code title 10_Militia. "Regulation" when the Constitution was written addressed proficiency of use of the current "assault weapon". The flintlock musket with bayonet. A Standing Army was originally not allowed. I served 32 years in the National Guard. It is a Militia at the state level. The Commander in Chief is the State Governor. The National Guard can be federalized (placed on active military duty in time of war). Stating that the 2nd amendment militia is the National Guard is typical anti gun propaganda. I get what you are talking about. I hope others get it!
  • UwharriemanUwharrieman New Member Posts: 25 New Member
    I'm glad you posted this, I just received it through email.
    I didn't know how to get it on FB, not up on all the electronic
    things, G-child not here or I would have.

    I see it's being used in SC, Simpsonville, who knows where else?

    They ain't going to stop, may take years but they
    are "gunning for our guns!"

    Uwharriman
  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,062 Senior Member
    This is further evidence that the "Common Core" education system will be used to further propagandize and brainwash students. They have already been successful at it, which is why the notion of individual rights, guns and free enterprise as outlined in the Constitution is a bad thing and is reaching critical mass in America.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.