“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.’ What the hell does that mean? It’s been the subject of endless debate. Does that mean a collective right? How many commas are there? What is a militia? Were muzzl loading weapons what the founders were talking about? Men like Jefferson and Franklin who were inventors surely thought firearms would evolve. The second amendment is an anachronism but the first recognizes word processors and online gaming, quill pens aren’t used anymore. Biden thinks large capacity magazines aren’t necessary for hunting and says deer aren’t wearing Kevlar vests and large capacity magazines haven’t been legal for a century or more. The second isn’t about duck hunting. The spin cycle goes on.

Why is the second amendment so poorly written? It turns out that is a good question to ask the great god of Google. Interesting response. The reason the amendment could be unclear is because it went through a number of revisions in the House of Representatives and then more in the Senate before the Bill of Rights was sent to the states for ratification. The second amendment that the House passed 24 to 22 read: “A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render service in person.”

Sign up for our Daily Headlines newsletter

Recommended for you

(3) comments

Bear1911

Excellent post Steve. You hit the nail on the head once again. And even for non-veterans the "training" part of measure 114 is bogus for those of us that have handled guns all of our lives...hunting, reloading, and protecting our livestock and loved ones for years. There is no State Police training going to teach most of us anything about firearms. However it will give the liberal state police a much bigger budget which they do not need. They have plenty of power as it is. We need smaller government, not bigger.

RM

Nice rant. I am pro-firearms but remember that your 30-06 or AR-15 will not do anything against an Apache or an M1A1.

Bear1911

Oh yes, the old liberal rant against the notion that the people could never stand up to our government/military. Just keep in mind you are talking about 300,000,000 gun owners against 1,350,000 active military personel (roughly). So the numbers are definitely on the people's side. Then there is the age old question of how many in the military are going to fire on their family and friends. How many in the military would join their family and friends. So regardless of an Apache or an M1A1 it would for sure be a situation with a hard to determine outcome.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.