Is the punctuation in the original 2nd amendment exactly as it was originally written? I read

[patricia92243]

a copy and the commas make all the difference in the meaning.

The Bible punctuation, books, etc, were added much later than the original writing. I was wondering the same about the original constitution.

I Google it and can't find the answer.

[LuckyCharms]

1. This has me curious...

Can you point to a phrase that shows the difference? Thanks!

[patricia92243]

4. No I can't - that is the reason I am asking if a difference exists.

[LuckyCharms]

6. OK, thanks. The reason I ask is because...

your OP poses an excellent question. I don't know the answer, but am inetrested in finding out.

[Blues Heron]

2. The actual, unedited text was

a well regulated militia, lolz, being .... ....

[PoliticAverse]

3. He's a picture of the 2nd amendment in the original document...

Last edited Mon May 21, 2018, 09:57 AM - Edit history (1)

[patricia92243]

11. Thanks. I don't know why I didn't see this when I tried to google it. It points out that the

amendment that was passed by the congress and the amendment that was ratified are different.

Again thanks for posting the link.

[Hoyt]

5. There are high resolution photos from National Archives and supposedly official transcripts.

The photos are still hard to read.

The official transcript, says:

Amendment II
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.


https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/downloads


Had I written something similar, I bet my 7th grade English teacher would have written a big red note -- "too many commas."



In any event, it seems clear to me that they weren't condoning Bubba walking down the street -- or entering Chuck E Cheese -- with an AR15 from his stockpile of weapons.

[patricia92243]

10. I'm appaled that it is in such poor shape. There are a lot older documents that are in good

shape. Why something as important has been allowed to get in this condition is beyond me.

[TimeSnowDemos]

7. The 2nd Amendment only makes sense in one way

A few bits of baseline info

- guns as tools were ubiquitous at the time it was written, there was no notion that they would be banned, as they were necessary for a variety of reasons

- the Founding Fathers were obsessed with the idea that a coup could destroy their experiment. The main source of that fear was the idea of the military overthrowing the government, as had happened in other places

Now, in that context the 2nd Amendment is pretty clearly not about self-defense (that notion is relatively modern) but about creating state level militias that would not have the power to overthrow the government.

This is also why the US was deliberately founded w/o a standing army, to prevent coups.

Once the US got a standing army, the 2nd Amendment should've been scrapped, as the point of militias was to prevent that.

Decades of court decisions backed this up, but after two generations of propaganda and political court nominations, the USSC decided to pretend history didn't matter and redefined the 2nd Amendment to please gun manufacturers.

It's a meaningless relic at this point and should be trashed.

[aikoaiko]

12. Alternatively...

You wrote:
- guns as tools were ubiquitous at the time it was written, there was no notion that they would be banned, as they were necessary for a variety of reasons
My reply: if there was no notion that they would be banned, the 2nd Amendment never would have occurred to the founders. It is because they knew governments might ban the people from keeping and bearing firearms that such a civil liberty needed to be protected.

You wrote:
- the Founding Fathers were obsessed with the idea that a coup could destroy their experiment. The main source of that fear was the idea of the military overthrowing the government, as had happened in other places
My reply: True, but it coups weren't the only things on their minds.

You wrote:
Now, in that context the 2nd Amendment is pretty clearly not about self-defense (that notion is relatively modern) but about creating state level militias that would not have the power to overthrow the government.
My reply: Yes and no. In a narrow context, maybe so, but states like Pennsylvania (abolitionist no less) had codified the RKBA with the self-defense of the people. Not every new state had an RKBA statement, but states like PA would probably have assumed that the RKBA and self-defense was inherent in the 2nd amendment of the bill of rights.

From the original PA Constitution:
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.

You wrote:
This is also why the US was deliberately founded w/o a standing army, to prevent coups.
My replay:
Yes.

You wrote:
Once the US got a standing army, the 2nd Amendment should've been scrapped, as the point of militias was to prevent that.
My reply:
Maybe not. When standing Armies were created, it made the RKBA even more necessary because coups were even more possible. I understand that modern technology has made it impossible for a civilian militia to win an all out war.

You wrote:
Decades of court decisions backed this up, but after two generations of propaganda and political court nominations, the USSC decided to pretend history didn't matter and redefined the 2nd Amendment to please gun manufacturers.
My reply:
Not quite. Anti-RKBA people read history one way and pro-RKBA people read it another. The writings of our founders and court decisions are hopelessly diverse and ambiguous on the RKBA. Everyone can find something to support their position because, like today, there were many points of view on the RKBA.

You wrote:
It's a meaningless relic at this point and should be trashed.
My reply:
Or not.

[TimeSnowDemos]

13. ok so

"if there was no notion that they would be banned, the 2nd Amendment never would have occurred to the founders. It is because they knew governments might ban the people from keeping and bearing firearms that such a civil liberty needed to be protected."

Not even vaguely true. guns were protected at a state level in most places, and there was no attempt by anyone to regulate them really, beyond that. Go look at the state constitutions at the time. Many expressly talk about guns, and they don't match your claim.

"True, but it coups weren't the only things on their minds."
In relation to the 2nd Amendment, it was.

"Yes and no. In a narrow context, maybe so, but states like Pennsylvania (abolitionist no less) had codified the RKBA with the self-defense of the people. Not every new state had an RKBA statement, but states like PA would probably have assumed that the RKBA and self-defense was inherent in the 2nd amendment of the bill of rights. "

You've made my point for me. the FF's left guns - like so much - up to states. Guns for self-defense were NEVER the intent of the 2nd amendment, which is why only their use in militias is mentioned, not self-defense, hunting, etc.

"Maybe not. When standing Armies were created, it made the RKBA even more necessary because coups were even more possible. I understand that modern technology has made it impossible for a civilian militia to win an all out war."

The ONLY way the notion of militias makes sense is in the context of a coup. And frankly it's been a LONG time since civilians could stop the standing army, if ever.

"Not quite. Anti-RKBA people read history one way and pro-RKBA people read it another. The writings of our founders and court decisions are hopelessly diverse and ambiguous on the RKBA. Everyone can find something to support their position because, like today, there were many points of view on the RKBA."

It's not about "reading history". Guns for self-defense was NEVER a thing the USSC agreed on until a few years back. That doesn't leave much room for "opinion".

"Or not."

Don't worry, America will continue to have 30K gun deaths a year, for no reason. Your side of endless carnage has won in the US.

[BaileyBill]

8. The second and third clauses seem subordinate

as it is written. The meaning seems to be "A well regulated militia...shall not be infringed." Or maybe not. I don't always English good.

[HAB911]

9. How is Meatloaf's 'Id Do Anything for Love' like the 2nd Amendment?

(But I won't do that)

So what is “that”? “It’s the line before every chorus,” explained Loaf. “There’s nine of them, I think.

The problem lies because Jimmy likes to write, so you forget what the line was before you get to ‘I won’t do that.'”

(Some of the things the song says he won’t do: forget the way you feel right now; forgive himself if you don’t go all the way tonight; do it better than he does it with you, so long; and stop dreaming of you every night of his life.)

On the other hand.....................

“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 happened to the first part?!

The 2nd amendment is one of, if not the most, debated Amendments in the United States Constitution. Most noteworthy, until the late 1960s, restrictions on the 2nd Amendment were not questioned. The NRA itself, in the early 20th Century, not only favored restrictions they publicly announced them. The completely changed their tune in the late 1960s.

The Amendment has actually been changed in the past 20 years. Those that fully support the Amendment have erased the first part from the collective memory.

Think about it, when you hear someone (that fully supports this right) quote the Amendment, they only include “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms…” Every so often they will throw in the last part about infringed when they are trying to make a point. They rarely, if ever, mention the very first part that includes the very important phrase “A well regulated Militia.” They do this for a very good reason. It completely destroys their argument that every man and woman in the United States has a right to own a gun.

The simple reason for this is because the 2nd Amendment does not actually give citizens a right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment guarantees a citizen the right to bear arms if they serve in a militia. It is right there in the Amendment.

Take a look at the Bill of Rights for a moment. One theme that should pop out to you is that the language in the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Amendments is not vague. To put it another way the wording is not confusing. Every part of the Amendments is laid out in such a way that is easy to understand. Except, somehow, the 2nd Amendment.

This is the main reason why I do not believe that the Amendment is left vague or confusing. It is really simple and straightforward.

Let me re-arrange the wording to help out:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms for a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.

Does it make more sense now? Despite the NRA’s attempts, the two sections of the Amendment are not meant to be separated, 'cause linguistics. If the Founder’s had wanted the two sections to work independently of each other they would have included a very important word. And. Take a look.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, AND, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

[Buns_of_Fire]

14. No matter how it's sliced and diced, the term "well regulated" is still in there.

Except in the NRA version, of course, which ignores everything before the 2nd comma.

[hack89]

15. The 2A is not an obstacle to strict gun control

that is explicitly clear from Heller. The only right the 2A protects is the right to own a handgun in your home for self defense.

AWBs, registration, magazine size limits, training requirements, etc are all perfectly constitutional.

[patricia92243]

17. Yes! Guns should have the same requirements as owning and driving a car - registration of

vehicle/gun, demonstration that you know how to drive/use vehicle/gun before a license is given. Guns owners should have to provide proof that a safe place is provided to store the guns (away from children, etc.)

[DavidDvorkin]

16. Arguments based on the punctuation are misguided

Punctuation rules were far less strict at the time than they are now.

[mercuryblues]

18. There is also the fact that the copies were hand

written. There were different scribes using their style of writing in their copies. Then they were sent to the printers who also made mistakes when setting the type. If only they had Word perfect or Microsoft word.

https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2012/fall/const-errors.html

[DavidDvorkin]

19. Good point.