You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
2nd amendment wording
- Thread starter dakotasin
- Start date
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.
Live Free Or Die
Member
"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."
Is that what you were looking for, or is there some super-secret earlier version that I'm not aware of? I know that Madison (IIRC) had some draft versions in the federalist papers that had different phrasing, but the quote above is as it appears in the "current" -- AKAIK original -- bill of rights.
Perhaps you're thinking of this phrasing:
"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.
From:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html#amdt2_hd2
Is that what you were looking for, or is there some super-secret earlier version that I'm not aware of? I know that Madison (IIRC) had some draft versions in the federalist papers that had different phrasing, but the quote above is as it appears in the "current" -- AKAIK original -- bill of rights.
Perhaps you're thinking of this phrasing:
"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.
From:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt2_user.html#amdt2_hd2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Commas in the Second Amendment
There is some question as to whether the Second Amendment contains a comma after the word "militia", and a parallel debate as to whether the presence or lack of this comma influences the overall meaning of the Amendment.
Both the U.S. Senate Journal and the Annals of Congress show the final version of the Second Amendment as not containing this comma. On September 25, 1789, the completed Bill of Rights was written to parchment by a House scribe. In this version, now held by the National Archives, the comma was inserted. All other surviving original texts of the Bill of Rights, including the copies sent to the states for ratification, do not contain the comma.
Comparing versions of this and other Amendments as officially enrolled in the journals, as they were progressively modified and sent between chambers, shows that scribes of the era took liberty with the capitalization and punctuation of text they wrote.
The U.S. Government is inconsistent in the use of the comma in publications. The Statutes at Large (the official permanant record of all laws enacted) does not include the comma [2]. The Government Printing Office (GPO) has produced versions both with and without this comma.
Commas in the Second Amendment
There is some question as to whether the Second Amendment contains a comma after the word "militia", and a parallel debate as to whether the presence or lack of this comma influences the overall meaning of the Amendment.
Both the U.S. Senate Journal and the Annals of Congress show the final version of the Second Amendment as not containing this comma. On September 25, 1789, the completed Bill of Rights was written to parchment by a House scribe. In this version, now held by the National Archives, the comma was inserted. All other surviving original texts of the Bill of Rights, including the copies sent to the states for ratification, do not contain the comma.
Comparing versions of this and other Amendments as officially enrolled in the journals, as they were progressively modified and sent between chambers, shows that scribes of the era took liberty with the capitalization and punctuation of text they wrote.
The U.S. Government is inconsistent in the use of the comma in publications. The Statutes at Large (the official permanant record of all laws enacted) does not include the comma [2]. The Government Printing Office (GPO) has produced versions both with and without this comma.
CentralTexas
Member
-
there weren't any copiers in those days and there are some "comma" differences in some original versions evidently.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39388c210c1b.htm
CT
there weren't any copiers in those days and there are some "comma" differences in some original versions evidently.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39388c210c1b.htm
CT
Henry Bowman
Senior Member
It has one comma only; not three.
Harve Curry
Member
In many texts, pro & con, you'll find different punctuation.
Refirignis
Member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2005
- Messages
- 42
Where's the delete checkbox to undo spur-of-the-moment impulse-posting...
WvaBill
Member
What about the wording of PL 109-92:
a) Findings- Congress finds the following:
(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.
The Real Hawkeye
member
The commas don't effect the meaning. No matter how you read it, it contains the statement that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That is the part which states that the people have said right, and it is the part which limits what the Federal Government may do in regard to said right, i.e., nothing which will infringe upon it. The first part simply sets it up and explains why the last part is so important to continued liberty, i.e., without this limit on the Federal Government, folks might not be at liberty to form well regulated militias when and if the need arises, and since said militias, when required, are necessary for the preservation of a free state, their suppression would be a threat to the system of liberty that we've just worked so hard to establish.
It does not in any sense place a limit on this limitation of Federal power, such as "This limit on Federal Power only applies to those who are currently serving in a well regulated militia." That would be absurd on its face, since in order to begin serving in a well regulated militia, you'd need to already have arms, and be thoroughly familiar with their operation. Remember, militiamen are those who muster with their own weapons in response to an emergency. People whose weapons are issued to them by the government are referred to as soldiers, not militiamen.
It does not in any sense place a limit on this limitation of Federal power, such as "This limit on Federal Power only applies to those who are currently serving in a well regulated militia." That would be absurd on its face, since in order to begin serving in a well regulated militia, you'd need to already have arms, and be thoroughly familiar with their operation. Remember, militiamen are those who muster with their own weapons in response to an emergency. People whose weapons are issued to them by the government are referred to as soldiers, not militiamen.
- Status
-
Not open for further replies.