Shootin' Buddy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2003
- Messages
- 82
A flashbulb exploded in my mind. Any of you willing to help me develop the picture?
I was contemplating the language of the second ammendment and got stuck on the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State." Then I began thinking about the people and circumstances surrounding the second ammendment. Here are a collection of representatives from different states worried about signing a document that bears and empowers an overarching government. They have concerns, they are not sure if it is a good idea, they are looking for ways to bind this monster they are about to unleash -- and the ammendment says "being necessary to the security of a free State."
Before I've always read this and allowed my innerbrainlanguageinterpreter to translate "state" into "country" or "nation" assuming that our founding fathers were concerned with regulating a militia to protect our "nation" against the Russias and the Chinas and the Iraqs and the Japans of the world. But perhaps that's not what they were thinking, or at least, not all they were thinking. The ammendment reads "being necessary to the security of a free State" and they were getting ready to unleash a grand federal government. Dare the lion tamer enter the cage without a gun?
Your thoughts?
I was contemplating the language of the second ammendment and got stuck on the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State." Then I began thinking about the people and circumstances surrounding the second ammendment. Here are a collection of representatives from different states worried about signing a document that bears and empowers an overarching government. They have concerns, they are not sure if it is a good idea, they are looking for ways to bind this monster they are about to unleash -- and the ammendment says "being necessary to the security of a free State."
Before I've always read this and allowed my innerbrainlanguageinterpreter to translate "state" into "country" or "nation" assuming that our founding fathers were concerned with regulating a militia to protect our "nation" against the Russias and the Chinas and the Iraqs and the Japans of the world. But perhaps that's not what they were thinking, or at least, not all they were thinking. The ammendment reads "being necessary to the security of a free State" and they were getting ready to unleash a grand federal government. Dare the lion tamer enter the cage without a gun?
Your thoughts?