frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 47,476
- 10,512
- 2,030
This document has got to be the most ignored document in US history.
Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
It is the debate in the House about the Second Amendment and its meaning.
The funny thing about this document is that it uses "bear arms" in the same manner and synonymously as "render military service" and "militia duty".
Not only that it is clear that they had the meaning of "bear arms" being the right to be in the militia. They were debating this version of what would become the Second Amendment:
"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 shall be compelled to bear arms."
"Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. "
"besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. " (in reference to the religious scruples clause discussing "bear arms)
"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
So here it is cleat what "bear arms" means in the context of the 2A.
Below we have some that would make the version of "bear arms" being "carry arms" seem a little strange.
"or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, "
"It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. "
"For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of bearing arms."
Who would be religiously scrupulous enough to carry arms that they'd need protection so that they wouldn't be forced to walk around town carrying arms? It seems ridiculous that the founding fathers would even bother with such a thing.
So, now, the big question again.
Why does everyone ignore this document? Why did the Supreme Court ignore this document in Heller and McDonald? Why did the left ignore this document when they made their (extremely poor) case? Why do people on this forum continually ignore this document and claim that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and will always shy away from discussing this document and pretend that it doesn't exist?
Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
It is the debate in the House about the Second Amendment and its meaning.
The funny thing about this document is that it uses "bear arms" in the same manner and synonymously as "render military service" and "militia duty".
Not only that it is clear that they had the meaning of "bear arms" being the right to be in the militia. They were debating this version of what would become the Second Amendment:
"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 shall be compelled to bear arms."
"Mr. Scott objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He observed that if this becomes part of the constitution, such persons can neither be called upon for their services, nor can an equivalent be demanded; it is also attended with still further difficulties, for a militia can never be depended upon. "
"besides, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the Quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of the society, and defend the cause of their country. " (in reference to the religious scruples clause discussing "bear arms)
"Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent.""
"Now, if we give a discretionary power to exclude those from militia duty who have religious scruples, we may as well make no provision on this head. "
"Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
So here it is cleat what "bear arms" means in the context of the 2A.
Below we have some that would make the version of "bear arms" being "carry arms" seem a little strange.
"or what justice can there be in compelling them to bear arms, "
"It is well known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent. "
"For this reason, he wished the words to be altered so as to be confined to persons belonging to a religious sect scrupulous of bearing arms."
Who would be religiously scrupulous enough to carry arms that they'd need protection so that they wouldn't be forced to walk around town carrying arms? It seems ridiculous that the founding fathers would even bother with such a thing.
So, now, the big question again.
Why does everyone ignore this document? Why did the Supreme Court ignore this document in Heller and McDonald? Why did the left ignore this document when they made their (extremely poor) case? Why do people on this forum continually ignore this document and claim that "bear arms" means "carry arms" and will always shy away from discussing this document and pretend that it doesn't exist?