Posted on 03/29/2018 9:14:54 AM PDT by rktman
The Bill of Rights Institute provides an excellent brief background on the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Simply put and stated eloquently, "[t]he Bill of Rights is a list of limits on government power." Unfortunately, not only are there those in favor of surrendering their Second Amendment right, but these same people believe that government forces are incapable of oppression, subversion, coercion, or any number of other forms of tyranny. My advice to this particular group of naïve, nattering nabobs? Pick up any American history book and revisit why America's Founding Fathers were familiar with government oppression – they lived it, and many gave their lives fighting it. As history has shown time and time again, tyrants conquer the populace by instilling fear. They rely on killing or sinister threats of harm and injury to control the masses. Heinous killing sprees and wretched oppression of the citizenry are the result of a people unable to defend themselves.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
BFLR
What we know now as the Second Amendment was actually the fourth amendment proposed during the initial conventions. The very first amendment, known as “Article the First,” remains unratified and deals with apportionment of representatives to the House. The “original” second amendment was later ratified and became the 27th amendment.
That doesn’t diminish the value or necessity of the current Second Amendment. If anything it lends increased value to it considering the first two were not initially ratified.
I used to have a repro of the first draft where the 2nd appeared as the 4th. Guess it got lost in the move west.
Are we supposed to know what this means???
Bump FoR Later.
Why isn’t the ACLU listed as a subversive organization seeking to overthrow the government?
I was sure it meant Big Fat Liar Rktman!
lol
Bring it on, communist maggots.
You have no idea, when the shit starts flyin’, how outnumbered you truly are.
Both the Federal Convention and James Madison at the VA Ratification Debates opposed a Bill of Rights for precisely the reason we see today.
First, We the People did not grant the power to confiscate arms, so mention them?
Second, JM feared that if rights are itemized, they would be regarded in time (despite the 9th) as our only rights.
Without a BOR, early federal courts would have had to resort strictly to enumerated powers and to the Declaration of Independence, meaning Natural Rights and societal rights.
Simple. Reverse it and address it to the:
“Dear liberals and anti constitutionalists........”
Besides isn’t that too long for twitter?
And you’ll be stopped dead in your tracks. Literally.
James Madison is perhaps the one Founder, more than any other for the fact that the Second Amendment was even included in The Bill Of Rights. Not that the other Founders were against owning arms, they felt is was a given , that it didn’t need to be included in the document. Madison made sure it was. It’s the reason why the NRA has an organization called “The Madison Club’’. You might want to check it out.
Hey, the liberals are right, there are more than
two genders...I’m an Ammosexual and proud of it.
I’m a sensitive creative artist, who shoots and
rarely misses. They may take my arms, but they
will be smoking hot and empty with fired cartridges
deep around the berm.
Molon Labe MF’s!
Why any amendment?
I believe the best way to understand the first ten amendments to the Constitution is by reading the Preamble to the Bill of Rights.
Reading it will be of little consequence if you do not first acknowledge that the Bill of Rights did not grant you rights. The Bill of Rights protected rights you have just because you're a human from interference by the government.
The Preamble to the Bill of Rights
Congress of the United States
begun and held at the City of New York, on Wednesday the fourth of March, one thousand seven hundred and eighty-nine.
"The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution expressed a desire in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.