“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.”
People can tear this apart a million different ways. Just read it the way it’s written. The more we try and analyze the brains of the writers, the trouble we get into.
For instance, the Framers of the Constitution wrote “All men are created equal”. If we want to look at the Framers minds during those times, they believed that Blacks were 3/5 of a human being and they had slaves. “All men” did not include Blacks. Nor did it include women, that’s why women did not have the vote. I think we need to stop trying to figure out what the Framers meant “exactly” because everyone will have a different opinion. Read and enforce the Constitution the way it was written, or change it.
I’m curious about how so many people talk about the “Framers” of the constitution. I heard that this term has been used in recent years instead of the “Founding Fathers” because it offended women’s groups to use a gender specific term such as “fathers”. Yet the fact is that all of the “Framers” were indeed men. So how does it affect the self-esteem of women to talk about the “Founding Fathers” when they were men?
Don’t perpetrate misinformation. The “3/5 of a person” was a compromise for the sake of proportional representation, struck between Northern states, which wanted not to count slaves for Congressional representation at all, and Southern states, who wanted to count slaves fully for the sake of representation in Congress, even though the slaves were not enfranchised citizens. The Constitution does not “regard” black people (or slaves) as 60 percent human.
Jefferson, a slave owner was conflicted about what he wrote and thought, and what he did. His slaves were inherited from his father and father in law. After his death his skilled slaves were freed. Others that ran away (2 I think) he never pursued.
I firmly believe that the man who wrote "All men are created equal" truly believed that. The circumstances, and political realities and difficulties of birthing a new nation, made it difficult at that time. But it didn't make the phrase any less true.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a39388c210c1b.htm
Best regards,
They were only 3/5 of human for purposes of Congressional representation. (Besides it was slaves, not blacks, free blacks, few though they were, counted as a whole person). For other purposes, the slaves were not citizens at all, just property.) This was actuallly a compromise. Understandibly the southern states wanted them counted as whole persons, so they woudl have more Congessmen. The north wanted them not counted at all, as (most) Indians were not counted. Why they didn't end up with 1/2 rather than 3/5, I don't know.
Not really. The whole 3/5ths thing is badly misunderstood by peole who use it as a catchphrase. It was simply a compromise about how power was to be distrubuted. Since the census to decide how Congressional seats would be based on total population, not just voters (adult males, and often only property owners), it was the slave states that wanted slaves counted as a whole person, which would give them more seats. It was the northern states that didn't want slaves counted at all, which would of course give them more power. The 3/5 number was simply a practical compromise and had nothing to do with whether they were considered human beings. If it did, it would have been the southern states that would have not wanted them counted, and the northern states that did. Nor did the fact that they couldn't vote make them considered less "human beings". As noted, neither women or children, and often non-owners of property could vote, and nobody suggested they were not human beings.
You didn't get the memo? Reading laws as they were written has gone fully and completely out of style. Laws aren't even read anymore. They're just voted and signed. The judges are likely to read them, but usually for the purpose of twisting their meaning for a particular agenda.
The 'people' referred to in the 2nd included women and free blacks.
I think we need to stop trying to figure out what the Framers meant 'exactly' because everyone will have a different opinion.
The original intent is clear. Our rights to life, liberty, or property were not to be infringed.
Read and enforce the Constitution the way it was written, or change it.
We can't 'change' our protection of individual inalienable rights. -- Our Constitution is not amendable/changeable in order to deny freedoms; - it is there to defend them.