The Second Amendment strikes back!

WorldNetDaily ^ | 15 May 2002 | Larry Elder

[Teacher317]

And for those who are wondering why the are Twelve Articles, but they only became the first Ten Amendments (The Bill of Rights), here are the first two articles, and their destinies:

Article the first [Not Ratified]

After the first enumeration required by the first Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall be not less than one hundred Representatives, nor less than one Representative for every forty thousand persons, until the number of Representatives shall amount to two hundred; after which the proportion shall be so regulated by Congress, that there shall not be less than two hundred Representatives, nor more than one Representative for every fifty thousand persons.

Article the second [Amendment XXVII - Ratified 1992]

No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened.

[Ancesthntr]

Whoops, Mr. Elder. The Second Amendment doesn't confer anything. It states what the Constitutional Government cannot do, namely infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Let's not muddy the water anymore than it already is.

People do, indeed, play fast and loose with words. There is a general misconception that the Bill of Rights confer various rights upon the people (i.e. individuals) of this nation - not so, as the Bill of Rights is nothing more or less than a set of restrictions (beyond that specified in the main body of the Constitution) on governmental power. Those who use such language are playing into the hands of those who view the government as the master, rather than the servant of, the people.

On another note, any fair analysis of the Constitution and the amendments will demonstrate beyond any doubt that people have rights, and governmental entities have powers. Inasmuch as the 2nd Amendment refers to the "right" to keep and bear arms, it CANNOT refer to the states' "right" to keep armed militias. Besides, how do the antigunners square their reading of the 2nd Amendment with the nearly identical language in many state constitutions of the era? For the antis to argue that the state constitutions are consistent with the federal one, the state constitutions would have to have had the intention of preserving the right of their own militias to keep and bear arms against the states themselves! This is an obvious absurdity, which I hope that the Supreme Court will someday address in a logical manner.

[Dan Cooper]

From Guncite

State Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Provisions, by Date

[Don Myers]

bttt

[PatrioticAmerican]

bttt