Notable Quote – James Madison

by Skip

Here is Madison’s first draft of the Second Amendment:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, a well-armed and well-regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Hmm, perhaps the Founders should have used this one knowing that today’s Progressives can’t properly diagram a sentence (figures, most of them can’t do math, either). Or in this case, just stop after the first clause.

(H/T: Newsbusters)

Leave a Comment

  • Bruce Currie

    The fact remains that the Heller decision, in conferring an individual right to gun ownership, overturned more than 250 years of precedent and understanding of the 2nd Amendment. Were those prior years of precedent wrong in their understanding? To pretend that the Constitution is not subject to interpretation, and to differences of understanding, is nonsense. The Heller decision is just one example of the “evolution” in understanding of what the document means.

    • granitegrok

      But all of the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are Individual RIghts put there to constrain Government. And when precedent / decisions are wrong, they are wrong and I am glad to see that the Court returned to the original meaning of the original words therein; for far too long, the Judiciary has worshipped its own work (its decisions) instead of seeking that which was right (Right?).

      No, not an “evolution” as the Constitution is not a “living document” to be interpreted based on the event of the current day. Nay, it is the other way around – the events of the day should be interpreted against the original meaning of the text and intentions of the Founders when the Constitution was written – a complete 180 from what you “feel” it should be. Scalia and Thomas (and to a lesser degree Alito) have been ruling thusly. Glad to see that Gorshuch will join in bringing the Court back to its roots.

      • mer

        Bruce needs to fill out a 4773 and go through a NICs check before he’s allowed to voice anything in public or practice his religion.
        If he wants to voice his political opinions in Ma, he’s going to need to be fingerprinted and run through another set of background checks and take classes in “One doesn’t simply yell Fire in a crowded movie theater”

        Oh, he doesn’t need a permit because the 1A is an individual right? Well golly gee wiz; it’s right above 2A and the other 8. If one is an individual right, they are all individual rights.

        Or “because of precedent”, Bruce agrees with Dred Scott?

  • mrwonderful

    “religiously scrupulous”???

    • Ed Naile

      As in a person’s scruples, beliefs, morality, religion.
      Notice how it says a “person” shall be “compelled” to bear arms?
      That refers to any individual – as in individual right – which the Second Amendment is and always has been.
      And forcing an individual to pay for another person’s freedom of speech is called “compelled speech.”
      All these reoccurring words mean things. Individuals who wrote the Constitution could be put to death for creating a document that admitted individuals have basic rights no government or weasel lawyer on the Supreme Court could take away.
      That is why progressives like Bruce hate the words in the Constitution so much and try and twist their meanings.
      It is so much harder to create a Socialist Workers Paradise when the Constitution is read in plain English.
      Oh, but I must have changed the subject of this blog, as Bruce always says when caught making no sense at all.

  • Ed Naile

    The Delaware State Supreme Court’s recent ruling:
    “The Superior Court earlier upheld the ban based on the “important governmental objective of keeping the public safe from the potential harm of firearms in state parks and forests,” The Court did not believe the regulations violated any constitutional rights.
    “But that conclusion is based on the questionable notion — unsupported by reference to any evidence – that outlawing possession of firearms in an area makes law-abiding citizens safer because criminals will, for some reason, obey the regulations,” the Supreme Court majority found.”
    Seems easy to understand.

Previous post:

Next post: