Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[P@triot]

If you want to keep it simple, just remember Jefferson was the good guy and Madison the bad guy.
The Bill of Rights was insisted upon by Jefferson and Madison gave in only because there would be no country otherwise.

If you want to keep simple....stop attempting to give history lessons. You are literally 100% wrong.

James Madison was Thomas Jefferson’s protégé and they completely saw eye-to-eye on the constitution (which is to say that they were completely against it as it expanded the authority of the federal government).

It as the dirt-bag Alexander Hamilton who wanted the federal government expanded and who fought against the Bill of Rights (though I will say he had good reasons and his concerns about it sadly came to fruition).

 

[Rigby5]

The Bill of Rights was enacted by liberals and voted on by liberals,

Sweetie...I’ve eaten you alive on this issue already. Those men were the ultimate small-government conservatives. They hate everything you Dumbocrats stand for. You can’t twist this one with your propaganda, no matter how hard you try.

View attachment 272485

But the reality is that Jefferson considered himself to be an ultra liberal, and being for keeping government small is to prevent it from becoming abusive.
Abusive government is fascist, which is extremely right wing.
Leftists are liberal and anti big government.
In fact, socialists prefer local and state communal enterprise and not federal, where corruption is too easy.

{...
The commotions that have taken place in America, as far as they are yet known to me, offer nothing threatening. They are a proof that the people have liberty enough, and I could not wish them less than they have. If the happiness of the mass of the people can be secured at the expense of a little tempest now and then, or even of a little blood, it will be a precious purchase. 'Malo libertatem periculosam quam quietem servitutem.' Let common sense and common honesty have fair play, and they will soon set things to rights.

Thomas Jefferson
...}

{...
Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties under the rule of law with an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to economic liberalism, it developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanisation and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States.[1][2][3]Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke,[4] Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Robert Malthus and David Ricardo. It drew on the classical economic ideas espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of The Wealth of Nations and on a belief in natural law,[5] utilitarianism[6] and progress.[7] The term classical liberalism has often been applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from social liberalism.[8]
...}
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia

 

[Rigby5]

If you want to keep it simple, just remember Jefferson was the good guy and Madison the bad guy.
The Bill of Rights was insisted upon by Jefferson and Madison gave in only because there would be no country otherwise.

If you want to keep simple....stop attempting to give history lessons. You are literally 100% wrong.

James Madison was Thomas Jefferson’s protégé and they completely saw eye-to-eye on the constitution (which is to say that they were completely against it as it expanded the authority of the federal government).

It as the dirt-bag Alexander Hamilton who wanted the federal government expanded and who fought against the Bill of Rights (though I will say he had good reasons and his concerns about it sadly came to fruition).

You are right that Hamilton was the big federalist, whom Jefferson opposed.

But Madison switched sides, and was a federalist originally.

{...
Historic

• federalist: statesmen and public figures supporting the proposed Constitution of the United States between 1787 and 1789. The most prominent advocates were James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. They published The Federalist Papers, which delineated the tenets of the early federalist movement to promote and adopt the proposed Constitution.
• Federalist: statesmen and public figures supporting the administrations of presidents George Washington (1789–1797) and John Adams (1797–1801). Especially in the later years they were also called the Federalist Party, founded by Alexander Hamilton. During the 1790s and early 1800s, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized the Democratic-Republican Party and opposed the Federalists over issues of how broadly or narrowly to apply the provisions of the new Constitution.

...}
Federalist - Wikipedia

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It wasn't God that gave us the Bill of Rights it was the liberals of their time.

Really? Who gave us those incredible conservative men that gave us the Bill of Rights? Who put the ideas for a Bill of Rights in their mind?

The Bill of Rights is not based on moral or ethics, but on the rational conclusion that a large and distant government is likely to become corrupt. The Bill of Rights is based on logic, reason, and self interests.
But I agree that is also based on conservative principles.

Sure wished you would stop with this lame Bill or Rights. It stole the first 7 articles from the Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights was written in 1791 while the Constitution was written in 1789. The Bill of Rights was never ratified while the Constitution was. In fact, it was ratified as late as 1959 when Hawaii became a state. The Bill of rights is worth exactly the cost of the parchment and ink it was printed on.

I think you misunderstand.
When the Constitution was written is not relevant, and only when it was ratified is relevant.
And no states were willing to ratify the Constitution as it was.
The Bill of Rights were corrections insisted upon by liberals, progressives, and leftists, before they would join the Union and ratify the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights were written by the wealthy, business oriented federalist, but only because the average people in the states were worried that the federalist would make the country into a fascist state for the wealthy.
The Bill of Rights are concessions to prevent federal corruption and control by the wealthy.

The Constitution was never ratified without the Bill of Rights, and the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.
All the amendments are integral parts of the Constitution.

{...
The United States Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over the ratification of the Constitution, and written to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the U.S. Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those found in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the Magna Carta (1215).[1]

Due largely to the efforts of Representative James Madison, who studied the deficiencies of the constitution pointed out by anti-federalists and then crafted a series of corrective proposals, Congress approved twelve articles of amendment on September 25, 1789, and submitted them to the states for ratification. Contrary to Madison's proposal that the proposed amendments be incorporated into the main body of the Constitution (at the relevant articles and sections of the document), they were proposed as supplemental additions (codicils) to it.[2] Articles Three through Twelve were ratified as additions to the Constitution on December 15, 1791, and became Amendments One through Ten of the Constitution. Article Two became part of the Constitution on May 5, 1992, as the Twenty-seventh Amendment. Article One is still pending before the states.
...}
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

If you want to keep it simple, just remember Jefferson was the good guy and Madison the bad guy.
The Bill of Rights was insisted upon by Jefferson and Madison gave in only because there would be no country otherwise.

It all depends on your point of view on whom was the good guy and who was the bad guy. I still think the 1791 bill or rights was just another way to keep one side busy while the other side got things done. This is why the Bill of rights was never Ratified but the Constitution was. Back in those days, they understood that the Constitution was a living document. Something we have forgotten in today's world.

 

[Rigby5]

It wasn't God that gave us the Bill of Rights it was the liberals of their time.

Really? Who gave us those incredible conservative men that gave us the Bill of Rights? Who put the ideas for a Bill of Rights in their mind?

The Bill of Rights is not based on moral or ethics, but on the rational conclusion that a large and distant government is likely to become corrupt. The Bill of Rights is based on logic, reason, and self interests.
But I agree that is also based on conservative principles.

Sure wished you would stop with this lame Bill or Rights. It stole the first 7 articles from the Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights was written in 1791 while the Constitution was written in 1789. The Bill of Rights was never ratified while the Constitution was. In fact, it was ratified as late as 1959 when Hawaii became a state. The Bill of rights is worth exactly the cost of the parchment and ink it was printed on.

I think you misunderstand.
When the Constitution was written is not relevant, and only when it was ratified is relevant.
And no states were willing to ratify the Constitution as it was.
The Bill of Rights were corrections insisted upon by liberals, progressives, and leftists, before they would join the Union and ratify the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights were written by the wealthy, business oriented federalist, but only because the average people in the states were worried that the federalist would make the country into a fascist state for the wealthy.
The Bill of Rights are concessions to prevent federal corruption and control by the wealthy.

The Constitution was never ratified without the Bill of Rights, and the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.
All the amendments are integral parts of the Constitution.

{...
The United States Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over the ratification of the Constitution, and written to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the U.S. Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those found in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the Magna Carta (1215).[1]

Due largely to the efforts of Representative James Madison, who studied the deficiencies of the constitution pointed out by anti-federalists and then crafted a series of corrective proposals, Congress approved twelve articles of amendment on September 25, 1789, and submitted them to the states for ratification. Contrary to Madison's proposal that the proposed amendments be incorporated into the main body of the Constitution (at the relevant articles and sections of the document), they were proposed as supplemental additions (codicils) to it.[2] Articles Three through Twelve were ratified as additions to the Constitution on December 15, 1791, and became Amendments One through Ten of the Constitution. Article Two became part of the Constitution on May 5, 1992, as the Twenty-seventh Amendment. Article One is still pending before the states.
...}
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

If you want to keep it simple, just remember Jefferson was the good guy and Madison the bad guy.
The Bill of Rights was insisted upon by Jefferson and Madison gave in only because there would be no country otherwise.

It all depends on your point of view on whom was the good guy and who was the bad guy. I still think the 1791 bill or rights was just another way to keep one side busy while the other side got things done. This is why the Bill of rights was never Ratified but the Constitution was. Back in those days, they understood that the Constitution was a living document. Something we have forgotten in today's world.

You still have this wrong.
Not a single state was willing to ratify the Constitution as it was written.
It was only ratified AFTER the Bill of Rights was included into it as as amendments.
So it is wrong to say the Constitution was ratified without the Bill of Rights.
No one was willing to do that.
Essentially is was the Bill of Rights that finally caused states to ratify.

 

[P@triot]

Back in those days, they understood that the Constitution was a living document. Something we have forgotten in today's world.

Back in those days, the founders understood that laws could not be adhered to if they were “living” and that the U.S. Constitution was written in stone until such time as it is legally and properly amended. Something Dumbocrats are too dumb to understand today.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't mind the conservative approach to the Constitution, or the living document approach, as long as every one realizes it is not Congress that gets to define what law is. The basis for law is the Constitution, and it is the state legislatures that have to approve any amendment to the Constitution.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Really? Who gave us those incredible conservative men that gave us the Bill of Rights? Who put the ideas for a Bill of Rights in their mind?

The Bill of Rights is not based on moral or ethics, but on the rational conclusion that a large and distant government is likely to become corrupt. The Bill of Rights is based on logic, reason, and self interests.
But I agree that is also based on conservative principles.

Sure wished you would stop with this lame Bill or Rights. It stole the first 7 articles from the Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights was written in 1791 while the Constitution was written in 1789. The Bill of Rights was never ratified while the Constitution was. In fact, it was ratified as late as 1959 when Hawaii became a state. The Bill of rights is worth exactly the cost of the parchment and ink it was printed on.

I think you misunderstand.
When the Constitution was written is not relevant, and only when it was ratified is relevant.
And no states were willing to ratify the Constitution as it was.
The Bill of Rights were corrections insisted upon by liberals, progressives, and leftists, before they would join the Union and ratify the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights were written by the wealthy, business oriented federalist, but only because the average people in the states were worried that the federalist would make the country into a fascist state for the wealthy.
The Bill of Rights are concessions to prevent federal corruption and control by the wealthy.

The Constitution was never ratified without the Bill of Rights, and the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.
All the amendments are integral parts of the Constitution.

{...
The United States Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over the ratification of the Constitution, and written to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the U.S. Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those found in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the Magna Carta (1215).[1]

Due largely to the efforts of Representative James Madison, who studied the deficiencies of the constitution pointed out by anti-federalists and then crafted a series of corrective proposals, Congress approved twelve articles of amendment on September 25, 1789, and submitted them to the states for ratification. Contrary to Madison's proposal that the proposed amendments be incorporated into the main body of the Constitution (at the relevant articles and sections of the document), they were proposed as supplemental additions (codicils) to it.[2] Articles Three through Twelve were ratified as additions to the Constitution on December 15, 1791, and became Amendments One through Ten of the Constitution. Article Two became part of the Constitution on May 5, 1992, as the Twenty-seventh Amendment. Article One is still pending before the states.
...}
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

If you want to keep it simple, just remember Jefferson was the good guy and Madison the bad guy.
The Bill of Rights was insisted upon by Jefferson and Madison gave in only because there would be no country otherwise.

It all depends on your point of view on whom was the good guy and who was the bad guy. I still think the 1791 bill or rights was just another way to keep one side busy while the other side got things done. This is why the Bill of rights was never Ratified but the Constitution was. Back in those days, they understood that the Constitution was a living document. Something we have forgotten in today's world.

You still have this wrong.
Not a single state was willing to ratify the Constitution as it was written.
It was only ratified AFTER the Bill of Rights was included into it as as amendments.
So it is wrong to say the Constitution was ratified without the Bill of Rights.
No one was willing to do that.
Essentially is was the Bill of Rights that finally caused states to ratify.

In 1788 and 89, 11 states ratified the Constitution as written. The common comment was "Ratify now, amend later". Actually, the last state ratified it in 1790 after some gentlemens agreements on amending some of it that came to pass in 1790. This was one full year before the Bill of Rights was accepted. The Bill of rights mirrored word for word the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. While the Constitution has function, the only function of the Bill of rights was a feel good for a select few. You keep trying to give the American Bill of Rights the same weight as the English Bill of Rights or the Magna Carta which are free standing documents. The American Bill of Rights is just echoing what was already amended and ratified in the US Constitution as of 1790. But if it makes you feel good, it made a handful of others feel good in 1791 as well.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I don't mind the conservative approach to the Constitution, or the living document approach, as long as every one realizes it is not Congress that gets to define what law is. The basis for law is the Constitution, and it is the state legislatures that have to approve any amendment to the Constitution.

I don't foresee any changes to the Constitution although some minor changes are needed to keep it current. As it stands right now, if you tried to get all 50 states to agree on how to make a baloney and cheese sandwich, they would come to blows over mustard or mayo.

 

[P@triot]

I don't foresee any changes to the Constitution although some minor changes are needed to keep it current. As it stands right now, if you tried to get all 50 states to agree on how to make a baloney and cheese sandwich, they would come to blows over mustard or mayo.

Good! That means the republic is working. Just because you think the U.S. Constitution needs "some minor changes" to "keep it current" doesn't mean shit if the American people don't agree with you.

And based on the bat-shit crazy bullshit you post, it's painfully obvious that the American people do not agree with you. At all.

 

[hunarcy]

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

Except that it doesn't say "well regulated militia" junior. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people junior.

---
"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."
.

"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."

 

[Rigby5]

The Bill of Rights is not based on moral or ethics, but on the rational conclusion that a large and distant government is likely to become corrupt. The Bill of Rights is based on logic, reason, and self interests.
But I agree that is also based on conservative principles.

Sure wished you would stop with this lame Bill or Rights. It stole the first 7 articles from the Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights was written in 1791 while the Constitution was written in 1789. The Bill of Rights was never ratified while the Constitution was. In fact, it was ratified as late as 1959 when Hawaii became a state. The Bill of rights is worth exactly the cost of the parchment and ink it was printed on.

I think you misunderstand.
When the Constitution was written is not relevant, and only when it was ratified is relevant.
And no states were willing to ratify the Constitution as it was.
The Bill of Rights were corrections insisted upon by liberals, progressives, and leftists, before they would join the Union and ratify the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights were written by the wealthy, business oriented federalist, but only because the average people in the states were worried that the federalist would make the country into a fascist state for the wealthy.
The Bill of Rights are concessions to prevent federal corruption and control by the wealthy.

The Constitution was never ratified without the Bill of Rights, and the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.
All the amendments are integral parts of the Constitution.

{...
The United States Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over the ratification of the Constitution, and written to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the U.S. Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those found in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the Magna Carta (1215).[1]

Due largely to the efforts of Representative James Madison, who studied the deficiencies of the constitution pointed out by anti-federalists and then crafted a series of corrective proposals, Congress approved twelve articles of amendment on September 25, 1789, and submitted them to the states for ratification. Contrary to Madison's proposal that the proposed amendments be incorporated into the main body of the Constitution (at the relevant articles and sections of the document), they were proposed as supplemental additions (codicils) to it.[2] Articles Three through Twelve were ratified as additions to the Constitution on December 15, 1791, and became Amendments One through Ten of the Constitution. Article Two became part of the Constitution on May 5, 1992, as the Twenty-seventh Amendment. Article One is still pending before the states.
...}
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

If you want to keep it simple, just remember Jefferson was the good guy and Madison the bad guy.
The Bill of Rights was insisted upon by Jefferson and Madison gave in only because there would be no country otherwise.

It all depends on your point of view on whom was the good guy and who was the bad guy. I still think the 1791 bill or rights was just another way to keep one side busy while the other side got things done. This is why the Bill of rights was never Ratified but the Constitution was. Back in those days, they understood that the Constitution was a living document. Something we have forgotten in today's world.

You still have this wrong.
Not a single state was willing to ratify the Constitution as it was written.
It was only ratified AFTER the Bill of Rights was included into it as as amendments.
So it is wrong to say the Constitution was ratified without the Bill of Rights.
No one was willing to do that.
Essentially is was the Bill of Rights that finally caused states to ratify.

In 1788 and 89, 11 states ratified the Constitution as written. The common comment was "Ratify now, amend later". Actually, the last state ratified it in 1790 after some gentlemens agreements on amending some of it that came to pass in 1790. This was one full year before the Bill of Rights was accepted. The Bill of rights mirrored word for word the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. While the Constitution has function, the only function of the Bill of rights was a feel good for a select few. You keep trying to give the American Bill of Rights the same weight as the English Bill of Rights or the Magna Carta which are free standing documents. The American Bill of Rights is just echoing what was already amended and ratified in the US Constitution as of 1790. But if it makes you feel good, it made a handful of others feel good in 1791 as well.

That is not what I read.
I read that while some states did ratify the Constitution as early as February of 1888, the Bill of Rights had been appended as Amendments in September of 1889.
And many states, if not most, would never have agreed to join the federal government under the Constitution, without the Bill of Rights.

{...
By 1786, defects in the post-Revolutionary War Articles of Confederation were apparent, such as the lack of central authority over foreign and domestic commerce. Congress endorsed a plan to draft a new constitution, and on May 25, 1787, the Constitutional Convention convened at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. On September 17, 1787, after three months of debate moderated by convention president George Washington, the new U.S. constitution, which created a strong federal government with an intricate system of checks and balances, was signed by 38 of the 41 delegates present at the conclusion of the convention. As dictated by Article VII, the document would not become binding until it was ratified by nine of the 13 states.

Beginning on December 7, five states—Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut—ratified it in quick succession. However, other states, especially Massachusetts, opposed the document, as it failed to reserve undelegated powers to the states and lacked constitutional protection of basic political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. In February 1788, a compromise was reached under which Massachusetts and other states would agree to ratify the document with the assurance that amendments would be immediately proposed. The Constitution was thus narrowly ratified in Massachusetts, followed by Maryland and South Carolina. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document, and it was subsequently agreed that government under the U.S. Constitution would begin on March 4, 1789. In June, Virginia ratified the Constitution, followed by New York in July.

North Carolina became the 12th state to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Rhode Island, which opposed federal control of currency and was critical of compromise on the issue of slavery, resisted ratifying the Constitution until the U.S. government threatened to sever commercial relations with the state. On May 29, 1790, Rhode Island voted by two votes to ratify the document, and the last of the original 13 colonies joined the United States. Today the U.S. Constitution is the oldest written constitution in operation in the world.
...}
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-constitution-ratified

Contrary to your belief the Bill of Rights is superfluous, my belief is the opposite, that it should have gone further, and also abolished slavery for more protection of individual rights.
While I can see how more federal power was helpful in the case of abusive southern states, that does not make up for the fact the federal government is by far much more abusive.
For example, the federal War on Drugs imprisoning millions, and the invasion of Iraq murdering half a million innocents.
In general, states are better at reflecting the values and rights of individuals.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't mind the conservative approach to the Constitution, or the living document approach, as long as every one realizes it is not Congress that gets to define what law is. The basis for law is the Constitution, and it is the state legislatures that have to approve any amendment to the Constitution.

I don't foresee any changes to the Constitution although some minor changes are needed to keep it current. As it stands right now, if you tried to get all 50 states to agree on how to make a baloney and cheese sandwich, they would come to blows over mustard or mayo.

Yes, but that may be a good thing, in that we don't want quick or easy changes to the Constitution.
But we could use some better adherence to it, such as all federal drug, gun, or immigration laws to be struck down as being without constitutional authorization.

 

[Rigby5]

I don't foresee any changes to the Constitution although some minor changes are needed to keep it current. As it stands right now, if you tried to get all 50 states to agree on how to make a baloney and cheese sandwich, they would come to blows over mustard or mayo.

Good! That means the republic is working. Just because you think the U.S. Constitution needs "some minor changes" to "keep it current" doesn't mean shit if the American people don't agree with you.

And based on the bat-shit crazy bullshit you post, it's painfully obvious that the American people do not agree with you. At all.

Problem is that if not now, eventually the majority will agree with him, on things like gun control.
So it makes more sense to stick with logic as to what things like federal gun control laws would eventually do.
The argument against federal gun control is the basis for what a democratic republic actually is and how it has to work, not just mob rule or emotional appeal.

 

[Rigby5]

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

Except that it doesn't say "well regulated militia" junior. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people junior.

---
"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."
.

"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."

To clarify more, the phrase "well regulated" meant "practiced", for a citizen soldier is useless if he had no previous experience with weapons of war.
You can understand that meaning better when you look at things like the commerce clause, which gives the feds authority to regulate interstate commerce. That clearly does NOT mean to restrict interstate commerce, but to facilitate it and prevent restriction by any one state against another. Regulate means to keep regular and moving, such as regular digestion or a well regulated clock.
To keep arms means to own, but that is useless if one can not carry them to practice fields, which is bearing arms.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

Except that it doesn't say "well regulated militia" junior. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people junior.

---
"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."
.

"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."

They got it wrong. It's a misspelling from 1789. It was supposed to read so that Bear Hunting was more interesting.

the right of the people to keep and arm bears shall not be infringed.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I don't foresee any changes to the Constitution although some minor changes are needed to keep it current. As it stands right now, if you tried to get all 50 states to agree on how to make a baloney and cheese sandwich, they would come to blows over mustard or mayo.

Good! That means the republic is working. Just because you think the U.S. Constitution needs "some minor changes" to "keep it current" doesn't mean shit if the American people don't agree with you.

And based on the bat-shit crazy bullshit you post, it's painfully obvious that the American people do not agree with you. At all.

Problem is that if not now, eventually the majority will agree with him, on things like gun control.
So it makes more sense to stick with logic as to what things like federal gun control laws would eventually do.
The argument against federal gun control is the basis for what a democratic republic actually is and how it has to work, not just mob rule or emotional appeal.

The problem with the 2nd amendment is that it was written during a time when man had was equal to his weapons. All sides could be equally armed because most could afford the weapons of the time in the Americas just to survive even without a Tyrant. It was a different time. If we look at the English Bill of Rights, it was written similar (hence the word arms instead of guns or firearms) in the 1600s when only the kings could afford the weapons of war. And then we go back to the Magna Carta in the 1200s which also covers the same thing and only kings could afford weapons of war. The 2nd amendment was nothing new even when it was penned. But for the first time, the common person could afford and had to have the weapons that could be used in war just to live day to day. The weapons finally equaled man.

Then about 1851, things started to change. There was an unrest in America. War was coming. Firearms inventors went into high gear. By the time Ft. Sumpter happened there was some real nasty weapons off the drawing boards and into testing. And tactics began to change in the use of Artillery Barrages. In 1871, the first gun controls went into affect in western cities and towns. By the time the Spanish American War came about, the weapons of war had outpaced mans humanity to man by a huge manner. By the time WWI came about for the US, the first half of the 2nd amendment was essentially worthless. And by 1871 and 1934, the last half was drastically changed. The weapons outgrew mans humanity to man.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Sure wished you would stop with this lame Bill or Rights. It stole the first 7 articles from the Constitution of the United States. The Bill of Rights was written in 1791 while the Constitution was written in 1789. The Bill of Rights was never ratified while the Constitution was. In fact, it was ratified as late as 1959 when Hawaii became a state. The Bill of rights is worth exactly the cost of the parchment and ink it was printed on.

I think you misunderstand.
When the Constitution was written is not relevant, and only when it was ratified is relevant.
And no states were willing to ratify the Constitution as it was.
The Bill of Rights were corrections insisted upon by liberals, progressives, and leftists, before they would join the Union and ratify the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights were written by the wealthy, business oriented federalist, but only because the average people in the states were worried that the federalist would make the country into a fascist state for the wealthy.
The Bill of Rights are concessions to prevent federal corruption and control by the wealthy.

The Constitution was never ratified without the Bill of Rights, and the Bill of Rights is part of the Constitution.
All the amendments are integral parts of the Constitution.

{...
The United States Bill of Rights comprises the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed following the often bitter 1787–88 debate over the ratification of the Constitution, and written to address the objections raised by Anti-Federalists, the Bill of Rights amendments add to the Constitution specific guarantees of personal freedoms and rights, clear limitations on the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and explicit declarations that all powers not specifically granted to the U.S. Congress by the Constitution are reserved for the states or the people. The concepts codified in these amendments are built upon those found in earlier documents, especially the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776), as well as the English Bill of Rights (1689) and the Magna Carta (1215).[1]

Due largely to the efforts of Representative James Madison, who studied the deficiencies of the constitution pointed out by anti-federalists and then crafted a series of corrective proposals, Congress approved twelve articles of amendment on September 25, 1789, and submitted them to the states for ratification. Contrary to Madison's proposal that the proposed amendments be incorporated into the main body of the Constitution (at the relevant articles and sections of the document), they were proposed as supplemental additions (codicils) to it.[2] Articles Three through Twelve were ratified as additions to the Constitution on December 15, 1791, and became Amendments One through Ten of the Constitution. Article Two became part of the Constitution on May 5, 1992, as the Twenty-seventh Amendment. Article One is still pending before the states.
...}
United States Bill of Rights - Wikipedia

If you want to keep it simple, just remember Jefferson was the good guy and Madison the bad guy.
The Bill of Rights was insisted upon by Jefferson and Madison gave in only because there would be no country otherwise.

It all depends on your point of view on whom was the good guy and who was the bad guy. I still think the 1791 bill or rights was just another way to keep one side busy while the other side got things done. This is why the Bill of rights was never Ratified but the Constitution was. Back in those days, they understood that the Constitution was a living document. Something we have forgotten in today's world.

You still have this wrong.
Not a single state was willing to ratify the Constitution as it was written.
It was only ratified AFTER the Bill of Rights was included into it as as amendments.
So it is wrong to say the Constitution was ratified without the Bill of Rights.
No one was willing to do that.
Essentially is was the Bill of Rights that finally caused states to ratify.

In 1788 and 89, 11 states ratified the Constitution as written. The common comment was "Ratify now, amend later". Actually, the last state ratified it in 1790 after some gentlemens agreements on amending some of it that came to pass in 1790. This was one full year before the Bill of Rights was accepted. The Bill of rights mirrored word for word the first 10 amendments of the Constitution of the United States. While the Constitution has function, the only function of the Bill of rights was a feel good for a select few. You keep trying to give the American Bill of Rights the same weight as the English Bill of Rights or the Magna Carta which are free standing documents. The American Bill of Rights is just echoing what was already amended and ratified in the US Constitution as of 1790. But if it makes you feel good, it made a handful of others feel good in 1791 as well.

That is not what I read.
I read that while some states did ratify the Constitution as early as February of 1888, the Bill of Rights had been appended as Amendments in September of 1889.
And many states, if not most, would never have agreed to join the federal government under the Constitution, without the Bill of Rights.

{...
By 1786, defects in the post-Revolutionary War Articles of Confederation were apparent, such as the lack of central authority over foreign and domestic commerce. Congress endorsed a plan to draft a new constitution, and on May 25, 1787, the Constitutional Convention convened at Independence Hall in Philadelphia. On September 17, 1787, after three months of debate moderated by convention president George Washington, the new U.S. constitution, which created a strong federal government with an intricate system of checks and balances, was signed by 38 of the 41 delegates present at the conclusion of the convention. As dictated by Article VII, the document would not become binding until it was ratified by nine of the 13 states.

Beginning on December 7, five states—Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut—ratified it in quick succession. However, other states, especially Massachusetts, opposed the document, as it failed to reserve undelegated powers to the states and lacked constitutional protection of basic political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. In February 1788, a compromise was reached under which Massachusetts and other states would agree to ratify the document with the assurance that amendments would be immediately proposed. The Constitution was thus narrowly ratified in Massachusetts, followed by Maryland and South Carolina. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document, and it was subsequently agreed that government under the U.S. Constitution would begin on March 4, 1789. In June, Virginia ratified the Constitution, followed by New York in July.

North Carolina became the 12th state to ratify the U.S. Constitution. Rhode Island, which opposed federal control of currency and was critical of compromise on the issue of slavery, resisted ratifying the Constitution until the U.S. government threatened to sever commercial relations with the state. On May 29, 1790, Rhode Island voted by two votes to ratify the document, and the last of the original 13 colonies joined the United States. Today the U.S. Constitution is the oldest written constitution in operation in the world.
...}
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/u-s-constitution-ratified

Contrary to your belief the Bill of Rights is superfluous, my belief is the opposite, that it should have gone further, and also abolished slavery for more protection of individual rights.
While I can see how more federal power was helpful in the case of abusive southern states, that does not make up for the fact the federal government is by far much more abusive.
For example, the federal War on Drugs imprisoning millions, and the invasion of Iraq murdering half a million innocents.
In general, states are better at reflecting the values and rights of individuals.

You are essentially correct. But the bill or rights, being just a carbon copy of the first 10 amendments amended and ratified Constitution of 1790 was done to make the "Other" side feel good. It actually did nothing otherwise. What's funny, the wording of the 2nd amendment of "Arms" comes right out of the Magna Carta when only Kings could afford weapons of war.

 

[P@triot]

What's funny, the wording of the 2nd amendment of "Arms" comes right out of the Magna Carta when only Kings could afford weapons of war.

So you admit that “arms” includes all weapons. About time.

 

[Terri4Trump]

The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment right. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.

Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded

That's a winner for sure.