TexasCHLforum.com

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Yes, clearly the founders could not possibly foresee that things would evolve. They had seen the evolution of weaponry from pointed sticks and rocks, to swords and bows, then crossbows, then the invention of gunpowder and the firearm. These same folks surely thought that weapons would never, ever, continue to evolve. Yet they were somehow able to foresee that a great future thinker named Al Gore would develop the internet, and a modern Ben Franklin named Zuckerberg would spur an explosion of social media. So we need to limit the 2nd Amendment to only weapons that were in existence when the constitution was written, but the 1st Amendment applies to every form of communication that exists today.

Do liberals really believe that we are this stupid? Here's an even scarier thought - maybe they are right......

bblhd672 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Yes, clearly the founders could not possibly foresee that things would evolve. They had seen the evolution of weaponry from pointed sticks and rocks, to swords and bows, then crossbows, then the invention of gunpowder and the firearm. These same folks surely thought that weapons would never, ever, continue to evolve. Yet they were somehow able to foresee that a great future thinker named Al Gore would develop the internet, and a modern Ben Franklin named Zuckerberg would spur an explosion of social media. So we need to limit the 2nd Amendment to only weapons that were in existence when the constitution was written, but the 1st Amendment applies to every form of communication that exists today.

Do liberals really believe that we are this stupid? Here's an even scarier thought - maybe they are right......

Maybe liberals are right about what?

Soccerdad1995 wrote:

bblhd672 wrote:

Soccerdad1995 wrote:Yes, clearly the founders could not possibly foresee that things would evolve. They had seen the evolution of weaponry from pointed sticks and rocks, to swords and bows, then crossbows, then the invention of gunpowder and the firearm. These same folks surely thought that weapons would never, ever, continue to evolve. Yet they were somehow able to foresee that a great future thinker named Al Gore would develop the internet, and a modern Ben Franklin named Zuckerberg would spur an explosion of social media. So we need to limit the 2nd Amendment to only weapons that were in existence when the constitution was written, but the 1st Amendment applies to every form of communication that exists today.

Do liberals really believe that we are this stupid? Here's an even scarier thought - maybe they are right......

Maybe liberals are right about what?

Right about people, in general, actually being stupid enough to believe their lies.

Pawpaw wrote:There is no need to guess what the second amendment means. Most of our founding fathers were prolific writers and they wrote a great deal about it. It doesn't take much research to learn where they were coming from and what they meant.

Do yourself a favor... Get and read a copy of The Second Amendment Primer.

Pawpaw wrote:Is this it? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 9880,d.cGc

Pawpaw wrote:There is no need to guess what the second amendment means. Most of our founding fathers were prolific writers and they wrote a great deal about it. It doesn't take much research to learn where they were coming from and what they meant.

Do yourself a favor... Get and read a copy of The Second Amendment Primer.

XinTX wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:There is no need to guess what the second amendment means. Most of our founding fathers were prolific writers and they wrote a great deal about it. It doesn't take much research to learn where they were coming from and what they meant.

Do yourself a favor... Get and read a copy of The Second Amendment Primer.

Not only were they prolific writers, the minutes of the Constitutional Convention are a matter of record. Those also shine a clear light on the original intent. You can see the arguments, counter arguments, and which one ruled the day.

longtooth wrote:My thoughts on the 3rd Amendment to the Constitution given us by our Founding Fathers: Most do not even know what this one is.
"No soldier in time of peace be quartered in any house,w/o the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner perscribed by law."
The reason this Amendment was added is that the American colonists were required under threat of force & even death to quarter, feed many of the British soldiers.
Now folks it is no stretch of any sane persons reasoning to know that under those circumstances the ladies of the house were not treated well all the time. The men of the house either had to stay home to protect them or go on to work in the field or @ their trade. Many of those redcoats entertained themselves while quartered there.
Our Founding Fathers knew the women needed protection.

Fast forward to 2013:
No one who knows me very well or has attended my CHL class has any difficulty understanding my contemp, utter disdain, & scorn for TSA.
I have been told by one woman "Dont like it but that is part of it so you endure it & go on."
I have often wondered if it was the same w/ our "Founding Mothers."
There is nothing new under the sun. The evil of today is the same evil of yesterday.
It is called Tyranical Government Oppression.

RPB wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

RPB wrote:

Purplehood wrote:I was under the impression that the Founding Fathers tried to avoid a National standing-army and hoped to rely exclusively on the Militias of the various colonies (states).

In my mind, the Militia IS the People, and vice versa.

Then that would mean the Soldiers who want to force you to quarter them are the people/property owners

I am not sure how you drew that conclusion.

The term "Soldiers" imply membership of a standing-army. Occupiers. Foreign or Domestic.

The 2 categories of persons in the two Amendments below are color coded... understand the People's mistrust of Standing Armies we had immediately surrounding the Revolution and the relation of the Third Amendment to the Second Amendment, which were written about 45 minutes apart...

Third Amendment
No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in manner to be prescribed by law.

Second Amendment
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

"being necessary" means it was recognized that a military/militia/armed "officials"/soldiers/police/defenders from Indians ... was needed as "a necessary evil" ... compromise to get it ratified ...


Town militias"NECESSARY" "a necessary evil"
Colonial era, pre-1774
The early colonists of America considered the militia an important social structure, necessary to provide defense and public safety. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%2 ... C_pre-1774" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
^ Wills, Garry (1999). A Necessary Evil, A History of American Distrust of Government Page 27. New York, NY; Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0684844893

So, your big East town folk weren't as likely to get Indian killed, so they'd have less need for a Militia, and guns ... and your frontier folk have more need for a militia, and guns to protect from both Invasion AND the Militia/standing army/police/ distrust) So we elected Rick Perry and they Elected Bloomberg ... (not much changed) but the compromise got it ratified by all

Chronology:
Militia Acts were not until 1792 and Militia Act of 1862

However the Bill of Rights, Second and Third Amendments in Articles 3 to 12, approved on September 25, 1789 and sent to the states for ratification ratified December 15, 1791

At that time, we were very suspicious of the power of a standing Federal army (Militia)
We had just gotten rid of British army controlling us, confiscating our stuff (3rd Amendment).
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... y#p1019598

I think earlier in this thread I linked to

Richard Henry Lee, in his widely read pamphlet "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican" worried that the people might be disarmed by modeling the militia . http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... et#p677651

So, Amendment 2 was written 45 minutes before Amendment Three, with the same "mindset" mental process of allowing the People/property owners/population to protect themselves and their property from a militarized government.
If a general militia/standing army is a necessary evil, (comma) the right of the People shall not be infringed ...
(Also, The People/property owners needed protection from Quartering armed Soldiers, hence, Amendment 3 was written about 45 minutes after Amendment 2, with Amendment 2 providing the ways and means to ensure Amendment 3

Amendment 3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner ...

--------------------------
Grammar and Right
Well regulated refers to the LEFT side of the comma, well regulated standing army militia.
Well regulated does not refer to the RIGHT side of the comma, the RIGHT of the Property Owners PEOPLE (which shall not be infringed

2
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.
3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law
===============

Hopefully Judges understand Grammar and the history and relationship of 2A and 3A when reading about how THE PEOPLE (Citizenry/Property Owners) relate to the army/militia/soldiers which need to be well regulated instead of the People
(Which is precisely what prompted a revolution and Boston Tea Party, over regulation by the government)
THAT is why we have 2A and 3A to protect US PEOPLE FROM GOVERNMENT over-regulation, quartering soldiers them confiscating our "stuff" etc.


My neighbor explained it well (skip to 4:40 if you want)