Quote:
Originally Posted by motordavid
Dunno all the "answer(s)"/reasons, but maybe this has something to do with it:
The Second Amendment, as passed by the House and Senate and later ratified by the States, reads:
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.
The hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights which hangs in the National Archives had slightly different
capitalization and punctuation inserted by William Lambert, the scribe who prepared it. This copy reads:
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.
GL,mD
|
I get that, but I don't think it is relevant anymore. From good ole Wikipedia;
The
Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the
United States Constitution is the part of the
United States Bill of Rights that protects the
pre-existing individual right to possess and carry weapons (i.e., "keep and bear arms") in case of confrontation.
[1] Codification of the right to keep and bear arms into the Bill of Rights was influenced by a fear that the federal government would disarm the people in order to impose rule through a standing army or select militia,[2] since history had shown taking away the people's arms and making it an offense for people to keep them was the way tyrants eliminated resistance to suppression of political opponents.[
Do we really need to worry about that anymore?
The origin of the Militia;
The concept of a universal militia originated in England.
[11][12][13] The requirement that subjects bear arms and serve military duty
[14][15][16][17] dates back to at least the 12th century when
King Henry II, in the
Assize of Arms, obligated all freemen to bear arms for public defense. At that time, it was customary for a soldier to purchase, maintain, keep, and bring his own armor and weapon for military service. This was of such importance that Crown officials gave periodic inspections to guarantee a properly armed militia.
King Henry III required every subject between the ages of fifteen and fifty (including non-land owning subjects) to own a weapon other than a knife.
The reason for such a requirement was that in the absence of a regular army and police force (which was not established until 1829), it was the duty of every man to keep watch and ward at night to capture and confront suspicious persons. Every subject had an obligation to protect the king’s peace and assist in the suppression of riots.
[18] This remained relatively unchanged until 1671, when
Parliament created a statute that drastically raised the property qualifications needed to possess firearms. In essence, this statute disarmed all but the very wealthy. In 1686,
King James II banned without exception the
Protestants' ability to possess firearms, even while Protestants constituted over 95% of the English subjects. In 1689, with the rise of
William of Orange, the
English Bill of Rights reversed this by declaring that "Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their defence suitable to their Conditions, and as allowed by Law".
I know that the Constitution/Bill of Rights were written in a way that seems to stay fresh, modern and relevant, but I do think this amendment is somewhat outdated in todays world.
