Home Gun Nation Just Discovered! James Madison’s Original Version of the Second Amendment Gun Nation Just Discovered! James Madison’s Original Version of the Second Amendment By Dan Zimmerman - January 28, 2015 41 Facebook Twitter Pinterest WhatsApp Email ◀Previous Post Next Post▶ This changes everything. ◀Previous Post Next Post▶ RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR WATCH: ‘The View’ Guest Host Sherri Shepherd Explains Why She’s a First-Time Gun Owner Win a SIG M400 Tread Rifle and Help the DC Project-Women for Gun Rights Yamane: Lots of America’s New Gun Owners Won’t Necessarily Want to Identify as ‘Gun Owners’ 41 COMMENTS Yah, I’m pretty sure that’s how it really went down. I’ll be turning in all my stuff now, ’cause I’m too old to hunt. Sad thing here is that millions actually believe this and act accordingly. Reply I’m glad Crowder is a supporter of the second amendment. He does satirical videos all the time. Reply I had a good laugh and I’ll be subbing to his Tube channel for a while accordingly. It gets tiring some days seeing the blather and b.s. out there about the 2A so some humor is sorely appreciated when it comes along. This site does a pretty good job on that score. Reply LOL! That video is a Democrats wet dream. Reply Huh. I was wrong all these years. He was probably writing this when his wife was starting her own business- Ashley Madison. Making all the guys who could protect her very happy. Reply Well don’t tell that Dan idiot. Reply Oh wait, more than one guy named Dan here… well never mind. Reply I resemble that remark. Reply Why you gotta steal my thunder?? How could I have been so wrong? (and I love those Dolly Madison cakes, particularly while hunting!) I am going out and purchasing a smelter and melting down all my gun barrels and making plows, both one blade and two blade ones, and I am preparing the stocks to burn to keep me warm through this global warming winter! Reply Be careful there bud! Before you make up those plows, be sure you don’t live in a “One blade only” per farm, instead of a “two blade” per farm county! Reply “I am going out and purchasing a smelter and melting down all my gun barrels and making plows,” No, no, don’t melt them! Pound them into plowshares… Heat them in a furnace, pound them flat, fold it onto its self, lather, rinse, repeat about a hundred times… And have a bad-ass Damascus steel plow. 🙂 Reply I saw this the other day, and I’m like totally super for cereal, you guys… Reply I almost thought he was going the shoulder thingy that goes up route for a minute there, guess well just have to settle for vertical grips. Reply Its good there were no drinks near me while watching this video, I might need a new keyboard. Seriously though, the antis hate will keep this guy warm all winter 🙂 Reply OMG. Like fer sher, fer sher… Like I totally get it now. Reply Guns are only for hunting. R U Game? Like you got a choice [safer to assume it’s only a rhetorical question, I can only assume the same in return (loosely paraphrased, TERMS, J.M. Thomas R., 2012)]. Reply HAHA! Reply Oh my goodness, oh my dayum. That’s just great. Reply I love the dig on MDA! Reply My favorite argument is that the right to bear arms only applies when you’re in a government-recognized “militia.” Yes, yes. Of course. In this “Bill of Rights,” which was created to codify the rights that the government can never strip from its citizens — rights that all people naturally have at birth. that are “god given” and inalienable — you are only allowed to exercise some of these rights with permission from the government. Yup. Makes sense. Just like the first amendment only allows you to speak or publish things or redress grievances with governmental approval first, and only if you are a member of a government-recognized, legitimate “media” publication. And if that sounds far-fetched, it isn’t. Feinstein — yes, the same one we know and love for her crusade against the 2nd Amendment — attempted to define “journalists” in a strict manner by forcing a certain level of time and achievement working for a recognized publication. Only those people would be protected under the proposed Media Shield Law. Apparently the first amendment doesn’t protect you as strongly if you’re just a normal citizen and not a government-recognized, bona fide member of the press. And, naturally, the “militia” thing not only confounds the meaning of that clause (it has nothing to do with actively serving in a militia!) but it blatantly ignores the fact that the U.S. government defined the militia as all able-bodied males between ages like 16 to 65 or something, and then expanded the definition even further in the 1940’s or some decade +/- a couple around then. “A well regulated militia” literally meant a citizenry practiced and familiar with arms, as “regulated” meant not controlled, but effective, trained, practiced, and functional. Additionally, the collective rights argument is preposterous, as the first 9 amendments were all clearly and specifically individual rights, using “the people” to mean all individual U.S. citizens. Somehow the anti-gun side is capable of bringing themselves to argue that, nope, for some weird reason the 2nd Amendment is the only out outlier in the first nine despite being in a group of individual rights and having the same language. What more, the 2nd Amendment says nothing of firearms. It says arms. What is protected in these amendments is not specific objects or technology, it is ideas and general actions. The first amendment does not say “moving type printing presses,” because it’s the idea of free speech and freedom of the press, not the way in which the ideas are disseminated. This is why the first amendment applies to radio, TV, and the internet. Things that the Founders could not have imagined. For the same reason, the 2nd Amendment does NOT only apply to firearms technology of the era. Nor does it apply only to firearms as, again, the text just says “arms” and that includes many things (I’d say single-man-portable weapons that are capable of being used/aimed against an individual target… e.g. not a grenade or anything indiscriminate, but certainly swords, bow & arrow, tasers, etc). To take it a step further, we would believe that the 2nd Amendment was most importantly to protect the people against the government and the government’s standing army and, therefore, the people SHOULD be able to own arms with parity to what government soldiers carry. Indeed, when people say we should be limited to muskets and such of the era, that literally was the cutting edge of military technology and it was the exact same thing that the best soldiers on earth from the most advanced countries on earth carried into battle. THAT’s what’s supposed to be in our homes. Not a specific “arm,” but whatever is on par w/ the arms carried by gov’t soldiers. …example of “arms” not meaning firearms: “The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms, or other types of arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising. Therefore, the heads of provinces, official agents, and deputies are ordered to collect all the weapons mentioned above and turn them over to the government.” — Toyotomi Hideyoshi (1536-1598) Japanese Chancellor of the Realm, preeminent daimyo, warrior, general and politician of the Sengoku period Reply You were just waiting to let that out, weren’t you? Reply I didn’t really figure anyone would actually read it all so, yeah, I guess you could say it was just “getting it out” haha Reply Nice post/manifesto ..totally stealing the Japanese bit btw The Militia is an agency of the Government defined in Article I Section 8, paragraph 16. This explains the preparatory clause of the Second Amendment. It has nothing to do with Militia itself which already has been authorized. Here is the real original version of Second Amendment from the Virginia Bill of Rights (Article I section 13 of the Virginia Constitution. “Section 13. Militia; standing armies; military subordinate to civil power. That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” James Madison et al. discovered while they were opposed to a standing Army, the War of 1812 demonstrated that Militia couldn’t cut it and so reluctantly they created a small force of regulars. Note the fear was of what became known as Bonapartism and not the administrative state. Reply Next time you get into this level of analysis, don’t forget to add the context for the 2nd Amendment: The only DUTY mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Reply My favorite argument is that the right to bear arms only applies when you’re in a government-recognized “militia.” I have good news. Google “10 U.S. Code § 311”. Welcome to the government-recognized militia. 🙂 Reply Outstanding! Reply Whew, I am so glad that the Constitution is a “living document” and that I can interpret it any way I please. Reply I chuckled out loud. Has this guy gotten any Islamic death threats? Reply The thing is, they had guns around back then that were way more advanced than the standard muzzle-loading musket. They had breach-loaders, there was the Cookson repeating rifle (which had two 6-shot magazines for a total of 12 straight shots), and the Girondoni air rifle which could fire over 20 straight shots silently, then be quickly reloaded via a speed loader, and fired again. I think you needed to put about 60 shots through it before it would begin running out of pressure. Reply Nice! I think I’m going to form a Hunting Militia! We can all kit up in full gear and go all out Tactical on those damn Tyrant Deer! Reply That was Legen…wait for it…dary! You know that you can actually find 83% of this early draft in the Federalist Papers? True Story. Reply and reading the anti-federalist papers they wanted less government, and also some states would not join until the Bill of Rights….We almost did NOT GET a United States… Because of the Federalist view of a stronger Federal government…It was a real battle for years…. Reply 228 years and counting. Reply It just needs a voice over at the end that says “My name is Dan Baum and I approve this message.” Reply Humor is excellent method to promote a positive image. Good job and thank-you. You’re on the right track to taking the negative spin away from anti-2A adverts. Stay with it! Reply ugh! I want my one minute back. why would you even post this shit? Reply He didn’t even include the “may issue” thing. I mean, it’s the state and government that decides even if I’m allowed to carry and how to own a gun. Reply Definitely a game changer! Lol. Reply Yeah, that crap is hilarious. Me gusta. Reply LEAVE A REPLY Cancel reply Please enter your comment! Please enter your name here You have entered an incorrect email address! Please enter your email address here Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Notify me of follow-up comments by email. Notify me of new posts by email.