FINALLY!!!! a good decision

In order for it to get passed compromises were made to appease the anti-federalists. However, the amendment was primarily written by the federalists.

Reply to
miles
Loading thread data ...

The anti-federalists wanted to constrain the government. Madison was a federalist. The amendment was reworded several times in order to get it passed because they needed the anti-federalists to sign on to some form of compromise or it wouldn't pass.

Reply to
miles

Whatever! Sorry you still missed my point.

Steve

Reply to
Steve B

No, I did. But you fail to realize the order of events, discussions and writings leading up to the finalized version of the amendment. Most of such was with regard to forming a state militia for defense from foreign enemies. That was their greatest fear and it was the federalists who did the most work toward creating and passing the 2nd amendment. The references you refer to are mostly from the anti-federalists and statements made by federalists to appease them to the it passed.

Reply to
miles

formatting link
link.

formatting link

Reply to
NapalmHeart

The 2nd Amendment says nothing about criminal elements and robbers. Nothing at all. Sandy Froman's first reason goes poof, she made it up.

In her second reason, she contradicts Madison's own words.

"The Founding Fathers were fearful as to what a future national government might do domestically with a powerful military, and therefore wanted our standing military to be small." - Froman

Further, she goes off on a tangent with "That way, if America was attacked by foreigners..."

"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." - Madison

Madison specifically said let the federal army grow as large as it wants, the combined state militias will still outnumber it. He specifically said that it's doubtful that the state militia could ever be conquered by the federal troops. Madison said nothing about America being attacked by foreigners, nothing about wanting to keep the federal military small, nothing about the state militias being our national security. Sandy Froman just made it up.

Her third reason, which she curiously pushed to last while acknowledging that it was the single most important one, is the only one that didn't spring from her own mind. As she said, "... the Second Amendment was as an insurance policy against our own government."

Reply to
Beryl

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.