Armed Polite Society

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

R.I.P. Scout26

Author Topic: A "minor" detail on the Second Amendment  (Read 213 times)

230RN

  • Those elected to power wanted it.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,261
  • It should have been the FIRST Amendment !
A "minor" detail on the Second Amendment
« on: December 04, 2022, 06:23:39 AM »

I was trying to check something in the original Bill Of Rights (BOR) so I dug up this image supposedly of the original document.  (BOR Day is December 15th.)

In the script of the Second Article, as presented here, it seems that the words "shall not" were emphasized, perhaps by use of a different nib on the pen, or however.

As in "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It's kind of "smoky" from age, but does anyone else see it that way?  You may have to enlarge your screen to see it.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1683/3923/products/bor-closeup-1_8f91240f-a40a-45c6-bf46-124c45bc7362_1024x1024.jpg?v=1495813452

I'm assuming this is an accurate phototranscript of the BOR.

Terry, 230RN

HankB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,874
Re: A "minor" detail on the Second Amendment
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2022, 08:26:21 AM »

Or maybe the writer dipped his quill pen in the inkwell just before he penned "shall" . . . but I see your point.
Trump won in 2016. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Those who work for a living are being BURIED by those who vote for a living.
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

Pb

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3,872
Re: A "minor" detail on the Second Amendment
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2022, 10:20:07 AM »

Yeah, it is definitely darker... who knows if it means anything.

kgbsquirrel

  • APS Photoshop God
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,422
  • Bill, slayer of threads.
Re: A "minor" detail on the Second Amendment
« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2022, 12:47:07 PM »

Looks like an artifact of aging or the type of pen used.  Scanning the whole document shows other areas of higher contrast in the text.

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,675
Re: A "minor" detail on the Second Amendment
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2022, 01:14:27 PM »

I was trying to check something in the original Bill Of Rights (BOR) so I dug up this image supposedly of the original document.  (BOR Day is December 15th.)

In the script of the Second Article, as presented here, it seems that the words "shall not" were emphasized, perhaps by use of a different nib on the pen, or however.

As in "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It's kind of "smoky" from age, but does anyone else see it that way?  You may have to enlarge your screen to see it.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/1683/3923/products/bor-closeup-1_8f91240f-a40a-45c6-bf46-124c45bc7362_1024x1024.jpg?v=1495813452

I'm assuming this is an accurate phototranscript of the BOR.

Terry, 230RN

The problem is that there is no single "original" copy of the Bill of Rights.

Remember, they didn't have computers, laser printers, and Xerox office copiers back then. Once the BOR was passed by the Congress, it had to be sent to the legislatures of all the states for ratification. Some clerk (or maybe more than one clerk) had to sit down and manually write out -- with a quill pen -- multiple copies of the document. It stands to reason they couldn't possibly be identical. What may look like emphasis on one copy most likely does not look like emphasis on another copy.

And let's not forget the comma: https://guncite.com/second_amendment_commas.html

RoadKingLarry

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,671
Re: A "minor" detail on the Second Amendment
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2022, 05:19:15 PM »

Well, they did actually have printing presses way back then.
Not sure why they would have relied on hand copied documents.
If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen.

Samuel Adams

HeroHog

  • #I'mStillHere,Dangit!
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,256
  • It can ALWAYS get worse!
    • FaceButt Profile
Re: A "minor" detail on the Second Amendment
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2022, 05:30:37 PM »

Why is the Second amendment the 4th?
I might not last very long or be very effective but I'll be a real pain in the ass for a minute!
MOLON LABE!

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,675
Re: A "minor" detail on the Second Amendment
« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2022, 05:34:05 PM »

Why is the Second amendment the 4th?

Because the original bill of rights included 14 enumerated rights. The first two have never been ratified, the the original fourth article became the second amendment.

HeroHog

  • #I'mStillHere,Dangit!
  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7,256
  • It can ALWAYS get worse!
    • FaceButt Profile
Re: A "minor" detail on the Second Amendment
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2022, 03:04:54 AM »

I did not know that...
I might not last very long or be very effective but I'll be a real pain in the ass for a minute!
MOLON LABE!

230RN

  • Those elected to power wanted it.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 17,261
  • It should have been the FIRST Amendment !
Re: A "minor" detail on the Second Amendment
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2022, 06:52:29 AM »

Maybe the first two were not ratified because they decribed our rights to summarily tar and feather politicians  if they were crooked, or even worse, violated their oaths of office.

Terry hobbles away quickly on his racing cane.

kgbsquirrel

  • APS Photoshop God
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,422
  • Bill, slayer of threads.
Re: A "minor" detail on the Second Amendment
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2022, 08:26:47 AM »

Maybe the first two were not ratified because they decribed our rights to summarily tar and feather politicians  if they were crooked, or even worse, violated their oaths of office.

Terry hobbles away quickly on his racing cane.

Checking...

The first one would have modified article five on the apportionment of reps to ensure a minimum of 100 reps until the population grew large enough to need more and specified the number of citizens represented.

The second eventually was ratified as the 27th amendment.

We do actually need a variation on the first so as to put a cap on the number of people one representative can have.  Congress on their own decided in 1913 to cap the number of representatives at 435.  This caused reps to go from 50000 citizens per to around 500,000-800,000 today.  A dilution of actual representation. 

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,675
Re: A "minor" detail on the Second Amendment
« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2022, 02:35:32 PM »

Checking...

The first one would have modified article five on the apportionment of reps to ensure a minimum of 100 reps until the population grew large enough to need more and specified the number of citizens represented.

The second eventually was ratified as the 27th amendment.

We do actually need a variation on the first so as to put a cap on the number of people one representative can have.  Congress on their own decided in 1913 to cap the number of representatives at 435.  This caused reps to go from 50000 citizens per to around 500,000-800,000 today.  A dilution of actual representation.

And the periodic redistricting that ensues as some states gain population and other states lose population (with accompanying gains and loses in numbers of representatives) can have some odd results. About 25 or 30 years ago, after my state lost a representative and the districts were redrawn, the result was that my uncle who lived directly across the street from me was in a different congressional district than I was. Same town, same country -- different congressional district.

kgbsquirrel

  • APS Photoshop God
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,422
  • Bill, slayer of threads.
Re: A "minor" detail on the Second Amendment
« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2022, 03:35:25 PM »

And the periodic redistricting that ensues as some states gain population and other states lose population (with accompanying gains and loses in numbers of representatives) can have some odd results. About 25 or 30 years ago, after my state lost a representative and the districts were redrawn, the result was that my uncle who lived directly across the street from me was in a different congressional district than I was. Same town, same country -- different congressional district.

Gerrymandering is also something that needs to bloody end.  Take away that power from the politicians who ALWAYS abuse anything they can for their own gain. 

I would propose a fixed set of procedural rules for laying out districts via a uniform cell system, with specifications for subdivision and merger of the cells as needed based on population changes.  A grid square doesn't care about your politics.