History: A Drafting and Ratification of the Bill of Rights in the Colonial Period 2nd Amendment et al

I am really growing tired of trying to educate the looney left on the US Constitution/Bill of Rights...Let's be honest here the Obama administration Barry Barack Hussein Obama...the not so legal scholar must have flunked Reading Comprehension 101 et al #SCOTUS , The Bar and all ACLU attorneys (Founded by the CPUSA)...then again they are Progressives the new term for Comrade...self explanatory yes? At any rate please read,comprehend and fight back with knowledge and facts! 
I have covered this subject long and hard Please view all posts... Jeb Bush as well as Ted Cruz are covered on the subject see: http://sharlaslabyrinth.blogspot.com/search?q=2nd+amendment  

 

History: A Drafting and Ratification of the Bill of Rights in the Colonial Period

As heirs to the majestic constitutional history of England, the intellectual and political leaders of the new Colonies intended nothing less than to incorporate into their new government the laws and liberties of Englishmen, including the well-established right of the law-abiding citizen to keep and bear arms. Yet, while engaged in bringing about one of the most radical political changes in the history of the Western world, the Founding Fathers remained conservative republicans who valued tradition and their English heritage ― the dynasties of the Angles, Saxons, Picts, and Jutes; 1066 and the Norman Conquest; the Magna Carta; the reigns of the Norman, Lancastrian, Plantagenet, Tudor, Stuart, and Hanoverian kings, the Civil Wars; the Restoration; the Glorious Revolution; and, most particularly, the Age of Enlightenment and the Whig philosophies that came to dominate English political thought during the hundred years preceding the American Revolution. They revered English customs and law. Chief Justice Howard Taft observed that: "[t]he Framers of our Constitution were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them; but, when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed themselves in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood." This analysis by Chief Justice Taft explains, in part, the confusion that has developed, especially in this century, over the interpretation of the language of the Second Amendment. The meaning of such words as "militia," "keep arms," "bear arms," "discipline," "well regulated," and "the people" was the meaning of these words as they were used in the English common law of the sixteenth through the eighteenth centuries ― not as they are used today. As Chief Justice Taft further commented: "The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted." Thomas Jefferson, by no means an imprecise thinker, was well aware of this consideration. In commenting upon how the Constitution should properly be read, he said: "On every question of construction let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning can be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one which was passed." Yet despite this clear evidence, gun control and prohibition proponents attempt to squeeze out of the text of the Second Amendment the meaning that only a “collective” ― not an individual ― right is guaranteed by the amendment. They argue that the words of the amendment allegedly apply only to the group in our society that is "well regulated" and "keeps and bears arms," the National Guard. But they are wrong.

Read the full context: http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor.htm