testtest

Gonna try my hand at writing a book

Gonna try writing my hand at writing a book and I've been kicking it around for months.

I have a title picked out, a general course I want to go, parts of history to outline...

What it is is about understanding the second amendment. Funnily enough that's almost the title: My journey to understanding the second amendment.

While I certainly have my own views, I want to explore all sides of the arguments from explorer's view.

If anyone wants to help I need suggestions on books (pro and anti-gun) historical references, etc.
 
Best reference ever :

1648659206452.png
1648659206452.png
 
Don't know if this is what will help or even if it's exactly what you're looking for but, this file is pretty well written on just how the precise wording of the 2nd amendment finally came about. I don't think there is any conflict or cause for credits since it's just a compilation of facts from the congressional record I believe. Look it over and use it if you can. I've used it in the past in debates and discussions. Sorry I don't know how to attach the actual file, all I can offer is this C/P.


Conflict and compromise in Congress produce the Bill of Rights

Re: Second Amendment

James Madison's initial proposal for a bill of rights was brought to the floor of the House of Representatives on June 8, 1789, during the first session of Congress. The initial proposed passage relating to arms was:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[123]
On July 21, Madison again raised the issue of his bill and proposed a select committee be created to report on it. The House voted in favor of Madison's motion,[124] and the Bill of Rights entered committee for review. The committee returned to the House a reworded version of the Second Amendment on July 28.[125] On August 17, that version was read into the Journal:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.[126]
In late August 1789, the House debated and modified the Second Amendment. These debates revolved primarily around risk of "mal-administration of the government" using the "religiously scrupulous" clause to destroy the militia as Great Britain had attempted to destroy the militia at the commencement of the American Revolution. These concerns were addressed by modifying the final clause, and on August 24, the House sent the following version to the Senate:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
The next day, August 25, the Senate received the amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. However, the Senate scribe added a comma before "shall not be infringed" and changed the semicolon separating that phrase from the religious exemption portion to a comma:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.[127]
By this time, the proposed right to keep and bear arms was in a separate amendment, instead of being in a single amendment together with other proposed rights such as the due process right. As a representative explained, this change allowed each amendment to "be passed upon distinctly by the States".[128] On September 4, the Senate voted to change the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause:

A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[129]
The Senate returned to this amendment for a final time on September 9. A proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated. A motion passed to replace the words "the best", and insert in lieu thereof "necessary to the" .[130] The Senate then slightly modified the language to read as the fourth article and voted to return the Bill of Rights to the House. The final version by the Senate was amended to read as:

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 House voted on September 21, 1789 to accept the changes made by the Senate.

The enrolled original Joint Resolution passed by Congress on September 25, 1789, on permanent display in the Rotunda, reads as:

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.[131]
On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) was adopted, having been ratified by three-fourths of the states, having been ratified as a group by all the fourteen states then in existence except Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Georgia – which added ratifications in 1939.
 
Gonna try writing my hand at writing a book and I've been kicking it around for months.

I have a title picked out, a general course I want to go, parts of history to outline...

What it is is about understanding the second amendment. Funnily enough that's almost the title: My journey to understanding the second amendment.

While I certainly have my own views, I want to explore all sides of the arguments from explorer's view.

If anyone wants to help I need suggestions on books (pro and anti-gun) historical references, etc.
i would surmise, that to keep someone's nose in the book, reference everything to the American way of life, inventions, entrepreneurs, manufacturing still in business from it's first day till now.

starting off with the history, concept, inception of the AMERICAN world of guns, ammo, manufacturing, and leading up to the Bill of Rights, and the 2nd amendment.

1) why do some people like guns? (for sport, hunting, self protection)

2) why do so many others hate guns? (murder stats, assault stats)

3) what American(s) put together a rudimentary gun, of wood, then to metals

4) what was the first known caliber

5) what were the first known cartridges made of (shell casings, and actual projectiles)

6) when did law enforcement actually go from the "billy club" or "black jack", to guns

7) what role did guns, either side arm, or rifles or machine guns play in the law enforcement, military

8) what role did the Gatling gun play in the old west, and the calvary

9) when did the flintlock hand gun or rifle become "the weapon of choice"

10) how many designs were put from drafting table to manufacturing to failure, before success
 
With all due respect, from your list here it appears more you're writing the history of firearms and their uses than the 2nd amendment. I'm not complaining, and recognize it's a fine line ..... maybe even a distinction without a difference, it just sorta' reads that way from your list of topics.

I'm certainly no author, this is just an amateur observation. (y)(y)(y)
 
With all due respect, from your list here it appears more you're writing the history of firearms and their uses than the 2nd amendment. I'm not complaining, and recognize it's a fine line ..... maybe even a distinction without a difference, it just sorta' reads that way from your list of topics.

I'm certainly no author, this is just an amateur observation. (y)(y)(y)
well, my thought(s) are/were, to out lay a history, even brief at that, the inception of the gun, from a concept to build, and it's use(s) for whatever. the Bill of rights, written long after the very first gun, had to spark the reasoning for the 2nd amend. where would the forefathers have been if even the most rudimentary gun(s) were not even invented?

we have the right to bear pitchforks and sickles, and rakes?

when did guns or firearms become..?

even Harley and Davidson "invention" of the motorcycle started with just an ordinary bike. one in which they built a motor.

you know, give the reader as much info leading up to "the right to bear arms" rather than to just say, "we have that right"

otherwise, it's going to be a folding pamphlet, not a book.

what started that to come to be the 2nd amend????

the o/p even said this...

"I have a title picked out, a general course I want to go, parts of history to outline..."
 
I was primarily addressing the OP in my observation. And my reading of his statement: "What it is is about understanding the second amendment. Funnily enough that's almost the title: My journey to understanding the second amendment." that led me to my post above.

I kind of thought he was referring more towards 'understanding the 2nd' than a history of guns. My bad !!! (y)(y)(y)

But hey, I did admit I'm an amateur!!!
 
well, my thought(s) are/were, to out lay a history, even brief at that, the inception of the gun, from a concept to build, and it's use(s) for whatever. the Bill of rights, written long after the very first gun, had to spark the reasoning for the 2nd amend. where would the forefathers have been if even the most rudimentary gun(s) were not even invented?

we have the right to bear pitchforks and sickles, and rakes?

when did guns or firearms become..?

even Harley and Davidson "invention" of the motorcycle started with just an ordinary bike. one in which they built a motor.

you know, give the reader as much info leading up to "the right to bear arms" rather than to just say, "we have that right"

otherwise, it's going to be a folding pamphlet, not a book.

what started that to come to be the 2nd amend????

the o/p even said this...

"I have a title picked out, a general course I want to go, parts of history to outline..."
I intended to start with the evolution, the English right to bear arms (from which we derived ours as well) see what the ancient Greeks had to say on the matter.

I found a book that discusses the exact opposite of what I believe and I intend to listen to it's arguments.
 
I was primarily addressing the OP in my observation. And my reading of his statement: "What it is is about understanding the second amendment. Funnily enough that's almost the title: My journey to understanding the second amendment." that led me to my post above.

I kind of thought he was referring more towards 'understanding the 2nd' than a history of guns. My bad !!! (y)(y)(y)

But hey, I did admit I'm an amateur!!!
sorry, you did not quote anyone, so not knowing who you were addressing, your posting was under mine, because you did mention, "list", which i did have a long one....

this is why as often as possible i quote others which can be redundant, but, i am responding to that particular person, so there is no misunderstanding who i am replying to.
 
sorry, you did not quote anyone, so not knowing who you were addressing, your posting was under mine, because you did mention, "list", which i did have a long one....

this is why as often as possible i quote others which can be redundant, but, i am responding to that particular person, so there is no misunderstanding who i am replying to.
I understand and no problem. I was typing right under his and had to leave it for a short time and finished it when I returned. I guess I was thinking there had been no new post and hit 'post' without thinking. You're right, it did make it appear I was replying to you ............ I apologize for not paying better attention. We're all good !!!! :):):)
 
I listen to books at work and purposely bought some that didn't align with my point of view (POV) and claimed to be historically accurate but man... The mental gymnastics these people go through!

To be clear, I'm not suggesting the political right is 100% accurate but at least a majority of the arguments I've read can be substantiated.

With the political left arguments (and the books to be more specific) everything I've read (listened to) has been made to fit a narrative. Important facts are left out, only one side given, history told from a biased perspective rather than facts as they are... I actually yelled "OH, BU**S***"! a few times while welding and presented a counter argument in my head based on the information I'm aware of.

I knew this was gonna be hard but I think I'm gonna need therapy before the book is written! 😆😆😆
 
You could include the history of the anti-gunner crusade and their manipulation of statistics, the cherry picking of facts and how all of the 80,000 gun laws do not do what they claim they will. To top it off, you could also devote paragraphs to the recent phenomena of prosecutors who do not prosecute and criminals let out with no bail.
 
Man! Sounds like I need to pay a lot more attention on what's going on in the world. Especially firearm laws and rights for sure!!!
 
Back
Top