Who was the founding father of the second amendment?
The founding of the second amendment is George Mason.
1 person found this useful
Because they believed that an armed populace, organized into a well regulated militia, was a good way to defend the country without a large professional army and that it would give the people the ability to defend their liberties if the government ever became tyrannical. Look at modern Switzerland. …That is the kind of model that our founders were thinking of. Michael Montagne I figure it is partly due to the fact that British forces marched into Lexington and Concord with the intent to seize the militia's arms. This imprinted into the American mind a direct relationship between firearms and freedom. It is'NT even conjectural as many made coment on it. Not for self protection, not for hunting, not even to protect from foreign invaders. Simply that the people, the militia, be able to wrest power from a government, overtly or insideously, removing power form the people. Every political figure knows that to impose the governments will on the people you must disarm them. Our second amendment has been broken already with the 1934 nfa and all subsequent gun control. They are convincing the sheeple of Amereica that they need protecting from themselves. Don't let it happen. The Second Amendment allowed for state militias on the cheep, by using citizens arms. It also was a counter balance to the power of the federal government. But the Second Amendment has been an anachronism for over 150 years. State Militias , now known as the National Guard, issue arms to its members. In addition, the most significant arms in the modern military include fighter jets, misiles, artillery, heavy weapons and such, not the kind of things most parents want floating around the neighbor. To allow anyone to own such arms by right is completely uncivilized and not the kind of world most sane people would want to raise a family in. The 2nd Amendment was intended as a final check of government authority The militia interpetaion...that some how the National Guard constitutes a "well regulated militia" is ridiculous...any force who ultimately is completely controlled by the regular federal armed forces is in no way securing the right of the people to keep and bear arms...even if the governor can call on them to help with hurricane relief...it still in no way means that they are the kind of militia that the Founders had in mind "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson "The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States reads as follows: '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 capitalisation and punctuation are as the original version passed by Congress Now the issue here it seems is largely what is meant by 'Militia' but before I address that consider this. When the amendments were written and passed by congress they and the constitution they amended were intended to be read in conjunction with and to provide the means to defend both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The drafters of the Declaration of Independence had experience of the use of a standing army to oppress the people. A standing army is a tool of government and can be used by a government to enforce its rule in defiance of the wishes of the people. A standing army tends to be distanced from the people and its members are often not from the locality in which they are stationed. They do not have much of a connection with the locals making their use against the local population much easier. The drafters of the second amendment were fully aware of this. They had seen standing armies in Europe used against their own people when those people objected to government oppression or indifference. Their intention was that there would be no standing army in their new country to prevent a future government using such an army against its own people. The defence of the country was to be carried out by the armed citizens who would form a Militia as and when needed for that purpose. And should a government become oppressive to the people, to provide the means for the people to remove the government and replace it. So despite arguments to the contrary from some. The term 'Militia' does not mean the National Guard nor does it mean the regular military forces which are under the direct control of the federal government. The meaning of 'Militia' intended by the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of The United States, and The Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a part is, literally, THE PEOPLE. The individuals who make up the population of the United States. When the Second Amendment is read, as it should be read, in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of The United States. The meaning of the word 'Militia' intended by the founders of the United States is clear and unambiguous. Brian Thwaites LL.B (Hons) (MORE)
Why did the Founding Fathers feel that the 'free exercise' and establishment clauses of the First Amendment were so important?
Answer . Britain had established the Church of England as its official religion. People of other beliefs were frequently persecuted for their beliefs. Many of these groups escaped Britain to settle in the New World to escape this persecution. Therefore, throughout the colonies, there were many… different religions represented with each being dominant in one or more regions. The founding fathers also recognized the strength of immigration. Remember the French and some Germans who helped during the Revolution. These were predominantly Catholic and Protestant countries. By codifying the free exercise of religion and not permitting any future establishment of a state religion, they allowed for freedom of a type frequently not allowed and prevented (at least to some degree) future official persecution of others.. (MORE)
Quite literally, they founded the United States of America. They were the leaders of the American Revolution. They expressed people's frustration and resentment with British rule. They acted on that anger to declare independence and lead the country through eight years of war to achieve it. They wro…te the constutution and persuaded people to accept and ratify it. They formed the first government under Washington and served in the first congresses. They wrote the Bill of Rights. (MORE)
Which if any founding father said 'the 2nd amendment should apply only to a well regulated militia and not the general populace'?
Answer . None. Furthermore, according to the militia laws of the day, the militia consisted of the entire military age male population and men were often responsiblw for supplying their own weapons so the quote doesn't even make sense in its historical context.\nMichael Montagne.
%REPLIES%. Answer . They are the men who led the American revolution and led the country in the years immediately thereafter. Most particularly the term refers to the delegates to the constitutional convention who designed our government.\nMichael Montagne. Answer . A member of the Constitut…ional Convention that drafted the United States Constitution in 1787\na person who founds or establishes some institution.\nAlso a leader or beginer.. Answer . In my opinion, they are the founders of America. They shaped the way that we live our lives today. Most importantly, they signed our constition which gave us the rights that we have today.. Answer . A person who founds or establishes an institution. Also I see them as founders of America, leaders.. Answer . I think Founding Fathers are the delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787. They were very important in the drafting of important documents which founded and shaped the country.. (MORE)
Which if any of the founding fathers said that the Second Amendment should apply only to the militia and not the general populace?
%FOLLOWUPS% None of them said that. All able-bodied males between 18 and 45 were the militia and expected to have suitable arms ready for use. If we still followed the intent of the Founding Fathers in the Second Amendment, there would be tanks, mortars and fighter planes in your neighbors' drivewa…ys ready to respond when the militia was called to arms. The Second Amendment allowed for state militias on the cheep, by using citizens arms. It also was a counter balance to the power of the federal government. But the Second Amendment has been an anachronism for over 150 years. State Militias , now known as the National Guard, issue arms to its members. In addition, the most significant arms in the modern military include fighter jets, misiles, artillery, heavy weapons and such, not the kind of things most parents want floating around the neighbor. To allow anyone to own such arms by right is completely uncivilized and not the kind of world most sane people would want to raise a family in. The previous answer about the militia is obviously made from an emotional standpoint and is nothing more than opinion. The Federal Statute regarding militias can be found in US Code Title 10, Section 311, or 10USC311http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/uscode/HTML/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.HTML TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > ï¿½ 311ï¿½ 311. Militia: composition and classes(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.(b) The classes of the militia areï¿½(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. There are two classes of militia, organized (the National Guard) and unorganized (able bodied males). The core of the issue goes back to the original question and the answer is none of the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to apply only to a 'militia' or for firearms to be exclusively used for military purposes. They intended the 'people' to me armed for self defense. Those 'people' mentioned in the Second Amendment are the same 'people' mentioned in the: Preamble of the U.S. Constitution: 'We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.'First Amendment, '...right of the people peaceably to assemble...'Fourth Amendment, 'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures...'Ninth Amendment, 'The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.'Tenth Amendment, 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.' To claim that the Founding Fathers meant individual citizens of the U.S. in every part of the U.S. Constitution where the word 'people' is used EXCEPT in the Second Amendment where it is suppose to mean a group organized by the federal government is beyond comprehension and shows a complete and utter lack of understanding of the Constitution and of the principles that the country was founded on. (MORE)
Which if any of the founding fathers said that the 2nd amendment should apply only to a well regulated militia and not the general populace?
Kyle, None of them. In the 18th century the militia was understood to consist of all military aged men in a community. In the debates during the first congress over the second amendment, the question was not one of who would be permitted to keep arms, but rather who might be excused from being *comp…elled* to bear arms. It was thought that language might be included that would excuse doctors or ministers from having to bear arms in the militia. It was finally decided to leave such matters to the states. The second amendment was intended to protect the right of the people to form a militia, but it was understood that everyone was expected to be in the militia and they were very often expected to provide their own weapons. Thus it in no way restricted anyone's right to keep arms. Thus the sentiment you cite would never have been expressed. That is a modern thought based on an ignorance of what the militia was and a desire to strip people of a constitutional right.Michael Montagne No one will be able to give you the exact quote because none of the founding fathers said any such thing. In fact, they sincerely believed that ALL citizens should be armed and this right would prevent any government from becoming oppressive. Since this amendment has been the subject of much discussion over many years, it might actually be helpful to understand a little about its origins ... The reader of our current Constitution would also have been fairly knowledgeable about the contents of our "Articles of Confederation" that pre-dated the Constitution. In Article VI, para 4, you will find the following: "No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgment of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage." In other words, the Articles clearly expected that although the States would not maintain standing armies of their own, they were obligated to maintain their own militias. When the Constitution was written, there was little controversy about the issue of state militias, since it was already assumed they understood that fundamental relationship to the Central Government. (MORE)
Answer . They believed that everyone should be able to speak their mind and have a say in public things such as campaigns, etc. They wanted everyone to feel included.
Which of the Founding Fathers said 'the 2nd Amendment should only apply to a well regulated militia and not the general populace'?
Answer . For the third time, none of them. The statement doesn't even make sense in the context of the times because at that time the militia was defined to be the entire military age male population. Thus it was indistinguishable from the general populace. Militiamen were often required to provi…de their own weapons. In the congressional debates over the wording of the amendment the arguments were not over who should be excluded from having the right to bear arms, but whether anybody, such as doctors and ministers, should be excused from being compelled to bear arms.\nMichael Montagne. (MORE)
Why were religion and freedom of speech of great importance to the Founding Fathers when they wrote the First Amendment?
Answer . The "Bill of Rights" can be found here:\nhttp://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html\n. \nCongress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the …right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.\n. \nThis clearly states that congress shall not participate in the establishment of (a state) religion and that any and all religions are on equal footing.\n. \nThomas Jefferson, who wrote the Bill of Rights, stated: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."\nhttp://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/quotes/wisdom.html\n. \nFreedom of speech had to do with open criticism of the government and people in office. There was a brief romance with quelling such criticism in the Alien and Sedition Acts, it was short lived. Patriotism has nothing to do with how one feels about one's politicians. Patriotism transcends the people to become love of the enterprise itself. (MORE)
%DETAILS% To protect people against torture, and to protect them against being forced to incriminate themselves by either their voice or their silence. To prevent some of the problems that Puritans in England were having at the time. trussel.com Including the 5th Amendment in the Bill of Rights was… necessary for witness protection. If not inforced, surely this law would have been created later. Its purpose is to protect witnesses of a crime; they cannot be forced to answer questions unless for president, in a grand jury, or in a military court case. If not for this law, many criminals would kill witnesses before their testimonies. (MORE)
Because every human has the right to defend their person and/orproperty against literally anything that may be forced upon thatindividual, against their will, by another, whether it be anindividual, group, or government of any kind, doing the forcing. There is no means by which an immoral act can be… somehow changedinto a moral one, (legislation, so called "authority", policebadges, etc.) by governments or by men, period. man's law iscreated by men, and men are fallible, corruptible, and self-servingcreatures, period. There is no debating that. Truth is truth, whether it is believedby one or a thousand, and a lie is a lie, whether it is believed bya hundred, or a billion. Natural law is the only legitimate, logical, lasting, immutable,and ever-present law that humans are continually subject to. mineor your belief in it is not required for this to be so. The only authority another human has over us, is that which weallow them to have. Right is right, and wrong is wrong, and nobody's fooling nobodyhere. We all know right from wrong. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That sentence alone, governs you, me, and every other human inexistence, not some equally fallible, corruptible, and self-servinghuman. The very idea of it, is pure fallacy in it's conception. No amountof legitimacy or logic can be assigned to any form of man-madehuman "authority", to rule over other equally fallible,corruptible, and self-serving humans, without invoking logicalfallacies, cognitive errors, and / or argumentative errors to doso, which negates any logic or legitimacy that they are used toassert as such. (MORE)
The First Amendment was actually not important to the FoundingFathers. It was important to the states. The founders could not getratification without creating a bill of rights. The First Amendmentwas a way to keep the national government from exercising too muchcontrol over the Americans like the Br…itish had been doing. It wasintended to keep the natioinal government from getting too strong,which was the whole reason for revolution. (MORE)
The colonists weren't satisfied that the Constitution spelled out their rights as a citizen, hence the making of the Bill of Rights.
\n. \n Answer \n. \n. \nThe 1st Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to prevent the government from intruding on American's rights to freedom of religion, speech, and assembly. They are key to preventing tyranny and promoting open, free democracy because they prevent the government f…rom telling citizens what to believe, what they can or cannot say, or with whom they may associate. \n. \nThe Amendment is simple; the Amendment functions like an on-off switch: may the State impose, establish, prevent, encourage, fund, discourage, require, prohibit, or promote a religion?\n. \nNo.\n. \nMay the government limit your right to publish or say whatever you like?\n. \nNo.\n. \nMay the government prevent you from assembling with friends or allies?\n. \nNo.\n. \nMay the government prevent you from suing the Government?\n. \nNo.\n. \nNow, while simple, it is not stupid and should not be stupidly interpreted and if you stupidly exercise it, you shouldn't whine about your rights being violated. For example, you mustn't cry "Fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire, as the resulting pandemonium risks lives and costs the theater owner and ticket-buyers the business and purchased entertainment. \n. \nYou may not libel another citizen or knowingly deceive for profit. You may publish filth or bad poetry, call the President a fool and demand his impeachment, and suchlike.\n. \nYou may gather with friends to march in protest, but are required to gain permission from those responsible for public safety issues such as fire, traffic, and such. You may meet in homes and churches without government knowledge or interference.\n. \nYou may sue the government but presumably your suit must have merit to prevent an unbiased judge throwing it out. Exceptions are developing; I believe laws have been passed preventing citizens from filing suit against excessive logging on public lands, and I imagine there are similar laws elsewhere. These should be questioned and probably overturned.\n. \nPlease note I am not a lawyer, merely a citizen with an interest in the Constitution. (MORE)
Answer . To make sure that fundamental changes in the structure of government would require substantial time and debate and reasoned consideration. That way bad ideas that look good on the surface could not be rushed into effect before everybody had a chance to think about them.
Difficult, but doable with broad public support. The Constitution calls for the proposal of a constitutional amendment to be passed by 2/3 of both houses of Congress (or 2/3 of a national convention called by Congress--never been done). A 2/3 majority is hard to come by in Congress...that's the sam…e majority needed to overturn a presidential veto, which rarely occurs. After an amendment is proposed, it has to be ratified by either 3/4 of the state legislatures or 3/4 of state conventions. All but 1 of the amendments have been ratified by state legislatures. The one exception was the 21st amendment, dealing with the repeal of Prohibition, which was ratified by state conventions. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, the first 10 came early on as a condition for the ratification of the Constitution. The other 17 have been scattered over 200 years of history. So, the process is difficult, but changes can be made. Had the Founders made the amendment process easier, it would have weakened the document and our government because of the fickle nature of public opinion. This would have led to legal uncertainties with an ever-changing constitution. Incidentally, this reasoning also led to the division of Congress into two houses. (MORE)
The constitutional convention was where a large group of wealthy men(the founding fathers) who had their own interests to protect wrote the constitution. The men were mainly planters, slaveholders, real estate and land speculators, lenders, investors, merchants, manufacturers, shippers and holders …of public securities interests. Throughout the constitution you can tell these interests are protected. The founding fathers believed that the main role of government was to protect liberty and property. These men believed in a republican form of government that was ran by property holders. These men feared a mass democracy that may start a movement that would "reduce inequalities of wealth, intelligence, talent, or virtue." These men wanted to keep economic power in the hands of the already wealthy. These men did this by creating a strong central government, and by limiting the powers of the state. These men feared the responsiveness of a state legislature to the will of the masses who would clearly seek to make the country a more fair and balanced place. The constitution supports this theory when dissected and interpreted scorrectly. (MORE)
During the American Founding Period, the Founders chose the TenAmendments as the 'Bill of Rights' for several reasons. Takenindividually, each amendment represented for the Founders adistinctly important piece of socio-political truth that meritedspecial attention -- and legislation. As a group, the… amendmentswere seen by the Founders as a vital part of the foundation of thenew nation that they were attempt to bring into stable existence. (MORE)
The Founding Fathers had experienced the policy (Quartering Act of 1765) of the British monarchy stipulating that colonists provide temporary housing and other necessities to British soldiers stationed in the American colonies. Viewed as an indirect tax by the colonists, the British government argue…d that since British Regulars were stationed in North America to protect the colonists from encroachment from both French forces and their Indian allies, the colonists should assist in financing the British expeditionary force. With passage of the Intolerable Acts of 1774, the British monarchy further strengthened the law requiring colonists to quarter soldiers. In particular, British soldiers requesting quarter in the homes of colonists living in Boston, Massachusetts were viewed with suspicion; the belief among many Bostonians was that these soldiers were determining the loyalty of the American colonists and/or attempting to locate members of the Sons of Liberty. In order to avoid this circumstance in the future, the State delegations approved this amendment as part of the Bill of Rights. (MORE)
During America's Founding Period, the Founders included the TenthAmendment primarily due to the desire of a large number of nationaland state-centered leaders to include it. As to why those personsdesired the ratification of this amendment, it may be said thatthey were motivated by general concern t…o ensure both that thefederal government should not over-reach its rightful bounds orresponsibilities and that each state should retain such power,initiative, and independence (etc.) as duly belonged to it. (MORE)
The Founding Fathers attempted to cover all bases, making sure eachperson was protected by the Constitution, although they may not benamed. However, the vagueness of the Ninth Amendment has caused alot of confusion, and can be interpreted different ways dependingon whether the sitting supreme court …justices are progressiveleaning or conservative. (MORE)
The eighth amendment was to protect the American people from harmwhen they have done a minor crime.
We have the founding fathers to keep everthing in order. They keep the united states in order and they know what is going on. They fix problems.. Check history.com for more. trust point please.
Because they believed it important for the Government to respect the property and privacy of citizens.
The second amendment was passed to ensure that the citizenry would always have the ability to oppose a tyrannical government.
1. The second amendment guarantees the right of every citizens to own and carry weapons. 2.The second amendment talks about the fact that the government should not interfere with the population owning guns in case the government gets too powerful, and the people need to create a militia. The framers… of the constitution had just came out of a world where a king ruled, and they wanted to prevent the government that they created from getting like that. They purposely created a weaker government, i.e. the two houses of congress to prevent a president from becoming a king. (MORE)
The Supreme Court has interpreted the Second Amendment to mean that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is an individual right in all States of the Union.
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. . More on the subject: It is important that each state have a disciplined combative force that is "the people" and that their right to own and carry we…apons will not be violated. So as an adult, not only is your right to keep and carry weapons, it is your obligation to do so and be trained in skills such as hand-to-hand combat and marksmanship.. Further reading: The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States of America (MORE)
Adrian Peterson, Percy Harvin, Sidney Rice, Jared Allen, and Brett Favre They led the vikings to a almost NFC chapionship win.
The Founding Fathers were the political leaders who signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776, or who participated in framing and adopting the U.S. Constitution in 1787-1788, putting the new government into effect.
Because the US government is based on and created for freedom and opportunity, which includes being free to choose religon..and its importance is shown in the fact that it is one of the first laws passed when the country was created.
the founding fathers were a group of men who wrote and signed the constitution and bill of rights
Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." . FEDERALISM
False, the founding fathers provided for an unseen future they could not predict by allowing the constitution to be amended in specific circumstances.
it gives people the right to own and bare arms and start and form malitias is case of the government becoming corupt.
Because during the Revolutionary War (Era Due to the writing ofConstitution and Bill Of Rights) They allow the permission ofowning guns to defend yourself.
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791. - Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. So I looked at this for over an hour last night. Occasionally switching back to the Constitution, and then back to thi…s. I did recognize one critical nuance throughout this document. There is a clear mention and uses of terms such as Citizen , or Persons , or even "The People" . As I read the 8th Addendum in context of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. its overwhelming obvious that none of those terms are present. Now, I'm not a Judge. Don't even play one on TV. But I can not see any disseminate or any difference in how a "Person", "People" or "Citizen" qualifies or disqualifies any constitutional due process I'll go one more step and refer to the Declaration of Independence and attempt to capture not only the spirit, but the letter of that declaration. "We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal ," Now I realize that we have had issue with these terms in the past. When these words were written down, they did not intend to be all inclusive. This did not include servants or labourers (aka: slaves) . We know this because those issues were resolved through constitutional amendments:13th & 24th Amendments. And we know that the framers did not intent to include women. We resolved that in in 1920 with the 19th amendment. But we must assume that the term "All Men" applied to all men, and by todays standards we can argue that they must be at least of an age of 18 years. And we can assume that the national orientations could not have played a roll in the definition, or it would have excluded all the founding fathers. Many of them or their parents, or other family and friends were either a citizen of other countries or only one or two generations removed. More current than this is the direction the President offered in his election bid and continues to support in his administration: We Do NOT Torture. Do the republicans get it? It doesn't matter if the suspect is is detained under any rule of law, we will not interrogate prisoners using any "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" (MORE)
you would be better off looking on his bio that is where i found all my info from.
The founding fathers did not propose the 27th amendment. They were dead by that time. I found out from my teacher that it was a trick questions.
James Madison. From that point on no one could ask a founding father "what did you mean by this........." we have had to figure it out.
Yes. It was written at a time that "arms" meant guns to hunt with and having them was a necessity. In today's world, it is obsolete. Guns kill people every day. The only purpose for a handgun is to kill people.
The founding fathers wanted to secure Anti-federalist support forthe new Constitution (Bill of Rights) They also knew that a rigid Constitution wouldn't be able to standthe test of time like a more flexible one that allowed Amendments.
The Second Amendment was enacted along with the other 9 Amendments in the Bill of Rights when the Constitution was adopted and ratified by the 13 original states after the American Revolution. That occurred on December 15, 1791.
It is said that they knew that things would be different generations later and they allowed for slight alterations to accommodate these difference. 42 |}
The second amendment to the U.S. bill of rights says: "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." It protects the natural right of the citizens to the tools of self defense. Generally regarded …as a right of the people to own and carry firearms, although arms could mean any weapon of self defense. (MORE)
The American colonies were full of different religions, and many religious followers relocated to the Americas for religious freedom. Without the I Ammendment, the government would have been much like the European governments they fled from. The government could pass a law saying that religion is ba…nned without it. (MORE)
The Lighter Side: I am Thomas Jefferson, although my fellow supervisors all assume similar colonial personalities. The Giraffe Ninja, for example, is James Madison, Ilovecatz1234 is Patrick Henry. JoyceP is more of a John Adams, while ThePrismGroup leans towards Paul Revere. Pasteur is, of cour…se, George Washington. I didn't even need to mention that. (MORE)
They were the original settlers and some were actually the ones who helped fund for the trip.
Amendments 1- freedom of religion press speech. 2- right to bear arms. 4- search and seizure of propety.