I hope I don't open up a can of worms with this, but does anyone know what the ORIGINAL COPY of the Constitution looks like? All the online images are too difficult to see, and transcribed versions of the original vary. I'm particularly interested in the original text, where it says 'security of a free State' or security of a free state'.
I ask for a reason.
When discussing 2A with the naysayers and liberals, most of us always get quagmired in the 'well organized militia' part. But I'm thinking there's a different interpretation that might throw all of that totally out of the window.
According to dictionary.com, there are a number of different meanings for the word 'state', but these two have been lingering in my mind:
1) A condition or mode of being, as with regard to circumstances: a state of confusion.
-or-
2) Of or relating to a body politic or to an internally autonomous territorial or political unit constituting a federation under one government:
Ok, so here's where I'm coming from...
If the framers of the BOR and Constitution intended that the word 'state' mean condition, as in state of being, doesn't that mean that if it is a condition of existence to which they referred, that it must necessarily follow that we each are responsible for that condition on our own accord, the same way we are in possession of our state of mind? (no wisecracks, please...
)
Now, if the word 'State' is capitalized, it would be a proper noun, and so, it could go either way. But if the word 'state' is in lower case, then that's a whole different ballgame, because it gives weight to the individual, PERSONAL RIGHTS that are accorded us by virtue of our existence on the planet simply by being, undermining the argument that RKBA was intended to be reserved for National Guard, to serve the body politic.
Just toying with some random thoughts that have been churning around, in the rattle trap between my ears.
Your ideas on this are appreciated.
I ask for a reason.
When discussing 2A with the naysayers and liberals, most of us always get quagmired in the 'well organized militia' part. But I'm thinking there's a different interpretation that might throw all of that totally out of the window.
According to dictionary.com, there are a number of different meanings for the word 'state', but these two have been lingering in my mind:
1) A condition or mode of being, as with regard to circumstances: a state of confusion.
-or-
2) Of or relating to a body politic or to an internally autonomous territorial or political unit constituting a federation under one government:
Ok, so here's where I'm coming from...
If the framers of the BOR and Constitution intended that the word 'state' mean condition, as in state of being, doesn't that mean that if it is a condition of existence to which they referred, that it must necessarily follow that we each are responsible for that condition on our own accord, the same way we are in possession of our state of mind? (no wisecracks, please...
)Now, if the word 'State' is capitalized, it would be a proper noun, and so, it could go either way. But if the word 'state' is in lower case, then that's a whole different ballgame, because it gives weight to the individual, PERSONAL RIGHTS that are accorded us by virtue of our existence on the planet simply by being, undermining the argument that RKBA was intended to be reserved for National Guard, to serve the body politic.
Just toying with some random thoughts that have been churning around, in the rattle trap between my ears.
Your ideas on this are appreciated.