Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: 230RN 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
-
Or maybe the writer dipped his quill pen in the inkwell just before he penned "shall" . . . but I see your point.
-
Yeah, it is definitely darker... who knows if it means anything.
-
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.
-
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
-
Well, they did actually have printing presses way back then.
Not sure why they would have relied on hand copied documents.
-
Why is the Second amendment the 4th?
-
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.
-
I did not know that...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.