The House debated and modified the wording. Here’s the result:
“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, added a comma before “shall not be infringed” and
replaced the semicolon that followed with 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.”
Here is the final wording as it appears in the US Constitution:
“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 may be tedious to read, compare; re-read, contrast, then re-read
again the various versions, but think of it this way: The tedium is
worthwhile and profitable in that it shows how serious those involved
took their responsibility in an attempt to be deliberate and precise
as they executed their task. Such intricate craftsmanship is a rebuke
to 21st Century tongue-wagers who make casual quips mocking
a generation that shed blood and lost family in creating a nation
where glib critical remarks can be freely made without significant
consequence.
The Bill of Rights in general and the Second Amendment neither was
nor is a laughing matter. The issue at the time and even now can pit
friend against friend, neighbor against neighbor. Here’s an example:
James Madison’s fellow Virginian George Mason refused to sign
the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. Future president James
Monroe (also from Virginia) was an Anti-Federalist and chose to run
against fellow Founding Father Madison for Congress, the only time
two future presidents went head-to-head over a congressional seat.
The Father of the Constitution vs. one of its leading opponents. The
Federalist vs. the Anti-Federalist. One believing the nation could
not survive without the Constitution; the other believing that same
document granted too much power to the Federal government and,
at the same time, failed to guarantee fundamental rights to individual
citizens. It was a political heavy-weight fight if there
ever was one.
The outcome would define America’s future.
In his book Founding Rivals: Madison vs. Monroe, The Bill of Rights,
and The Election that Saved a Nation, author Chris DeRose put that
decisive and divisive congressional race into historical perspective:
“Madison had been elected to the First Congress by only 336 votes.
It was in that Congress that the Bill of Rights was passed, cementing
the people’s confidence in the new federal government. And the
Constitution was saved. All because of one election.”
Think about the narrowness of that vote count 336 next time you
clean your rifle.
More than 200 amendments had been proposed at the various
state ratifying conventions. The list was whittled down to the twelve
that went before Congress. Those dozen were chosen to quell the
concerns of the opposition without alienating supporters.
44 The TRUMP RALLY Publication