Before we can even afford to think about defending our nation, first we must defend ourselves, families, and homes.

as it is the only one with a prefatory clause. Why would only the 2nd include this?

But this is probably going to be yet another endless thread.

And more to follow.

Welcome to DU .
Enjoy

what a great majority of constitutional scholars believe: The Second recognizes an individual right to keep and bear arms which "shall not be infringed."

...without committing one or more rather obvious and basic errors in linguistic analysis. Various convoluted legal arguments aside, the language is, while not exactly clear, at least unequivocal once you analyze it.

nuclear unicorn: I read in another thread that the 2nd A was enacted to create a militia in lieu of a standing army but with the advent of modern militaries we no longer require militias for national defense ergo the 2A is obsolete. The author of the opinion went on to say that the 2A was in no way meant to be a guard against the government.

What is so hard to object to in your first sentence above? Is it not true in the civilian sense, as in 'well regulated civilian militias' as the founding fathers intended?
Governors & presidents are more afraid to activate the 'unorganized militia' since by doing so they realize the potential to create more harm than good, by gathering armed people en masse.

uni: I find this incredible because looking at the rest of the Bill of Rights every amendment is one declaration of "we don't trust government" after another.

The 'people' was used synonymously with 'the militia' & there is no other amendment in bor which had such a distinction, or dichotomy.
You must also read 2ndA as the people having an individual right (aka duty) to belong to a militia, for the common defense, as evolved from the english bor 1688 'have arms' decree. And that is what congress could not infringe upon, an individuals right to belong to militia. That there was adjunct right for home & personal use does not negate the constitutional (bor) intent.

nuclear uni: How can it be suggested that the 2A would be the only amendment to invest exclusive power into the hands of the government -- and deadly force at that!

It didn't. It was a restriction on the federal govt., as well as a guarantee of the individual right to belong to a militia.

"SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men."

(the 'armed body of men' bit is aimed at the Pinkerton's, IIRC)

govt from destroying the militias, and building an army upon their ruins. The govt would destroy the militias by disarming them - the people whose duty and right it was to serve.

The militias had to be armed, and they had to be well-regulated. They were necessary.

Mr. Gerry {re: religious exception in the article which became the 2nd}

in the BOR references the individual rights of people, not a group, unit or even community. Notably in the Fourth, the "people" references "describing...the persons..."

In the Second, the prefatory clause makes no pretense of describing "the people," but instead the "militia," that which comes into being when called up under the fed's powers outlined in Article I. The core of the Second's "right" language clearly references "people to keep and bear arms."

The so-called militia clause is the fed's way of saying "we depend on this right" due to obligations (powers) alloted us in the Articles. In that sense only the clause is unique because the other rights have so few clear-cut references to fed powers in the Articles. Put another way, if the feds recognized only a right to be in a militia, it would have explicitly "created" that "right," and said so by leaving matters at that.

But the right to keep and bear arms occurs explicitly to the "people," individually, as the other BOR rights do.

A militia would certainly augment a conventional force but it would also offset that conventional force. I read the Federalist Papers not long ago and one of the contentions with the anti-Federalists revolved around the distrust of standing armies.

The purpose of the militia is "the security of a free state." Free from whom? Exclusively foreign invaders? Judging from the balance of the BoR there are hard limitations placed on the government even in the course of its proper duties of maintaining civil order and defending itself from threats. The singular preoccupation of the Bill of Rights is to paint brightly those lines the government cannot cross in the commission of those duties so as to preserve more freedom for the people than power for the government.

the militia seems more applicable (practically) when its use comes about as anarchy or breakdown in authority occurs, conditions anathema to the workings of a standing army.

Article 1 / Section 8 did:

N-unicorn: How then can the 2nd Amendment NOT be designed to give THE PEOPLE the ultimate means..
2 lizzie poppet: RKBA is quite unequivocally ascribed to the set "the people" by virtue of direct attribution.. (.."militia," a subset of "the people.&quot . Were these terms used synonymously, there would be no reason to differentiate...

That's the gun lobby manipulation & spin (to lizzie), & note women couldn't even vote less yet have a right to bear arms in 1791. Unequivocally you say? why all the dispute the past 50 years then?;

Observe now - Presto - Abracadabra - Behold as I conjure up how tench coxe equated the militia with the people in the first draft of 2ndA: .. Sam Adams very first 2ndAmendment draft - written feb 6, 1788: .. "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." --- Samuel Adams, (Feb 6, 1788) This language was proposed in the Massachusetts convention for ratification of the U.S. Constitution to be added to Article I of that document. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Also see 'sam adams': http://www.guncite.com/journals/haladopt.html

Note that in the first draft of 2ndA above, there is no mention of a militia - sam adams simply said congress could not 'prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms'.

In response to this proposed amendment/draft, tench coxe wrote 2 wks later feb20,1788: .. The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from 16 to 60. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? .. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe

Why did tench coxe introduce the word militia 3 times in his response to Sam Adams' first draft of 2ndA, when militia was not even mentioned in the first draft? There had been no federal constitutional 2ndA draft previous for coxe to say what he said (only state rkbas). Had he thought 'the people' had an individual rkba disconnected from militia service, coxe would not have introduced militia at all when remarking upon the first draft which mentioned only 'the people'.
Coxe obviously & clearly uses 'the people' interchangeably with 'the militia' - accepted as free white males aged 16-60 (later reduced to 45 in 1792). Joseph Story does it as well as demonstrated in discntnt's thread elsewhere.

N-unicorn: I'm not seeing that as a refutation of my premise.

There are several aspects to your OP premise, but if you say so, you seemingly disagree then with lizzie poppet.

tench coxe 1788: Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? .. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.

N-unicorn 2013: That encapsulates my point exactly.

Then you agree that coxe was referring to the people as the militia, my underlying point.
Perhaps the Supreme Court UNANIMOUS 1939 ruling in the Miller case will help convince you, or elucidate: Miller, 1939: "The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power - 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union'.... With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."

This was a unanimous 8-0 ruling, all the ruling justices felt this wording was proper, with no objections. The heller decision was split along political lines, 5-4.

The Dred Scott decision was 7 - 2; that's higher than 5 - 4, so what's your point?

hans cites tench coxe, feb20,1788: What clause in the state or constitution hath given away that important right .... {T}he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the foederal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

You couldn't be more helpful today, hans; you bolster my point that coxe was referring to militia as 'the people', since, while Sam Adams vouched for the 'foederal' govt in his first 2ndA draft, the particular state constitutions vouch for the states. Abracadabra.
.. Tell us hans, which of the following violates what coxe said above? Answer Tench Coxe' own words, what clause in the state or constitution hath given away that important right'? And since half the states mention ONLY the militia, Coxe is obviously speaking of the militia as 'the people' as having the right to bear arms. BEHOLD:

MASSACHUSETTS (Oct25, 1780) The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.
VIRGINIA: (June12, 1776) That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; (standing army clauses omitted in all)
DELAWARE (Sep11, 1776) That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.
PENNSYLVANIA (Sep28, 1776) XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; (includes civilian use)
MARYLAND (Nov11, 1776) That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.
NORTH CAROLINA (Dec18, 1776) That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the State;
NEW HAMPSHIRE (Jun2, 1784) A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.
NEW YORK CONVENTION (Jul26,1788 - albeit 5 months after coxe quote)That the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.

Dunno what you thought you were proving, hans. Expecting others to be mind readers, perhaps, for it's generally incumbent upon 'you' to explain your reasoning.
And do note the term 'free state' in new yorks. Thanks a bunch.

I find it hard to believe that you did not know that Sam Adams was from Massachusetts.

The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands
of Congress.

You really didn't know that Sam Adams was NOT among the minority of Pennsylvania?


Like you didn't know Coxe's obvious point was that the federal constitution in art1,sec8 placed power over the militia in the hands of Congress, but it did not give away the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

hans: I find it hard to believe that you did not know that Sam Adams was from Massachusetts.

I surmised it readily enough as I quoted him, being the author at the massachusetts ratifying convention. He was born in boston too as I just checked.
But if this is gonna be the type of challenges you lodge in the future, I'm gonna lose interest. (FdTeCe88).

tench coxe: The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress.
hans: You really didn't know that Sam Adams was NOT among the minority of Pennsylvania?

Well I surmised he was from massachusetts to answer your question, but had he lived in pennsy, do you think he would've been?
Tench Coxe was not addressing Sam Adams in his speech/writing you cite, I didn't contend that he was; Tench Coxe was using Sam Adams' first draft of 2ndA as a basis in his speech. That seems a likely hypothesis.

hans: You cited Sam Adams, though leaving off the relevant portion which indicated exactly who Coxe was responding to.

ABRACADABRA! Hiding in PLAIN SIGHT, hans sinks like a lead balloon: The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen , it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from 16 to 60. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? .. Congress has no power to disarm the militia.

Now do you see what I meant all along, hans? Who pray tell, was Tench Coxe addressing in his speech/writing, using Sam Adams 2ndA draft as a basis? My {His} friends and countrymen, that's who Coxe was addressing, plain as day, how'd you miss it thou who readest so well? So I didn't 'leave off' to whom Coxe was addressing, did I?
.. This is what generally happens to charlatans, they get exposed sooner or later as their spindoctoring becomes more untenable & apparent.

hans: And you did contend that he was addressing Sam Adam's writing of two weeks prior: "Note that in the first draft of 2ndA above, there is no mention of a militia - sam adams simply said congress could not 'prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms'. In response to this proposed amendment/draft, tench coxe wrote 2 wks later feb20,1788"

.. more of hans delusionary spindoctoring; Coxe was not addressing Sam Adams personally, he was referencing his 2ndA draft. Most readers will understand that 'in response to (Sam Adams) proposed amendment' coxe was alluding to it, & addressed his concerns to his 'friends & countrymen'.

hans: So sober up, take a long nap, or do whatever it is you need to do to bring yourself back to reality.

I'd say the same to you now that you've been exposed again, but I doubt it would help.
Worth a try, tho.

magic jimmy said:
Note that in the first draft of 2ndA above, there is no mention of a militia - sam adams simply said congress could not 'prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms'.

In response to this proposed amendment/draft, tench coxe wrote 2 wks later feb20,1788


and later


more of hans delusionary spindoctoring; Coxe was not addressing Sam Adams personally, he was referencing his 2ndA draft. Most readers will understand that 'in response to (Sam Adams) proposed amendment' coxe was alluding to it, & addressed his concerns to his 'friends & countrymen'.


umm... "personally" comes from your post -that is the most transparent of deceptions/strawmen.

You claimed for days that Coxe wrote that article in reponse to Sam Adams' first"draft" of 2A. However Sam Adams proposal in Feb 1788 was just that -a proposal. Coxe's response to the actual first draft of what became 2A (proposed by Madison in the first Congress)makes a mockery of your position so you resort to this assinine argument.

And now you continue to claim, dispite admitting to know Coxe was actually responding to the PA Minority, that Adams' was the first such proposal. http://www.constitution.org/afp/pennmi00.htm


Is there no lie too shameless for you? Or is it the case that you cannot read? Check the date on the PA Minority thingy.


"Most readers" can read Coxe's artcile and know instantly that Coxe was responding to the PA Minority, and with even a smidgeon of curiosity "most readers' will google the PA Minority and learn that the PA Minority preceeded Sam Adam's proposal by some two months, so that your claim that Sam Adams' proposal was the first is yet another knowing lie.

hans: You claimed for days that Coxe wrote that article in reponse to Sam Adams' first "draft" of 2A. However Sam Adams proposal in Feb 1788 was just that -a proposal.

.. as I also referred to it from the gitgo as a proposed amendment/first draft; .. in my very quote which hans cites above: In response to this proposed amendment/draft, tench coxe wrote 2 wks later feb20,1788..

I defined it as a proposed amendment, or draft, pretty synonymous here. I used draft since wiki described it 'early drafts'; .. you rely on trivial pursuit as a main argument, while tapdancing around goofy revisionist history. Hans prattles on.

Observe how hans deceives, where hans earlier asked this: I asked "what proof do you have that Coxe was responding directly and specifically to Sam Adams?" http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=129325

I didn't say Coxe was responding directly to Adams. I said Coxe was using Sam Adams' proposal/draft as a basis. Coxe was directly & specifically addressing 'friends & countrymen', not sam adams. Sam Adam's proposal, not the bleatings of anti-feds, was the basis for which Tench Coxe wrote that Congress had no power to disarm the militia. There was nothing official for which coxe to contend 'no power to disarm the militia', until sam adams wrote his 2ndA proposal/draft.

hans: Most readers" can read Coxe's artcile and know instantly that Coxe was responding to the PA Minority, and .. the PA Minority preceeded Sam Adam's proposal by some two months, so that your claim that Sam Adams' proposal was the first is yet another knowing lie.

irrelevant spindoctoring; Coxe could not have responded to the 'pennsy minority' without sam adams having first written the 2ndA proposal/first draft. There would've been no basis for what Coxe had said, about congress having no power to disarm the militia, without Adams 2ndA proposal. What would Coxe have said without sam? 'Because I, Tench Coxe say so, Congress has no power to disarm the militia'. No substantive olive branch there.

hans jul24: Why do you continue to conflate proposals from the states and drafts of the BOR in Congress? You are not trying to deceive anyone are you?
hans today jul27: jimmy.. claiming .. was a direct response to Sam Adams' proposals for a BOR at end of the Massacusetts constitutional ratifying convention http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1172125339#post156
.. hans didn't first realize, that SamAdams proposal from the state, was & is considered the first draft (proposed amendment) of the 2ndA, in the BOR.

I see where you went so wrong, and please be assured that this could happen to anybody(not really).

It seems you thought that because Sam Adams' proposal was listed first in the wiki article you relied upon, that is was the first such proposal. (I am laughing my ass off)

Did you ever consider that the "wiki" article might not contain an exhaustive list?

Also you seem to think that because Sam Adams' proposal was under the heading of "proposal and drafts" that is was both a proposal and a draft. (priceless!)


http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Earlier proposals and drafts of the Amendment:

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. Samuel Adams, (February 6, 1788), reported in Charles Hale, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1856), p. 86. This language was proposed in the Massachusetts convention for ratification of the U.S. Constitution to be added to Article I of that document.

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.
Original text of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives. original text

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.
Reworded version of the Second Amendment by the select committee on the Bill of Rights, July 28th 1789. AoC pp. 669).

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.

Draft version of the Second Amendment sent by the House of Representatives to the United States Senate, on August 24th, 1789. (Note: When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe).
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
Revision voted on in the U.S. Senate, September 4th, 1789.

A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Final version passed by the U.S. Senate; the phrase "necessary to" was added when the proposed Amendment was entered into the U.S. House journal.

Gold star effort.

...in the family tree of posts, he finds parents, sisters and 3rd cousins once removed to all be equally worthy of some action. I'd qualify that as discussion forum redneck-like activity. There's also a book on transactional analysis that has a few things to say.

N-Unicorn: I read in another thread that the 2nd A was enacted to.. The author of the opinion went on to say that the 2A was in no way meant to be a guard against the government.
I find this incredible because looking at the rest of the Bill of Rights every amendment is one declaration of "we don't trust government" after another.

I think you might be conflating two separate concepts. Firstly, the author you mention probably meant to say the 2nd amendment's purpose was not to guard against a tyrannical domestic, or perhaps foreign govt, dunno his intent.. You might be conflating this concept with the bor amendments being restrictions on the govt (congress) - what you called guarding against govt; do you think this the case?

uni: I read in another thread that the 2nd A was enacted to create a militia in lieu of a standing army but with the advent of modern militaries we no longer require militias for national defense ergo the 2A is obsolete.

Not only that, but since the 1903 militia act, there has been no 'well regulated' citizens militia as spelled out in the 2nd Amendment. Since the rationale for RKBA has collapsed into oblivion, so should the 2ndA, since it has become obsolete & worthless. You no more need the 2ndA to purchase a firearm today than you need first amendment rights to talk to yourself.
.. Today, the 2ndA emboldens americans to be able to own & practice with military style assault rifles, while not ever being obligated to serve one, single, day, in a well regulated militia or army or navy or national guard unit. To suggest this was the intent of 2ndA is absurd.

Actual military weapons are 3-round burst or full-auto.

to the people instead of the government...

N-uni: "The heller decision was split along political lines, 5-4." Irrelevant

I suppose it would be spun as being irrelevant to pro gun adherents; to those with a more in depth understanding of the issue, it's very relevant, since the decision hinged on one justice, kennedy. The nra actually didn't want to pursue heller, afraid they'd lose.

I wrote: {Miller} was a unanimous 8-0 ruling.. heller split along political lines, 5-4.
n-uni replied: The Dred Scott decision was 7 - 2; that's higher than 5 - 4, so what's your point?

You are feigning ignorance imo; Miller unanimously & apolitically rendered a militia interpretation of 2ndA in 1939, while heller 2008 was a political decision, pandering to a rightwing republican base & an assiduous & insidious gun lobby.

You also didn't reply to this concern I had: ".. the author you mention probably meant to say the 2ndA's purpose was not to guard against a tyrannical domestic, or perhaps foreign govt.. You might be conflating this concept with the bor amendments being restrictions on the govt (congress); do you think this the case?"

I wrote: ..the rationale for RKBA has collapsed into oblivion...
N-uni: Not according to your Tenche Coxe citation.

You're naivete is showing; of course the tench coxe citation in 1788 wouldn't show that the 2ndA has fallen into oblivion today. See if you can figure out why, with the clues I've given.

Nuclear Unicorn Semi-auto long rifles are not "military style assault weapons" except in appearance .. Actual military weapons are 3-round burst or full-auto.

Right out of nra songbook, a specious red herring; I wrote 'military style assault rifles', which includes bushmaster & AK47 & 74 & others, of course non automatic but still 'military style asslt rifles'. An m16 is a 'military assault rifle', to wit, in either 3-rd select fire or full auto.
What with such little recoil & bumpfire capability, an ar15 bushmaster can fire over 100 rds per minute, not near automatic fire of ~600/min of an m16, but limited more by the magazine size. You generally cannot do that with larger caliber semi-auto rifles.

Last edited Fri Jul 26, 2013, 10:12 AM - Edit history (1)

previous I wrote: ..the rationale for RKBA has collapsed into oblivion...

previous N-unicorn replied: Not according to your Tenche Coxe citation.

previous I replied: You're naivete is showing; of course the tench coxe citation in 1788 wouldn't show that the 2ndA has fallen into oblivion today. See if you can figure out why, with the clues I've given.

Nuclear Unicorn: I don't play silly games. State your argument outright.

Can't stop laughing! Reread, rethink.

Nothing has changed about the need for individual and collective security.

"previous I wrote: ..the rationale for RKBA has collapsed into oblivion..."

That's a matter of opinion.

That the right belongs to the people, down to the individual level, and protects against government infringement, in this day and age, is a pure unadulterated fact.

Play silly games with that.

hans: It seems you thought that because Sam Adams' proposal was listed first in the wiki article you relied upon, that is was the first such proposal. (I am laughing my ass off)

first proposal which counted: Aug1789 ..what was to become {2ndA} .. was seen as having originated in part from Samuel Adams' proposal: "It may well be remembered, that the following "amendments" to the new constitution of these United States, were introduced to the convention of this commonwealth {feb6,1788} by .. SAMUEL ADAMS.. every one of the intended alterations but one have been already reported by the committee of the House of Rep., and most probably will be adopted by the federal legislature." Boston Chronicle, PhilaGazetteer,Aug20,1789. http://www.guncite.com/journals/haladopt.html#fnb84

GunGuru Halbrook: .. The Massachusetts convention ratified the constitution Feb7,1788 without demanding a declaration of rights. Nonetheless, Adams' proposal would be seen as embodying the First, Second, and Fourth Amendments to the Constitution when they were being considered by Congress in 1789. http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp6ch04.htm

hans: Did you ever consider that the "wiki" article might not contain an exhaustive list?

Provide then, a list more expansive, otherwise you have no point. You again insist on others to prove your own supposed points; Doesn't really matter tho, the pa. minority dissent & it's rkba provision were based on objections to the constitution, & tench coxe was not addressing the minority's rkba dissenting proposal, he was using SamAdams 2ndA proposal to squelch them.

hans:..you seem to think that ..Sam Adams' proposal .. was both a proposal and a draft.

Proposal & draft are pretty synonymous, parsing words here is trivial pursuit.
Collocations, draft-1: agreement, bill, constitution, document, legislation, letter, proposal, speech, treaty http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/draft_17#draft_21
.. Websters 1828: proposal 1. That offered.. for consideration or acceptance; a scheme or design, terms or conditions
draft:A drawing of lines for a plan;..delineation; sketch;plan delineated.

I wrote: first proposal which counted....
hans I'll take that as an admission that the actual first DRAFT, Madison's in the first Congress, is the one that counted.

'First proposal which counted' was meant to apply to your reference immediately above it, the feb6,1788 proposal by sam adams. The colon inadvertently added. No it was not intended to refer to madison's first draft.

You have been wrong about each point you have claimed.

No, hardly, tho I haven't been completely correct in them either, nor you in yours.

.. coxe was not addressing the minority's rkba dissenting proposal, he was using SamAdams 2ndA proposal to squelch them.
hans: .. Sure, that is why he said the PA minority was wrong about the power of the sword being in Congress's hands.

Correct, he was squelching that notion, & where did coxe get the basis for saying so? sam adams could have been the source, a believeable source for the minority.

hans: Moreover in proposal #7 the PA Minority had already proposed that no law shall be passed for disarming the people, so much for the claim that Coxe must have been referring to Sam Adams' proposal.

.. so what, coxe wrote Congress have no power to disarm the militia, using a different word; you'd make my point then, that coxe interchangeably referred to the 'people' as the militia (which he did, often);
.. This PA minority#7 was proposed days after Pennsylvania ratified the USconst, & this rkba mirrored their own state 1776 rkba. Sam Adams 2ndA proposal feb6,1788, months later, preceded massa. ratification of US Const by a day, & dissimilar from massa. rkba as it was explicitly a limitation on US congress.
.. Tench Coxe was using Sam Adams proposal (Sam Adams a friend of the 'minority'), in attempt to convince them, imo, that congress could not disarm the militia, so as to allay their concerns since it was sam adams voicing his antifed opinion. What with other contemporary writings from others (ie fed madison), coxe wrote his rebuttal to the concerns of the pennsy minority, to placate them for perhaps influencing later states becoming more willing at ratifying const.
Your challenge is with merit tho, & I bend a bit that minority positions motivated coxe to reply, using imo sam adams proposal as a basis for that reply to his 'countrymen & friends'. I don't seek to suppress or twist the truth, as appears your wont.

hans: You are still calling Sam Adams' proposal the first draft of 2A though the PA minority right to arms proposal predated Sam Adams' proposal by two months.

Do yourself (& everybody else) a favor & click on this link before going any further:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Earlier proposals and drafts of the Amendment
1) >>FIRST ONE LISTED, SAM ADAMS<<< And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. Samuel Adams, (Feb6,1788) This was proposed in Massachusetts convention for ratification of US Constitution to be added to Article I of that document.

Your reasoning cannot possibly hold, since Tench Coxe was placating the pennsy minority & their dissents in his speech, using SamAdams 2ndA proposal as the basis (which they couldn't object to), which has always been my underlying point.
Also note in wiki link: Tench Coxe: The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them. Tench Coxe, Delegate to Continental Congress, Oct. 21, 1787.

hans: Adams' proposal was not the first, nor was Coxe responding to "this proposed amendment". Coxe was responding to the PA Minority as stated plainly in Coxe's article.

Using SamAdams 2ndA proposal as a basis, Coxe appeased their concerns; The Pennsy (minority) dissent was opposition to the US Constitution, & was written after Pennsy had ratified the USConstitution: "After the Pennsylvania Convention ratified the new constitution on Dec12, 1787, 46 to 23, twenty-one members of the minority signed a dissenting address that appeared Dec18, 1787.. becoming in some way a semi-official statement of objections to the new Constitution.
________________________________
I have found evidence that hans indeed was aware the diff between state proposals & Adams' proposed draft of a BOR or however he put it, so I retract remarks thereupon, his wording the reason; no perfunctory apology forthcoming under present circumstances, where I'm owed a couple dozen.

taking out of context, hans compares: PA Minority Dec1787: 7...no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals
To (also ooc): Sam Adams Feb1788: "..the said Constitution be never construed ...to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms..."

hans: The PA Minority having said the same thing in slightly different words two months prior, why would Coxe need to use Adams' proposal as a basis? What reference to Adams' proposal did Coxe make in his feb 20, 1788 article?

They are dissimilar despite your bleatings, I thought legislatures passed laws; the answer to your final Q is below:
In full context: PA Min, 7..the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own State or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and be governed by the civil powers.

In full context, Sam Adams:"..that said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

Compare the above two passages with tench coxe below. Sam above 'congress (cannot) prevent.. citizens from keeping their own arms', comports well with coxe below 'Congress has no power to disarm the militia'.
Coxe quote comports better with Sam Adams quote, to answer hans Q, than PA Min.

Coxe: The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for THE POWERS OF THE SWORD ARE IN THE HANDS OF THE YEOMANRY OF AMERICA FROM SIXTEEN TO SIXTY. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. What clause in the state or constitution hath given away that important right .. the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the foederal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people

to explicitly curtail the power and abuses thereof of the government....imagine that.

A nation is only as strong as the weakest individual.

Words the framers wrote, contained in the actual document in question.

Rather than speculation based on what they wrote and debated beforehand.

That preamble really says all that needs saying.