Libtard gun owner here. I'm following a thread on PoliticalForum.com and it occured to me that I do not know the history of the 2a, i.e. how it came to be, and for what reasons. I'm looking for a non-partisan explanation, preferably in book form, and preferably written by an academic who actually knows his shit. Any suggestions?
Pic is my newly built AR. Just got the head space checked and I'm good to go...
>>29505634
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
subtle bait though, I like it.
>>29505634
It was during the period immediately after the American Revolution. The Founding Fathers saw how important the local militias had been in the opening conflicts with British forces, and they realized that this would not have been possible without individually-owned arms. They also understood that any citizenry has the right to resist tyranny, with force if need be, and access to firearms is an excellent way to enable an insurgency against a militarized force.
President George Washington:
"The devising and establishing of a well regulated militia, would be a genuine source of legislative honor... carrying to its full energy the power of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia; and thus providing, in the language of the constitution, for calling them forth to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." (Address to Congress, November 19, 1794)
>>29505678
Wiki is fine for skimming. What I'm looking for is an exact history starting from the drafting of the constitution up until the ratification of the Bill of Rights.
No trolling here. Just want to be able to discuss the issue with some actual knowledge as opposed to...well, you know what I mean.
>>29505690
Not exactly what I was looking for, but thanks. What I need is what went on behind the scenes BEFORE the 2a became and amendment.
Pic is of my other rifle. a 1959 Marlin 99 given to me by my father.
>>29505779
Have you read the Federalist Papers?
>>29505801
Yes, I have. Still not the treatise I'm looking for.
Sometime between 1788 and 1791, extensive debate must have been offered up in support, or in denial, of what would became the Bill of Rights. I am looking for that history of that debate as it relates to the 2nd Amendment.
>>29505634
SHALL
>>29505779
It came about because of how implemental that fundamental became to be in the actual founding of the colony and thus states/ country.
You are literally asking us to cite 85% of Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States".
Virginia had laws mandating that people bring a well kept, functioning rifle and ammo to church on Sundays. Fucking not an option. Every able bodied man.
watch this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHioNfrZ_D4&feature=youtu.be&t=10
It's from a Mass perspective, but solid overall. The first 25% is solid info overall, it gradually gets more specific.
What he says about the small towns was almost constant for the first hundred years of the colonies being a thing.
Then it became super relevant in the Revolution because what was the first thing that the Brits went for? The Armories at Lexington and Concord.
Maybe you're not trolling, but you are asking us to teach you all that fucking history you learned for the first 18 years of your life.
>>29505634
NOT
>>29505884
Oh and the reason it made it in the Constitution is because all of this shit IS FUCKING OBVIOUS.
Do you really think these guys were like "no, no, we shouldn't make free speech a thing in our country. Religious freedom, IDK guys, sell it to me."
Jesus Christ.
>>29505634
INFRINGED
>>29505877
>>29505887
>>29505899
>>29505919
nice dubs, sorry to break up your get, but I'm glad it was interspersed with something that proves my point exactly. Look what language they used. Nobody debated about this shit.
>>29505884
Perhaps you misinterpreted the question. I am not asking to be schooled by /k/ denizens. I am asking if anyone is aware of a history book written from a non-partisan viewpoint, that traces the history of the 2a from the drafting of the Constitution, i.e., why it was initially left out, up until the ratification of the Bill of Rights, which included it.
>>29505963
nothing's non-partisan.
>>29505634
>the crown b& citizens from owning guns
>revolution happened
>based Founding Fathers ensured the people could easily rise up against a tyrannical government, should one arise again
Someone post the Jefferson one of these where he goes on about how we need a revolution every X years. It's in the Tree of Liberty speech.
Also OP, at the end of the day, the history is irrelevant.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
>>29505913
Then why the fuck didn't they include it in the first place? Obviously, shit went down, and the Constitution needed some amending, which they did.
That doesn't give me any info as to why the 2a was included in the Bill of Rights..
>>29505963
>History book written from a non-partisan viewpoint
....Good fucking luck, retard.
>>29505982
Posting memes doesn't do much to prove your point.
>>29505983
because of the whole debate over state vs federal power and whether the bill of rights should be a set of amendments or in a different section of the constitution?
>>29505979
>>29505988
Seems to me an awful lot of history gets written by non-partisans. Especially after a century or two has passed and they have nothing to rely upon but the historical record.
>>29505988
Mes frères, n'oublions pas que l'histoire n'est qu'une fable convenue!
>>29506019
Are you asking a question?
>>29506027
"non-partisan" means "the author has the same viewpoint as me."
>>29506040
i don't know?
>>29506057
That's not how question marks work.
>>29506042
No, it most certainly does not. It means that a historian has gathered all the pertinent information available to them, and condensed that in to a book.
Stop looking for conspiracies in everything. The real world is less glamorous.
>>29506063
But they do?
>>29506091
Proper English would have that as: But, do they?
>>29505634
Most people here are somewhat incorrect:
Most of our rights as Americans derive from the Rights of an Englishman as pronounced in the (English) Bill of Rights of 1689.
That bill came about after a period of civil war wherein the king had tried to limit certain rights of the English people through abosolutist proclamations. One of those rights being to arms.
So in the 1689 Bill of Rights, it was enshrined that all protestant Englishmen had the right to bear arms for their own defense as regulated by the laws set forth by the parliament (in other words, shifting the ability to restrict arms from the monarch to the people's representitives).
When the rights of Englishmen were re-codified in the constitution, we as Americans had to adapt it for our specific political climate, so instead of restricting the monarch (who is "top" in england), we restricted Congress (who is "top" in our system) from being able to infringe on our rights.
I would certainly suggest going through the rest of the 1689 Bill of Rights...you'll see alot of familiar "constitutionalisms" in it, like the restriction of standing armies during peacetime, restriction against cruel and unusual punishment, etc.
>>29506090
And every historian has a bias. Otherwise, the history books would have way too much inane bullshit you have to filter through.
And if he doesn't have a bias, fucking test tube baby that he is, then the information he collects will. Because some archivists don't save every scrap of information ever.
>>29505855
Have you read the antifederalist papers? More interesting IMO. I read the federalist papers in high school, but never even knew the antifederalist papers existed until recently. They present an important perspective and are very prescient considering our modern day problems. I thought they were great and just started a re-read.
>>29506002
First off, I don't have a point to be making. I was trying to help you since you asked for it, but I guess if you're going to act like an ungrateful faggot, I can tell you to read the Amendment, a fucking history book, and to fuck off.
Secondly, the image I was requesting has a direct quote from Jefferson about the history of the Second Amendment, exactly what you were asking about.
But here is a link to the little speech I was talking about where he touches on it. It's very insightful on the Founding Father's feelings when they pushed so hard for it. They wanted the government to always fear the people, not the other way around.
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/The_tree_of_liberty...%28Quotation%29
>>29506140
You, sir, are diamond in the rough.
>>29506172
If the meme was so god damned important, you should have saved it, and saved yourself the trouble of responding to me.
>>29505634
>>29505855
>>29505983
>libtard
>refuses to see he's asking a stupid and obvious question, and is never satisfied with the answer
the meme lives
>>29506192
Thanks.
bear in mind that given that the 1689 BoR is the legal precursor to the constitution, if we are to view American law as being (rightly) an extension of English common law, it nullifies all arguments against 2A that claim it is for "collective rights" (i.e. "2A is for militias" etc), as the 1689 BoR makes it clear that arms are for personal defense.
>>29506219
EVERYTHING IS A MEME
>>29506219
I should have, that's why I keep asking for it in a bunch of threads. There are abridged version on Google images when I search for it, but there's a big one containing a large chunk of the quote that makes it hit harder.
But go to that link, friend. That's the whole speech I was referring to that was on the image.
>>29506247
Why then was it necessary to include the word "militia", if it was, indeed meant to include everyone?
2A proponents claim that the militia did, indeed, mean everyone.But that's bullshit. Not every male was able, even those between 18 and 49, and it left out a significant portion of the population. Are we to surmise from a strict interpretation that women are not allowed to handle, or to keep, or to possess an "arm"?
Others may sling their shit at me as much as they like. Your responses are enlightening.
>>29506379
"Militia", in the language of the day, means "every military-aged man of able body and mind".
>>29506393
So, those who were not "able-bodied", as many thousands were after the war, were prohibited from joining the militia and owning a firearm?
Historians suggested that English universal armament (militias) caused a moderation of monarchial rule and fostered individual liberties because the populace had in reserve a check which soon brought the fiercest and proudest King to reason: the check of physical force.
This would have been common sense to the Englishmen that founded our government. England had some form of militia from 700AD.
>>29506379
>Why then was it necessary to include the word "militia", if it was, indeed meant to include everyone?
The american system required militiae for border defense and the maintenance of public order at the time of drafting.
The 1689 BoR provided for arms for the defense of the people alone, and so, we Americans amended the notion to include militiae.
>>29505634
Some people had enough of tyranny's bullshit.
>>29506431
In theory? Possibly.
Good luck suggesting that "less than able bodied" people should lose rights, those that are able bodied might have something to say.
Today we have such notions of equality that a legal case could be easily made that a guy in a wheelchair cannot be prohibited from any Constitutional right, including the right to bear arms.
>>29506498
In 1689, I doubt that "arms" meant the same as it did a century later. Or, am I wrong, has the word "arms" literally always referred to gunpowder propelled devices?
"To take up arms", as I have understood it, means to arm oneself with what was available.
Nowhere in the 2A does it, specifically, call for a gun.
>>29506659
Technically speaking, arms covers everything from knives all the way up to and including warships.
>you will never remove seakebab with a privately owned Fletcher.
Feels bad man.
>>29506659
Arms originally related to weapons like swords, where one uses it as an extension of their arm. Arms eventually came to be a general term for weapons, and now includes tasers according to based Supreme Court.
>>29506588
>Today we have such notions of equality that a legal case could be easily made that a guy in a wheelchair cannot be prohibited from any Constitutional right, including the right to bear arms.
Nor would I ever attempt to make that case. On the contrary. Not in America in 2016.
But, I would be curious to know if that case was made in, say, 1801?
Adhering to the letter of law would suggest that it may have been, especially if it were a woman wielding the device, or the "arm".
>>29506379
The Equal Rights Amendment also covers the 2 amendment. Followed by the previous Militia Acts that further enforces the role of State and Federal Militias. Under the Militia Acts there are two militias: The "Organized Militia" (State Self Defense Force) and the "Unorganized Militia" (Any able bodied civillians ages 17-49). Under the Organized Militia, the Federal government is responsible for funding the State government on their defense spendings including military vehicles, weapons and equipment. As the Unorganized Militia, we have our own personal responsibility to aid whenever there's a a local or international threat being held against us and our State Government (Armed Criminals, foreign militaries, domestic terrorists or our own federal government). Under the unorganzied militia, we are responsible for arming ourselves and also forming private militias recognized by our state governor. Hence why Gun Control is a violation to the Second Amendment and the Militia Acts, since it infringes the right of the Unorganized Militia (Including their families and civillians) to own firearms.
>>29506090
I work at the smithsonian as a historian / records keeper and lemme tell you about "non partisan" and bias.
every historian has biases. Fuck me, even in the history of the natural world we have biases towards one perspective or another.
Usually when people say non partisan or unbiased they mean "same viewpoint that I already have"
I can give you a brief rundown of what led to the second amendment but it would not do you any justice because as previous posters mentioned you need to google it and click links pertaining to the federalist papers and the framers and their intentions with our Bill of Rights.
Also look up lexington and concorde
>>29506718
This.
I was in a "We the people" club when I was in high school and everything this dude is saying is spot fucking on.
kudos to this guy for being educated
>>29506431
you don't join a militia. a militia is called up or formed as needed. everyone can get a gun and then every able bodied citizen gets called up when it's time to fight. if you look at the individual state responses on ratification of the Constitution it's pretty clear that their primary fear was disarmament of the people. the only reason the 2A wasn't in the ratified Constitution was Federalist concerns that getting too specific would lead to exclusion of other unmentioned rights.
Depends on how deep you want to go. Clayton Cramer has a lot of interesting primary sources, including militia statutes of the time, here: http://www.claytoncramer.com/primary/primary.html
I would also recommend reading through the Heller and McDonald decisions and looking up the sources they cite.
Here OP, there are sources under the commentary in pic related that will answer your questions. Keep in mind there are also more updated laws of the sources provided as well.
>>29506814
>was Federalist concerns that getting too specific would lead to exclusion of other unmentioned rights.
Their fears were well founded. Look at the massive overreaches today. So many rights not mentioned specifically we no longer have
>>29506850
Everything but No. 6 makes sense to me.
>>29506909
No. 6 is meant to be a parody
Are you an Assburger? or Autist?
>>29506917
I am the OP.
>>29506925
No.6 was bantz, below the 6 reasonings are the primary sources of US Federal Laws and Supreme Court Case Decisions
>>29506925
I am also the OP.
>>29506964
Oh and other Constitutional Amendments
Well, gentlemen, I can see that varying levels of intelligence abound on both sides of this debate. Some of you, well, actually, one of you, have exposed me to some interesting info. Info that shall not go unread.
As stated in my OP. I am a Liberal gun owner. I am also a veteran, and my liberal kids, and my liberal wife, all know how, or are in the process of learning, how to shoot.
Until such a time arises, I'll just keep doing what I'm doing.
Do me one favor, though. Never assume that just because one has Liberal political philosophies that they wish to, automatically, disarm you.
Liberalism gave you the life you lead now.
Just be sure that when the time comes that you raise your rifle on another American, that you are doing it for the right reason.
Too many times we kill others because we cannot deal with what our own problems are.
Be safe. All of you...
>>29505963
it is a well believed that the bill of rights wasnt put into the document originally because the founding fathers were literally just tired of being stuck in a crowded, hot, smelly building with a bunch of other old men in the middle of the summer. it really was that simple
>>29507040
>As stated in my OP. I am a Liberal gun owner. I am also a veteran, and my liberal kids, and my liberal wife, all know how, or are in the process of learning, how to shoot.
What about your liberal wife's sons and your liberal wife's boyfriend
Do they know how to shoot too?
Also Id like to personally thank the OP for reminding me that Liberalism is why this country is so successful and run so well.
>>29507082
don't ever talk to his wife's son again.
>>29507040
Mhmmm, more like Libertarianism did before Liberalism branched off. Honestly OP, you sound more like a Libertarian than a Liberal. Be safe, be proud and I hope the information provided by me and a few other anons will help you understand and provide a much open viewpoint
>>29505983
As I understand it the debate pertaining to the Bill of Rights had nothing to do with the actual content of the amendments themselves, as they were pretty much universally accepted truths by the founders, but whether or not they needed to be written down.
The Federalists argued that anything not explicitly prohibited in the document was constitutional, and that writing down the a!!endmemts would set a precedent for the future for liberties to be restricted, I.e. "oh it doesn't EXPLICITLY SAY you can do X, therefore it's no problem if we restrict it because it's not guaranteed like the rest of your rights"
Whereas the anti-federalists wanted explicit insurance that these rights were to never, ever, EVER be infringed upon, and it was in writing and solidified in the document to ensure that. They did however agree that anything not explicitly prohibited was constitutional, they just wanted a compromise from the Federalists that these specific rights were set in stone and absolute.
The debate never happened like
>"cmon guys, is free speech/religion/right to bear arms/cruel and unusual punishment REALLY a right?"
The debate instead happened like
>"cmon guys, do we REALLY need to put it down on paper that these are inalienable rights, and think of how that can be abused in the future"
the actual principals themselves were agreed to be common sense and unarguably true.
Disclaimer: this is all I can remember in my half drunk state while spooning my SKS, so take it with a grain of salt or if someone with actual credentials disputes me. Also I may have reversed Federalists and anti Federalists, but I'm pretty sure I got that right at least.
>>29507100
Lots of libertarians who hate the right like to pretend they are just the "good" liberals.
>>29507082
As amatter of fact, my niece and nephew are eager to learn, despites their mother's abhorrence. But, She has given me permission to do so, it's just so god damned hard to find a place in the San Fernando Valley to do it...
>>29507128
>San Fernando
OP, I think its best to move more into Norcal or the deep eastern inland if you want ease of access to legal shooting ranges. The West coast, SoCal and the Bay Areas are already full of gun grabbers and ignorants
>>29507082
>Liberalism is why this country is so successful and run so well.
>>29506027
Actual academic history is 85% bickering, 10% arguing, and roughly 3%-4% original research.
The remaining 1%-2% is hating Jared Diamond.
>>29507100
My viewpoint didn't need much correction, honestly. If, and when, Libertarianism becomes an honest response to the two parties we see today, I'll consider them for my vote.
>>29507187
>twas sarcasm me laddy
>>29507178
I live deep in the Inland Empire. My relatives do not.
>>29505634
If you're serious about doing it academically, the proper procedure is to get a few books by people who's opinions should be taken seriously (professors of history, legal scholars) ideally a few with conflicting interpretations. Read them, summarize what you've learned, look at the primary sources yourself, then come to your own conclusion.
>>29507124
I think us Libertarians known as the "good liberals" should just stay away from the classification of liberal and stay with "libertarian".
A pro-gun liberal is like a moderate rebel
>>29507211
Exactly. Which is why I poised the question. Any suggestions?
>>29507213
Me too.
Liberal has been to corrupted by the authoritarian/neocons/SJ crowds
>>29507213
Except for some of us are classical Libertarians (anarchists and socialists) who don't agree with the modern American redefinition of the word Libertarian to mean "John Birch Society Shill"
>>29507194
That's mainly the problem. The ideology of the dominant political parties don't fit the definition of Libertarianism unless we were to classify the politicians in them.
>>29507231
Socialism is completely contrary to Libertarianism.
Modern libertarianism has come to mean a supporter of consitutional republicanism, voluntaryist societies, and minarchism.
>>29507244
>Socialism is completely contrary to Libertarianism.
False. Socialists and those on the left have been using 'libertarian' since the time of Marx.
>>29507231
>Anarchy and Socialism
>Libertarian
Nay, Socialism is the exact opposite of Libertarianism and anarchy is considered to extreme compared to minarchism
>>29507264
I dont think there will be any arguing with you now will there
>>29507264
Okay doesnt change the fact that socialism is contrary to libertarianism if you are going to be using the modern day definitions
>>29507264
Well, that's for the Europeans. You have to consider the cultural differences that influences the ideology. For example, an American Conservative would be extremely different from a European Conservative. Hell, even Euorpeans classify American Conservatives as Neo-Liberals
>>29507283
I agree with you. The recent developments of those on the far right calling their philosophy Libertarian is very strange, because it is diametrically opposed to the original usage of the word. The same trend is happening with the word 'Anarchism.'
>>29507264
What is doublethink?
>>29507283
Jeezus, you guys and you phobic fears of Socialism.
Socialism has worked since before we crawled out of the fucking trees.
If it wasn't for socialism, you wouldn't have water delivered to your house through a sink in your kitchen.
Learn the definition of the fucking word before you decide to shit on it.
>>29507350
Socialism "works" on an extremely small scale and should not be considered as a way to run an entire country
Look at so called moderns socialist countries. True socialism cannot exist on such a scale and all you get are authoritarian governments like modern Sweden or East Germany or China
>>29507376
So, China is a Socialist government now? LOL.
>>29507431
...yes? Are you trolling?
>>29507440
Okay, my bad. China is a Socialist state.
>>29507040
>Liberal political philosophies that they wish to, automatically, disarm you.
the practices of the majority of people who call themselves liberals, specifically "progressive liberals" is to push for an arms confiscation agenda to control the public at large under a vastly powerful centralized government.
none of these ideologies are properly defined and i think many of the people who call themselves socialists or libertarians or liberals or conservatives have no actual clue what the fuck they are referring to
>>29507752
Maybe so. But, I don't see many middle of the road Democrats embracing that ideal. Liberals own 100.000.000 firearms. Not something you are told too often.
>>29507752
You say this, yet the people who advocate against big government actually take away the most freedom.
You call outlawing of abortion, corporate rights exceeding that of the people, and the banning of marijuana "Freedom"?
>>29506431
You were part of the militia like it or not if you were able enough to serve.
You had to provide your own weapon and ammunition and you weren't compensated for it.
It was a civic duty and suggested these people were armed whether or not they were able to serve.
>>29507841
Well. this is /k/ after all.
>>29507815
As long as guns aren't on the table, they don't give a shit about how many "rights" they lose.
Missing a little something called "frame of reference."
We look at the past and judge it based on our present lives. Even in WWI and WWII the "horrors" of war weren't always to those who lived in them. It was part of life.
Only in the last century or so has the state in the western world gained a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Before that every one was familiar with violence of some sort. From Pioneers defending the wagon train to the family butchering their own meat.
It was all bloody. And violent.
Now everything is bloodless and safe. So we get our fill of violence from entertainment; COD, Bourne, sawIII etc.
Where I live there is an Amish/Mennonite settlement. Peaceful quiet people. But horrified by the violence they hear of in our modern movies etc.
But they farm, butcher their own meat, clean their own fish. They are acquainted with violence.
I say that to say this, from my own family history, guns were never questioned. They were needed.
A part of life. They provided meat and security. My great grandfather chased off robbers in the 30s with the shotgun my father has in his collection. Everyone I knew as a child had guns. Most still do.
Read Soldaten. By Neitzel and Weltzer for more on "frames of reference"
>>29507815
More government =/= more rights protected
seems the only rights the left cares about are your right to partial birth abortion, right to smoke weed and your right to other people's earnings
>>29507841
And what, exactly, would you bring to the table? An obsolete Mosin Nagant and 300 rounds of ammo?
Good luck defending yourself from the "tyranny" you are so shit your pants afraid of...
>>29508089
What does any of that have to do in regards to the post you're quoting?
>>29508105
He just wanted to spout the whole "YOU CANT FIGHT AGAINST TYRANNY ITS TOO POWERFUL SO JUST GIVE UP YOUR GUNS" talking point.
whatever he replied to was irrelevant. Liberals are just living memes.
>>29508105
What militia are you presently serving in?
>>29508115
Not op, but you give some credence to the fact that conservatives have a lot more to lose.
>>29505634
>PoliticalForum.com
Oh man I haven't visited that site in so long. Back when I first got internet in the early 2000s I joined that site. Listening to Rush and Hannity made me want to argue with liberals.
>>29508125
The unorganized one
>>29508125
What does that have to do with the past tense context or the original post?
In those days you -were- part of the militia if you were an able bodied male aged 17 to 45. In fact, you still are, according to U.S. Law.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
You don't join a "militia" like all of these military role-playing fags in several states like to do. You are just part of it. That's all there is to it. Just as they were in colonial times, and you still have to provide your own arms and ammunition like they did to.
>>29508183
Its still in effect and the same requirements which makes most of us members of the unorganized militia
The militia and the people are effectively the same
>>29508197
That they are. Some of these liberals would shit their pants if they were actually aware of the law they like to try and spout.
>>29508180
Right. Sucks that actual military service isn't in your life history. Don't be too offended when that fact gets laughed at. Don't worry, anon, your secret is safe with me.
>>29508210
>>29508183
Cry more. You're part of the militia too if you're not morbidly obese and of proper age.
>>29508205
Its just ignorance. If they read the laws on the books and the past supreme court decisions they would shit their panties
Not to mention the countless number of historical references and documents which mention the right to keep and bear arms
They also conveniently ignore many state's consitutions have a more specific version of the second amendment
>>29508210
I dont need to be in the military?
Military =/= the Militia
Educate yourself my friend. I am a 20yro able bodied male and most definitely a member of the unorganized militia
The one the framers mentioned in their 2nd Amendment to the consitution
The /k/ militia, ready at a moment's notice.
>>29508210
Tbh, I can go and make my own private militia and have the state government recognize it. Warfare isn't just fought conventionally and by the book. And the moment the feds use heavy weaponry against their own people, even lethal drones, is the moment they lose support from the media and from the world.
>>29508250
Why did you post a picture of a pillbox?
>>29507244
+1
Modern libertarianism is classical liberalism as well, among all the things you enumerated.
>>29508250
I dont understand what you are trying to prove?
Like it or not unless you are a feeb you are a member of the militia. Please educate yourself on the history and laws of the country you reside in.
>>29505933
Break a get? The combo was finished anyway. Are you new anon? Be honest
>>29505779
...so you know exactly what you're looking for (which is in fact the hardest part of research) and you have a working understanding of the issues at play. All that is left is the research itself.
This board can point you in the right direction from various points of view and beliefs, but you're asking to be spoonfed.
Don't be such a lazy shit. Go to Wikipedia and use it as a reference index. Chase up the references, and look up the sources /k/ is giving you.
>>29505634
None of the idiots here know what to do for scholarly research into the Bill of Rights. Your starting point should be the The Complete Bill of Rights : The Drafts, Debates, Sources, and Origins, edited by Neil H. Cogan. Among other things you learn, will be drafts of the amendment that provided excuses for people with "religious scruples". Look at your local library for it.
