the 2nd amendment- why 2nd?

[Louis VI the Fat]

2. Americans were abused by the British government by attempting to contain us within the Atlantic and the Appalachians.

Or the British were protecting the rights of native Americans against abuse by the American colonists...

Not to mention, West of the Appalachians lay French territory. And Canadian, which Britain tried to solve with the Québec Act of 1774.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Wikipedia:

The Quebec Act of 1774 was an Act of the Parliament of Great Britain (citation 14 Geo. III c. 83) setting procedures of governance in the Province of Quebec. The principal components of the act were:

* The province's territory was expanded to take over part of the Indian Reserve, including much of what is now southern Ontario, plus Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin and parts of Minnesota.
* The oath of allegiance was replaced with one that no longer made reference to the Protestant faith.
* It guaranteed free practice of the Catholic faith.
* It restored the use of the French civil law for private matters while maintaining the use of the English common law for public administration, including criminal prosecution.


The Act had wide-ranging effects, in Quebec itself, as well as in the Thirteen Colonies. In Quebec, English-speaking migrants from Britain and the southern colonies objected to a variety of its provisions, which they saw as a removal of certain political freedoms. French-speaking Canadiens varied in their reaction; the land-owning seigneurs and clergy were generally happy with its provisions.

In the Thirteen Colonies, the Act, which had been passed in the same session of Parliament as a number of other acts designed as punishment for the Boston Tea Party and other protests, was joined to those acts as one of the Intolerable Acts. The provisions of the Quebec Act were seen as a new model for British colonial administration, which would strip the colonies of their elected assemblies, and promote the Roman Catholic faith in preference to widely-held Protestant beliefs. It also limited opportunities for colonies to expand on their western frontiers, by granting most of the Ohio Country to the province of Quebec.

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

Well said Louis, and some very astute observations on the psychology behind it. People underestimate the shared love of Liberty between France and the USA too much these days.

There is great fun to be had for Francophile Americans or Americanophile Frenchmen with a love for historical political thought. Relations during the end of the eightteenth century were intense. A period that was of tremendous consequence for the future of either nation. One can never overestimate the importance one country had for the other.
For all the differences between the nations, the birth papers of France and America are mere translations of one another.


When I was a wee lad, I didn't have soccer posters on my wall. I was too much a nerd for that. When I was eleven, on my wall hung...the Declaration of Independence. Yes, I am not kidding. On a reproduction parchment.* I thought it was way cool, even if I didn't understand the half of it. I still don't understand it, but am still as determined to some day do. For one thing, I can quote the whole declaration on top of my head: 'When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another...'


* I bought at at Disney World, in Liberty Square, after exiting the Hall of Presidents. Still one of my favourite areas of Walt Disney World, together with the American Adventure over at EPCOT. Yes, poor little Louis was indoctrinated to become an American patriot by the evil Disney corporation. Dammit, to this day I instantly start sobbing at the opening notes of 'Golden Dreams' at the American Adventure.

~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~

I disagree with his analysis. Some of his assumptions do not follow. Most obvious is the notion that something referred to as "The Bill of Rights" isn't really about enumerating rights.

I am aware of the minority position of my explanation. Nevertheless, I maintain that the Bill of Rights does not grant rights to the people at all. This is not an obscure postion, and I am in excellent company in this.

And I go one step beyond that, pushing me into even further minority position: I maintain that the BoR does not even limit the rights of government. It merely, superflously, puts on paper rights the people never abdicated to the government.

Call me a conservative constitutional minimalist.
Of course, I will not pass upon this excellent opportunity to accuse Xiahou of being a communist, one who maintains that the people have no rights vis-a-vis the federal government except for the ones government grants to them.