Do you notice how LW never admit their real goal is to overturn the 2nd amendment?

[radical right]

Cite to founding fathers' writings showing that they believed the right to arms was a collective right. Can you?

Read the first sentence of the 2nd amendment

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Really, an individual right? The founding fathers wanted slaves and indians to have guns?

What the fuck are you trying to argue? How does that make it a collective right? The founders believed it was a natural right of a free man, so no on the slave thing. I don't know about the injuns.

Do you have some evidence for your position that the founders believed it was a collective right?

 

[radical right]

Really, an individual right? The founding fathers wanted slaves and indians to have guns?

What the fuck are you trying to argue? How does that make it a collective right?

An individual right gives that to everybody, including slaves, immigrants and indians.

Is that what the funding fathers intended? NOPE.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Read the first sentence of the 2nd amendment

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

That's the why.

What about the "what"?

the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The words "right of the people" indicates that the right already exists naturally, confirmed by the writings of the guy who heavily influenced the founders--John Locke. Otherwise, they would have stated "we grant the states the right to bear arms."

How did you let the commie leftist dupe you?

 

[sartre play]

Some want more guns some less, some no guns. some more laws some less laws some better laws. its not a one sided deal.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Really, an individual right? The founding fathers wanted slaves and indians to have guns?

What the fuck are you trying to argue? How does that make it a collective right?

An individual right gives that to everybody, including slaves, immigrants and indians.

Is that what the funding fathers intended? NOPE.

So, did they want slaves, immigrants, and Indians to have free speech and press? The right to assembly? Habeas Corpus rights for those slaves?

 

[radical right]

Read the first sentence of the 2nd amendment

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,

That's the why.

What about the "what"?

The why defines what the what means.

 

[radical right]

The words "right of the people" indicates that the right already exists naturally,

So slaves, indians and immigrants have a natural right to guns? Are you sure you want to claim the constitution wanted that?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The why defines what the what means.

But how do you explain "the right of the people" in the what?

And, what was the "why" for freedom of speech and press?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So slaves, indians and immigrants have a natural right to guns? Are you sure you want to claim the constitution wanted that?

You're the one arguing that guns were not an individual right because they didn't want slaves to have them. I am pointing out how utterly retarded your argument is by applying it to free speech.

Do we NOT have an individual right to free speech because the founders didn't want slaves to have that right?

 

[radical right]

So, did they want slaves, immigrants, and Indians to have free speech and press? The right to assembly? Habeas Corpus rights for those slaves?

The government never imposed any limitations on those rights to slaves indians or immigrants. States and individuals may have imposed limitations, but the government never did.

So YES those were individual rights, including slaves, indians and immigrants.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The government never imposed any limitations on those rights to slaves indians or immigrants.

Show me where the Federal government imposed a gun restriction on slaves and indians. I haven't seen that.

 

[radical right]

But how do you explain "the right of the people" in the what?

And, what was the "why" for freedom of speech and press?

Bingo. they put no "why" on unqualified rights. When they put a WHY before the WHAT, they were imposing a conditional right, and not an unlimited one.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Bingo. they put no "why" on unqualified rights. When they put a WHY before the WHAT, they were imposing a conditional right, and not an unlimited one.

Show me where ANY founding father stated that intent in any writing. I have tons of examples where the did just the opposite.



I'll wait.

 

[radical right]

The government never imposed any limitations on those rights to slaves indians or immigrants.

Show me where the Federal government imposed a gun restriction on slaves and indians. I haven't seen that.

If guns are as old as America, so are gun laws.

A second type of early gun-control law barred various groups from gun ownership, including slaves, indentured servants, Native Americans, vagrants, criminals, Catholics or other non-Protestants

Laws barring distribution of guns to Native Americans were among the first such measures. As early as the 1600s, people who were discovered selling or giving guns to Indians could be subject to death.

Separating Truth and Myth in the American Gun Debate - The Islamic Monthly

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

To sum this up, your argument is:

"the right of the people" means the right of the collective, even though the First Amendment uses the same word "people" in reference to speech, religion, assymbly.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Using your logic, one could argue that the free exercise of religion or freedom of speech or the press are collective rights because it does not say who gets those rights. Only assembly is granted to the people.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The government never imposed any limitations on those rights to slaves indians or immigrants.

Show me where the Federal government imposed a gun restriction on slaves and indians. I haven't seen that.

If guns are as old as America, so are gun laws.

A second type of early gun-control law barred various groups from gun ownership, including slaves, indentured servants, Native Americans, vagrants, criminals, Catholics or other non-Protestants

Laws barring distribution of guns to Native Americans were among the first such measures. As early as the 1600s, people who were discovered selling or giving guns to Indians could be subject to death.

Separating Truth and Myth in the American Gun Debate - The Islamic Monthly

Hey, dude. We were under British rule until we rebelled. They tried to disarm the colonists too. I am not sure there is a rational way to apply that bullshit to the constitution or natural rights.

 

[g5000]

Guns are expensive. Of course 3% will own a lot of guns. That's probably grossly skewed result caused by huge private gun collector outliers.

It means gun ownership is far less popular than the NRA would lead people to believe. It means 75% of people don't own guns,

Maybe the Left is stupid. Maybe they are so stupid as to believe all it would take is an Assault Weapons Ban to obliterate the gun homicide rate. Maybe they really are that dumb.

That would explain why they have not done the blazingly obvious thing to beat the NRA at its own game.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That would explain why they have not done the blazingly obvious thing to beat the NRA at its own game.

I'm pretty dense. What is the blazingly obvious thing?

 

[radical right]

To sum this up, your argument is:

"the right of the people" means the right of the collective, even though the First Amendment uses the same word "people" in reference to speech, religion, assymbly.

WRONG. learn to read, that's why they invented the semicolon.

Before the semicolon, there were no reconstructions

After the semicolon. it referred to "the people"

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

Using your logic, one could argue that the free exercise of religion or freedom of speech or the press are collective rights because it does not say who gets those rights. Only assembly is granted to the people.

Without restriction it a right to both the individual and the collective.

The right to assemble and petition the government were colletives.

There is no individual right to peaceable assemble.