Exactly what and why was the 2nd amendment written like it is

[Billy_Kinetta]

So, fear the bear?

If a bear attacks, lie there and die? That is what murderers and rapists want.

Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.

Rapists appreciate your support.

are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?

Dumbass, you expect criminals to muster for militia or to turn in their firearms? Really?

The militia will muster, criminals won't; any questions?

Aside from concerns about your sanity, no.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.

Rapists appreciate your support.

are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?

Dumbass, you expect criminals to muster for militia or to turn in their firearms? Really?

The militia will muster, criminals won't; any questions?

None. That answers why I demand my right to own a gun.

Has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural and individual and singular rights are recognized in our State Constitutions.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. Yes, they are. That is why, States are important. They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.

Yes, states are important. I never said otherwise. But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state. The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens. The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.

The context and terms of our Second Amendment are plural and collective not individual or singular; it is, our supreme law of the land.

And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective. Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population. But collective? How do you make that determination? (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)

The militia and the body politic of the People, along with the security needs of a free State are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?

The militia is made up of citizen soldiers. They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.

nothing but diversion? all of those terms are collective and plural.

 

[danielpalos]

I won't look at today. I will look at the time around 1790.

Militia Act of 1792
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s. In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms. Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind. It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments. It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally. Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction. The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.

There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.

Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.

Not that I expect you would read it.

The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles

The Second Amendment is unique among the amendments in the Bill of Rights, in that it contains a preface explaining the reason for the right protected: Militias are necessary for the security of a free state. We cannot read the words “free State” here as a reference to the several states that make up the Union. The frequent use of the phrase “free State” in the founding era makes it abundantly clear that it means a non-tyrannical or non-despotic state. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in the case of District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), rightly remarked that the term and its “close variations” were “terms of art in 18th-century political discourse, meaning a free country or free polity.”

I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble. A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.

Well, technically, the only way a federal government could not be involved in the internal affairs of the state would be for it to not exist at all.

We have a Tenth Amendment and judicial forms of Jurisprudence.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

The US Constitution guarantees the right of the people to bear arms. That is not reserved to the States.

The judicial side was covered in Heller, which ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, not connected with service in any military or militia.

States are sovereign, within their jurisdiction. Only well regulated militia, being Necessary to the security of a free State, may not be Infringed when being Necessary to the security of their free State.

 

[danielpalos]

I won't look at today. I will look at the time around 1790.

Militia Act of 1792
Every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.

First we need to look at who was a Citizen in 1790s. In the 1790s, ALL Blacks even free Blacks were prohibited from owning and carrying firearms. All People even whites that would not swear allegiance to the newly formed United States were prohibited from owning or carrying fire arms. Women were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms. Bonded Slaves, even whites were prohibited from owning or carrying firearms of any kind. It all pretty much boiled down that a Citizen was a Free White Male Land Owner deemed to be in good standing with the Existing Government both Stated and Federal Governments. It's been estimated that only about 8% of the population from that time met the full requirement to own, possess and carry firearms legally. Remember, more than half of the population of that time either supported the Crown or leaned heavily in that direction. The Newly Formed Colonist Government did exactly what the British Government tried to do themselves.

There were two rebellions that made the Militia Act of 1792 to be written and adopted. The Shays Rebellion of 1786-1787 and the Whiskey Rebellion 1791-1794. While neither amounted to much, the founding fathers were scared to death that something else might come up that might endanger the newly formed Government so they adopted the 2nd Amendment as it was written since there was no Standing Army to prevent any decent resurrection from becoming successful. It was left up to each state individually to provide the militias to prevent it from happening. As long as the states agreed and didn't go to war with each other.

Using the original definition, if you don't own your House, Farm or Business and you don't completely and blindly support our current Government then are not a Citizen in Good Standings and will not be afforded the right to own, posses or carry any form of Firearms. Oh, and you must be a Free White Male as well.

Not that I expect you would read it.

The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles

As a result, they regarded what the Founders called the “rights of human nature” as an enemy of collective welfare, which should always take precedence over the rights of individuals. For Progressives then and now, the welfare of the people—not liberty—is the primary object of government, and government should always be in the hands of experts.

I object to this right wing propaganda, as well. Providing for the general welfare is a general power not a common power. Individual Liberty really is, an individual problem not an institutional problem. We have a Ninth Amendment.

What excuse for the denial and disparagement to our natural and individual rights, due to our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; that, the right wing, refuses to pay for with necessary and proper tax rates?

You can disagree, but the fact of the matter is, progressivism ideal is a collectivist concept and America has always been about the protection of the individual through the social contract. BTW. IT is NOT propaganda. History proves that out.

No, it hasn't. It has always been about the advancement of the Body Politic--the People.

No, it has been about protecting the rights of the individual.

Civil rights of the People.

actual words matter, in our federal and American express, Constitution.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, muster the militia; only privateers, potentially up to no good, will "fear the bear", then.

Rapists appreciate your support.

are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?

Dumbass, you expect criminals to muster for militia or to turn in their firearms? Really?

The militia will muster, criminals won't; any questions?

Aside from concerns about your sanity, no.

I resort to the fewest fallacies; to account for that dilemma. Unlike the right wing.

 

[WinterBorn]

Rapists appreciate your support.

are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?

Dumbass, you expect criminals to muster for militia or to turn in their firearms? Really?

The militia will muster, criminals won't; any questions?

None. That answers why I demand my right to own a gun.

Has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural and individual and singular rights are recognized in our State Constitutions.

The right to bear arms is recognized in our US Constitution, which is superior to any state constitution.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes, states are important. I never said otherwise. But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state. The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens. The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.

The context and terms of our Second Amendment are plural and collective not individual or singular; it is, our supreme law of the land.

And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective. Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population. But collective? How do you make that determination? (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)

The militia and the body politic of the People, along with the security needs of a free State are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?

The militia is made up of citizen soldiers. They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.

nothing but diversion? all of those terms are collective and plural.

Collective? You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.

 

[WinterBorn]

Not that I expect you would read it.

The Second Amendment as an Expression of First Principles

As a result, they regarded what the Founders called the “rights of human nature” as an enemy of collective welfare, which should always take precedence over the rights of individuals. For Progressives then and now, the welfare of the people—not liberty—is the primary object of government, and government should always be in the hands of experts.

I object to this right wing propaganda, as well. Providing for the general welfare is a general power not a common power. Individual Liberty really is, an individual problem not an institutional problem. We have a Ninth Amendment.

What excuse for the denial and disparagement to our natural and individual rights, due to our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; that, the right wing, refuses to pay for with necessary and proper tax rates?

You can disagree, but the fact of the matter is, progressivism ideal is a collectivist concept and America has always been about the protection of the individual through the social contract. BTW. IT is NOT propaganda. History proves that out.

No, it hasn't. It has always been about the advancement of the Body Politic--the People.

No, it has been about protecting the rights of the individual.

Civil rights of the People.

actual words matter, in our federal and American express, Constitution.

Yes they do. If we protect the rights of 10 citizens, are we protecting the right of a person or of people?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.

WTF?

In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?

That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

You make zero sense. The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.

It is you who are confused. So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged. Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained. Not the government, the PEOPLE.

Do you follow current events? Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons. Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US? In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd. Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US. Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).

You people keep assuming the US Military would be on YOUR side.

Amusing.

That is more than an assumption. However, if the President of the United States gave the order for a mob to take over civilian authority, we would face a real crisis - Constitutional and worse, civil war.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The security of a free State to its well regulated militia, is a States' sovereign right. It says so in our Second Amendment.

WTF?

In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?

That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

You make zero sense. The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.

It is you who are confused. So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged. Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained. Not the government, the PEOPLE.

Do you follow current events? Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons. Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US? In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd. Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US. Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).

Actually, I think an armed civilian population could fare reasonably well against our gov't. First of all, you are correct that our military could decimate a population armed with small arms. But would they be able to do so without decimating the entire civilian population? Remember the uproar when our military shot up unarmed civilians in Iraq? Now imagine that being US citizens. The armed population would blend in with the rest of the population. It would not be a matter of defeating the US military, but doing enough damage to force them to engage and then take enough damage to force public opinion into the equation.

Disagree.

An armed civilian population would fare poorly against the US military.

And as we demonstrated during the Civil War, Americans have no problem slaughtering their fellow Americans in large numbers.

Otherwise, there is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes citizens who subjectively perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to take up arms against a duly and lawfully elected government representing the will of the majority of the American people – the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First Amendment, the people have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process, not by force of arms.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

WTF?

In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?

That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

You make zero sense. The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.

It is you who are confused. So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged. Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained. Not the government, the PEOPLE.

Do you follow current events? Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons. Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US? In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd. Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US. Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).

You people keep assuming the US Military would be on YOUR side.

Amusing.

That is more than an assumption. However, if the President of the United States gave the order for a mob to take over civilian authority, we would face a real crisis - Constitutional and worse, civil war.

I can only think of one reason the President of the United States would try and get the "Mob" or "Unorganized" Militia to take over Civilian Authority and that would be if the US Military decided to sit down. And that would happen if he started giving orders contrary to the US Constitution and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Military would do nothing. They would leave it up to Congress or the Staff to correct the situation by either bringing the President back into legal or removing him from office. They would help and restore order for the new President though if called upon by the new President and Congress by supporting the Civilian Authorities in a support function. They would not take up arms against US Citizens unless there really was a Civil War.

I know, the nutcases think the Military would splinter. It wouldn't. It is there to defend against all enemies of the Constitution both foreign and domestic. Anyone trying to do a civil war would definitely be an enemy of the United States Constitution. Even if some left, they would leave without the heavy weapons. Maybe some would leave with sidearms but that's about it. And that would not be enough to stand against the National Guard with it's heavy weapons. Plus, mixing with the "Unorganized" Militia, the discipline would be terrible. Take it from me, more than one battle has been won by the smaller force that showed more discipline. But in this case, it would be the larger force showing the highest discipline. The US is well past having a blood and guts "Revolution". Our version of Revolution happens once every 2 to 4 years. We just went through 4 years of Revolution and it looks like we are in for another 4 years of bloodless Revolution.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I agree to disagree, if we have to quibble. A free State of our Union, is one free from federal interference in its internal affairs.

There is no quibbling. YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims. You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.

lol. Yes, they are. That is why, States are important. They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.

Yes, states are important. I never said otherwise. But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state. The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens. The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.

This is why most Amendments are so vague. It's designed for the states to design it to fit themselves. The only exception is when it's an absolute human right. And you can't equate owning a firearm with breathing air or being locked up without due course. It's just not the same.

There are regulations restricting firearm ownership and carry. But barring a reason to deny ownership, citizens of this country should be able to own a firearm.

As for the guarantee of not being locked up without due course, that has already been seriously damaged with the Patriot Act.

How about freedom of speech, the freedom to gather to protest, or the freedom to practice your religion? Is owning a firearm equal to those?

That’s what we’re waiting for the Supreme Court to determine.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

WTF?

In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?

That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

You make zero sense. The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.

It is you who are confused. So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged. Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained. Not the government, the PEOPLE.

Do you follow current events? Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons. Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US? In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd. Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US. Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).

You people keep assuming the US Military would be on YOUR side.

Amusing.

That is more than an assumption. However, if the President of the United States gave the order for a mob to take over civilian authority, we would face a real crisis - Constitutional and worse, civil war.

Non sequitur. Please make sense so that I can respond.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

There is no quibbling. YOu are being corrected for your inaccurate claims. You keep talking about others being clueless, and yet you claim the states are the source of our guaranteed rights.

lol. Yes, they are. That is why, States are important. They recognize and secure natural and individal rights.

Yes, states are important. I never said otherwise. But the basic rights are listed in the US Constitution, and cannot be overruled by any state. The US Constitution guarantees certain rights to all citizens. The states may expand on those, but they cannot take them away.

This is why most Amendments are so vague. It's designed for the states to design it to fit themselves. The only exception is when it's an absolute human right. And you can't equate owning a firearm with breathing air or being locked up without due course. It's just not the same.

There are regulations restricting firearm ownership and carry. But barring a reason to deny ownership, citizens of this country should be able to own a firearm.

As for the guarantee of not being locked up without due course, that has already been seriously damaged with the Patriot Act.

How about freedom of speech, the freedom to gather to protest, or the freedom to practice your religion? Is owning a firearm equal to those?

That’s what we’re waiting for the Supreme Court to determine.

Already determined.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

WTF?

In the part of the constitution (the bill of rights) that expresses the rights of the INDIVIDUAL, they decided to lump in that A STATE HAS THE RIGHT TO FORM A MILITIA?

That makes absolutely ZERO sense.

You make zero sense. The actual words in our Second Amendment clearly declare what is Necessary to the security of a free State; it is mostly definitely not, the whole and entire concept of natural and individual rights.

It is you who are confused. So that the State CAN remain free, it is essential that the natural Right of defense be acknowledged. Firearms ownership by the PEOPLE is how that is maintained. Not the government, the PEOPLE.

Do you follow current events? Imagine small arms held by the Syrian People, against the 20th Century war planes dropping ordinance and chemical weapons. Whose winning those engagements?

Then consider the effect if citizens could own the arms capable of engaging a 21st century military force in the US? In my opinion, having served on a Destroyer in the late 60's, how that vessel would have done against the 21st Century Navy - not well and not for long.

Your reasoning is absurd. Today the cost and size of our military, and the training, cannot be defeated or even slowed by a civilian force, and even if the arms of war were legal in the US. Have you thought about how these arms might be used in small engagements against the civilian population (think criminal gangs).

Actually, I think an armed civilian population could fare reasonably well against our gov't. First of all, you are correct that our military could decimate a population armed with small arms. But would they be able to do so without decimating the entire civilian population? Remember the uproar when our military shot up unarmed civilians in Iraq? Now imagine that being US citizens. The armed population would blend in with the rest of the population. It would not be a matter of defeating the US military, but doing enough damage to force them to engage and then take enough damage to force public opinion into the equation.

Disagree.

An armed civilian population would fare poorly against the US military.

And as we demonstrated during the Civil War, Americans have no problem slaughtering their fellow Americans in large numbers.

Otherwise, there is nothing in the text, history, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes citizens who subjectively perceive the government to have become ‘tyrannical’ to take up arms against a duly and lawfully elected government representing the will of the majority of the American people – the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First Amendment, the people have the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political or judicial process, not by force of arms.

And if that process does not respond?

 

[danielpalos]

are they going to muster to get well regulated or not?

Dumbass, you expect criminals to muster for militia or to turn in their firearms? Really?

The militia will muster, criminals won't; any questions?

None. That answers why I demand my right to own a gun.

Has nothing to do with our Second Amendment; natural and individual and singular rights are recognized in our State Constitutions.

The right to bear arms is recognized in our US Constitution, which is superior to any state constitution.

lol. Only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

 

[danielpalos]

The context and terms of our Second Amendment are plural and collective not individual or singular; it is, our supreme law of the land.

And you have never shown how you determine that it is collective. Plural is a given, since the individual right is for an entire population. But collective? How do you make that determination? (granted, you have never answered that question, so I don't expect you will this time)

The militia and the body politic of the People, along with the security needs of a free State are all, collective and plural; coincidence or well regulated conspiracy?

The militia is made up of citizen soldiers. They maintain their own weapons, but can be called upon to defend our nation if we are attacked.

nothing but diversion? all of those terms are collective and plural.

Collective? You have yet to defend your reasoning behind insisting it is a collective right.

it is self evident. both terms militia and the people are collective and plural as is the context regarding the security of a free State.

Only the clueless and Causeless right wing, never gets it.

 

[danielpalos]

I object to this right wing propaganda, as well. Providing for the general welfare is a general power not a common power. Individual Liberty really is, an individual problem not an institutional problem. We have a Ninth Amendment.

What excuse for the denial and disparagement to our natural and individual rights, due to our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror; that, the right wing, refuses to pay for with necessary and proper tax rates?

You can disagree, but the fact of the matter is, progressivism ideal is a collectivist concept and America has always been about the protection of the individual through the social contract. BTW. IT is NOT propaganda. History proves that out.

No, it hasn't. It has always been about the advancement of the Body Politic--the People.

No, it has been about protecting the rights of the individual.

Civil rights of the People.

actual words matter, in our federal and American express, Constitution.

Yes they do. If we protect the rights of 10 citizens, are we protecting the right of a person or of people?

The People, if we have to quibble rights in our federal Constitution.

 

[Markle]

This is why most Amendments are so vague. It's designed for the states to design it to fit themselves. The only exception is when it's an absolute human right. And you can't equate owning a firearm with breathing air or being locked up without due course. It's just not the same.

No, the amendments and the Constitution are very specific. The fact that, as a far left Progressive, you loathe those documents does not make them vague except in your own mind.