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

[Markle]

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]

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.

Our Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Our Second Amendment says the same thing, with or without any punctuation, "on the right wing".

 

[Markle]

ur Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Our Second Amendment says the same thing, with or without any punctuation, "on the right wing".

Who could make this up?

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

If someone believes a gov't action to be unconstitutional, they SHOULD speak up. At least they are aware of whether the US Constitution or a state constitution is more powerful.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

No, it is not self evident. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that supports the idea that it is a collective right.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

And just how many times do they have to rule before you accept their ruling.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

I am not quibbling. I am correcting you. And most constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court agree with me. "People" is obviously plural. But there is nothing to suggest it is collective. You'll have to do better than insisting you are right and pleading to ignorance to have that play here.

 

[westwall]

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.

Facts in evidence say otherwise.

 

[westwall]

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.

What does
"the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL"

mean then?

 

[Darkwind]

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.

I agree when it was before the weapons costs so danged much. You could afford anything the Military could except for artillery. And if you were rich enough, you could afford even an artillery piece or two as well. After 1850, the cost of war went up exponentially. All of a sudden, the Gatlin was introduced, followed closely by the Hotchkin Canon, the Rocket Launchers, Aerial Bombs, Mortars, Howitzers and more. The cost of war outstripped even the richest people. Only Governments could afford those expenditures. It was back to the days where the King was the only one that could afford to outfit his Knights with the proper equipment to wage war. Without even knowing it, the 2nd amendment included something about an Organized Militia where the State would equip it's own Army. The State could afford many of the weapons or war far beyond the individual. What they didn't foresee was the power and the cost of the weapons to even outstrip anything even the State could afford. Now,only the Federals can afford these weapons by pooling all the States Funds together. If a State were to put together an Organized Militia from the weapons you had and the weapons it actually owned it would not be able to stand the first battle with the Federals. The National Guard's Weapons aren't owned by the State, they are owned by the Feds.

Now, where does that leave the first half of the 2nd amendment?

Two issues about this come to mind.

1. In this country, there are over 200 million guns. That is a formidable army, even for our military. However, that leads to the second point...

2. The military would not obey an order from the civilian government to go to war with the people of the United States. It would be an 'unlawful' order. At best, if it ever came to brass tacks and we had to defend ourselves from our own government, at best, we are looking at the combined law enforcement agencies controlled by the Feds. They are, in their own right, quite a force, but not one that could take the entirety of the US population; or those who are armed and resisting.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

In fact, given that the entire document is set and predicated upon ensuring and safeguarding the rights and liberties of the individual, your statement fails any logic test.

The people is an artful way of saying that each individual enjoys the exact same protections under the law and that each individual's liberty is of concern to everyone.

 

[Darkwind]

A Primer on the Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms

 

[there4eyeM]

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.

Unarmed Americans were unhesitatingly shot at Kent State. What makes anyone think the military would not fire on armed rebels?

 

[danielpalos]

ur Founding Fathers did an most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land. Our Second Amendment says the same thing, with or without any punctuation, "on the right wing".

Who could make this up?

I already tried it. The right wing is simply full of fallacy if they believe, punctuation has any influence in the meaning of the terms in our Second Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

If someone believes a gov't action to be unconstitutional, they SHOULD speak up. At least they are aware of whether the US Constitution or a state constitution is more powerful.

lol. the right wing is simply too full of fallacy to take seriously in any serious venues.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

No, it is not self evident. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that supports the idea that it is a collective right.

lol. Only if you appeal to ignorance of the terms.

 

[Skull Pilot]

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.

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.

I disagree.

The right to defend your own life is just as important as breathing.
We all have the absolute right to defend ourselves by the most effective means possible and the most effective tool for the purpose of self defense , at least right now, is a firearm.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

I am not quibbling. I am correcting you. And most constitutional scholars and the US Supreme Court agree with me. "People" is obviously plural. But there is nothing to suggest it is collective. You'll have to do better than insisting you are right and pleading to ignorance to have that play here.

lol. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law. Story telling is what they are best at.

Plural and collective, is what the franchise is about.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

What does
"the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL"

mean then?

State Constitutions recognize and secure natural and individual and singular rights.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

In fact, given that the entire document is set and predicated upon ensuring and safeguarding the rights and liberties of the individual, your statement fails any logic test.

The people is an artful way of saying that each individual enjoys the exact same protections under the law and that each individual's liberty is of concern to everyone.

No, it isn't. Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution. The right wing is simply, clueless and Causeless.