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

[WinterBorn]

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.

More of this? Try posting something factual instead of claiming no one pays attention to whomever. It is nonsense.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Your claims might be taken seriously if you offered anything more than the claim that it is a collective right. You offer no proof or evidence.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Plural is a given, since it guarantees a right to the population.

Collective is not.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

They do so under the restrictions of the US Constitution, which is the original source of guaranteed rights in this country.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

State constitutions are restricted by the US Constitution. The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution are individual and civil rights. By your claim, a state constitution could remove the right to free speech. But, in reality, no state constitution can do that.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Your claims might be taken seriously if you offered anything more than the claim that it is a collective right. You offer no proof or evidence.

You don't understand any serious arguments, right winger; telling stories is all you seem to know.

Every dictionary supports my story and not your story.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Plural is a given, since it guarantees a right to the population.

Collective is not.

The collective of the Body Politic, votes.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

They do so under the restrictions of the US Constitution, which is the original source of guaranteed rights in this country.

lol. telling stories is all you know how to do, right wingers.

We have a Tenth Amendment.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

State constitutions are restricted by the US Constitution. The rights guaranteed by the US Constitution are individual and civil rights. By your claim, a state constitution could remove the right to free speech. But, in reality, no state constitution can do that.

just story telling, right wingers? we dare not call it spam, while in the minority.

We have a Tenth Amendment.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

1. There are 200 million guns, yes. But not even a fraction of that many households that actually have the guns. Many households with guns have multiple guns.

2. And who are you going to get to lead your Army? Are you aware it's against the law to openly preach about an armed overthrow of the United States of America? It's one thing to do it as an individual but when you do it large scale, that's considered treason and subject to arrest, prosecution and imprisonment. If you continue to do so while incarcerated, you may find yourself living in solitary confinement in Levenworth or one of the Super Max Prisons.

3. Now that you have decided to raise your army, just how are you going to mobilize it. Logistics is a nightmare. Are you going to practice it? Once again, treason gets in the way here.

4. You are assuming that all or most gun owners will take up arms with you. Newsflash: Don't look for anything like that. Most of us Gun Owners think the people running around the woods playing war are a bunch of nutcases and are probably right. If push comes to shove, most are likely to become part of the Organized Militia and get the really good stuff.

5. You forget, the US Military CAN and WILL defend against the enemy(s) of the United States and the Constitution if authorized by the President and Congress in country. If you raise an million man army, and decide to take over parts of the country, you are now an enemy of the State and are no longer considered Citizens by your own admission. The US can raise a few million very quickly by using Active, Reserve, National Guard, State Guard and Organized Militia. The Organized Militia would take a bit longer but the first three could be done in a matter of days. Logistics would take a couple of weeks to get them into place. Meanwhile, you are still trying to get your people mobilized.

It's an impossible pipe nightmare on your part. But if you want to try, be my guest. The Graveyards and Prisons have room to spare for your "Army".

 

[Pop23]

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.

Your claims might be taken seriously if you offered anything more than the claim that it is a collective right. You offer no proof or evidence.

You don't understand any serious arguments, right winger; telling stories is all you seem to know.

Every dictionary supports my story and not your story.

Because you say so?

Yeah, we get it, just like we get the part of the Second that obviously reads, "the right of the people, as part of an organized militia, shall not be infringed".

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Your claims might be taken seriously if you offered anything more than the claim that it is a collective right. You offer no proof or evidence.

You don't understand any serious arguments, right winger; telling stories is all you seem to know.

Every dictionary supports my story and not your story.

The dictionary definition of the word "people" shows it to be plural. No dictionary shows the definition to always be collective.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Plural is a given, since it guarantees a right to the population.

Collective is not.

The collective of the Body Politic, votes.

And the people have individual rights. The word people is not always collective. So unless you have some evidence that the word, as used in the 2nd amendment, is collective, your argument is ridiculous.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

They do so under the restrictions of the US Constitution, which is the original source of guaranteed rights in this country.

lol. telling stories is all you know how to do, right wingers.

We have a Tenth Amendment.

Indeed we do. "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."

Guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms is listed in the US Constitution. A state cannot remove that guaranteed right.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

There are many degrees of defense. You use the ones most appropriate to the situation. I didn't used to need a firearm to stop an intruder that was not armed with a firearm. I am too old to do that anymore. But there are other ways to do without shooting them. Most home invaders aren't armed. They are not invading. They are there to steal and picked what they thought was an unoccupied house. A Baseball Bat works wonders. So does a gun but (pardon the pun) that's a bit of an overkill unless you are my age. In my younger days, that intruder wouldn't have stood a tinkers chance and a gun would not have been necessary or even a baseball bat. But age creeps up on all of us if we are lucky enough to reach it. Usually, just yelling, letting them know the house is occupied is enough to send them scurrying. Of course, yelling, I have a Gun usually does the trick as well. Most of the time, a Dog does a better job. Reminds me of a Joke.

A Burglar broke into a house that he knew the occupants were on vacation. He sees a Parrot. The Parrot says, "God is Watching". The Burglar ignores the bird and goes over to the stereo and unplugs it. Burglar goes over to the Big Screen TV. The Parrot says again, "God is Watching You". The Burglar says, "Who in their right mind would name a Parrot God". The Parrot said, "No one. But they would name the Rotwieller that is watching you God though". Grrrr.

 

[bodecea]

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?

The entire 2nd Amendment, and I quote: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

No "the RIGHT of the INDIVIDUAL" there at all.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

There are many degrees of defense. You use the ones most appropriate to the situation. I didn't used to need a firearm to stop an intruder that was not armed with a firearm. I am too old to do that anymore. But there are other ways to do without shooting them. Most home invaders aren't armed. They are not invading. They are there to steal and picked what they thought was an unoccupied house. A Baseball Bat works wonders. So does a gun but (pardon the pun) that's a bit of an overkill unless you are my age. In my younger days, that intruder wouldn't have stood a tinkers chance and a gun would not have been necessary or even a baseball bat. But age creeps up on all of us if we are lucky enough to reach it. Usually, just yelling, letting them know the house is occupied is enough to send them scurrying. Of course, yelling, I have a Gun usually does the trick as well. Most of the time, a Dog does a better job. Reminds me of a Joke.

A Burglar broke into a house that he knew the occupants were on vacation. He sees a Parrot. The Parrot says, "God is Watching". The Burglar ignores the bird and goes over to the stereo and unplugs it. Burglar goes over to the Big Screen TV. The Parrot says again, "God is Watching You". The Burglar says, "Who in their right mind would name a Parrot God". The Parrot said, "No one. But they would name the Rotwieller that is watching you God though". Grrrr.

I agree with part of what you said. In my younger days, most unarmed burglars wouldn't stand a chance. But I am older now. Also, how do you tell whether or not the intruder is armed? I refuse to put my life, and the lives of my loved ones, in the hands of a criminals decision to carry or not carry. Yes, most home intruders are only interested in stealing something. But that is not always the case. Again, how do you tell?

If someone breaks into my house, they will be shot. If it is by me, they will be shot until they are no longer a threat. If it is by my sweetheart, they will be shot until she runs out of bullets. If they are VERY lucky, they will convincingly surrender after being shot with the first round, which is a shotshell. Otherwise defensive rounds will follow.

 

[peach174]

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.

Collective is Socialism.
Individual right is freedom from Government.
That includes The Federal Government which has no right to pass any laws on any of our Amendments.
Written history proves this.

 

[bodecea]

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?

Imagine this van full of Alt-Righties in Texas running from their meth lab. U.S. A-10 Strafing a Taliban Vehicle in Kandahar

 

[bodecea]

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.

Where do you get the confidence to believe #2 to be true?