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

[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.

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.

Socialism starts with a social Contract. Our federal Constitution is that form of contract.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously; telling stories is all they seem to know how to do.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

But not until you go through Daryls defensive checklist, right? And if you don't have a pen to check all the boxes, just ask the invader if he has a pen. I'm sure he will stop raping the wife so you can fill out your form. He wouldn't want to be overkilled!

Write fast and reload even faster, is that it? You people just love to kill something. Well, cupcakes, it's not something to look foreword to for any sane person. I guess that leaves you wanna be "Revolutionaries" out of it.

I do not look forward to it at all. That is why I lock my doors and make it appear as though someone is home. I do NOT want to take a human life. But I will not risk my life or the lives of loved ones on the generosity of criminals.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

lol. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Our Second Amendment is express, not implied.

And, since that right is guaranteed by the US Constitution, the 10th amendment expressly states it is not left to the states.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

plural, is all i need to deny and disparage the whole and entire right wing argument regarding individual rights.

Collective depends on usage; the militia and the people and the context, are plural and collective.

Militia might be contrued as collective. But then again, it might not. "People", as used in the context of the sentence is certainly not collective. A "collective right"? How does that work?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

But not until you go through Daryls defensive checklist, right? And if you don't have a pen to check all the boxes, just ask the invader if he has a pen. I'm sure he will stop raping the wife so you can fill out your form. He wouldn't want to be overkilled!

Write fast and reload even faster, is that it? You people just love to kill something. Well, cupcakes, it's not something to look foreword to for any sane person. I guess that leaves you wanna be "Revolutionaries" out of it.

The only one jonesing for a Revolution is you dumblefuck.

The rest of just love watching your baiting fail miserably.

Gonna report me to the DOJ?

The Department of Jerks already has you on file.

Yeah, prolly, the file titled, THIS DUDE KICKS PROGRESSIVE ASS!

Nope. The cover letter reads, "This Jerk Sucks Eggs".

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

Civil rights apply to individuals, right winger. We have the express terms in our Second Amendment, not right wing conspiracy, and fantasy.

The 2nd amendment applies to individuals as well. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. A collective does not bear arms, individuals bear arms.

 

[Pop23]

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.

plural, is all i need to deny and disparage the whole and entire right wing argument regarding individual rights.

Collective depends on usage; the militia and the people and the context, are plural and collective.

And that's why the Second didn't say the rights of the people within the Militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Everyone but you are nuts, right?

 

[Pop23]

But not until you go through Daryls defensive checklist, right? And if you don't have a pen to check all the boxes, just ask the invader if he has a pen. I'm sure he will stop raping the wife so you can fill out your form. He wouldn't want to be overkilled!

Write fast and reload even faster, is that it? You people just love to kill something. Well, cupcakes, it's not something to look foreword to for any sane person. I guess that leaves you wanna be "Revolutionaries" out of it.

The only one jonesing for a Revolution is you dumblefuck.

The rest of just love watching your baiting fail miserably.

Gonna report me to the DOJ?

The Department of Jerks already has you on file.

Yeah, prolly, the file titled, THIS DUDE KICKS PROGRESSIVE ASS!

Nope. The cover letter reads, "This Jerk Sucks Eggs".

A call from Daryl to the DOJ:

ring, ring :

"This is Agent Smith, how can I help ya"

Daryl: "Yes Sir, I'd like to report treasonous activity on a web site I frequent:

Agent Smith: "OK, can you tell me about it"

Daryl: "Well, we've been discussing the 2nd Amendment and there are dudes on their, one in particular that is implying that the 2nd Amendment is about Citizens starting a Revolution"

Agent Smith: "Really?, can you send me a link"

Daryl: "Of Course" Daryl gets the agents email and sends a link, after a short while Agent Smith returns

Agent Smith: "Um, Daryl, I've gone through this whole thread and what I see is people discussing what the 2nd Amendment provides, and in some cases, opinions both sides have as to how effective an armed encounter with the Military, but I don't see anyone advocating the overthrow of the Government. What am I missing?"

Agent Smith is tapped on the shoulder as his Supervisor asks him to put the caller on hold.

Agent Smith: "Daryl, can I put you on hold? Thank you

Supervisor: "Is that that Daryl dude again?"

Agent Smith: "Yeah, how'd you know?"

Supervisor: "He's a regular, best thing you can do is just tell him we'll start a file on whoever he's reporting this time"

Agent Smith: "Oh, OK, do you really want me to start that file"

Supervisor: "Oh, hell no, just tell him that, the guy will go on for hours about Levenwoth, Super Max Prisons and Yada, Yada, Yada"

Agent Smith: "Hello Daryl, I spoke to my Supervisor and we're starting a file on Pop23. Don't you worry, we got this handled"

Click.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

lol. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Our Second Amendment is express, not implied.

And, since that right is guaranteed by the US Constitution, the 10th amendment expressly states it is not left to the states.

well regulated militia of the people have literal recourse to our Second Amendment; only the unorganized militia whines about gun control.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

plural, is all i need to deny and disparage the whole and entire right wing argument regarding individual rights.

Collective depends on usage; the militia and the people and the context, are plural and collective.

Militia might be contrued as collective. But then again, it might not. "People", as used in the context of the sentence is certainly not collective. A "collective right"? How does that work?

all of those are collective and in their usage, along with the context.

collective action is a requirement for any Body Politic, militia, and the security of a free State.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Civil rights apply to individuals, right winger. We have the express terms in our Second Amendment, not right wing conspiracy, and fantasy.

The 2nd amendment applies to individuals as well. The right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. A collective does not bear arms, individuals bear arms.

no, it isn't an Individual right; it is a civil right being applied to individuals.

that, is why, Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

plural, is all i need to deny and disparage the whole and entire right wing argument regarding individual rights.

Collective depends on usage; the militia and the people and the context, are plural and collective.

And that's why the Second didn't say the rights of the people within the Militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Everyone but you are nuts, right?

it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary. the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.

 

[Pop23]

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.

plural, is all i need to deny and disparage the whole and entire right wing argument regarding individual rights.

Collective depends on usage; the militia and the people and the context, are plural and collective.

And that's why the Second didn't say the rights of the people within the Militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Everyone but you are nuts, right?

it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary. the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.

No it doesn't, but do blabber on

 

[Pogo]

Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.

It might be, but the OP did the opposite; deliberately applied the environment of the 18th Century. That is, its own time.

Your post is directly dishonest.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

plural, is all i need to deny and disparage the whole and entire right wing argument regarding individual rights.

Collective depends on usage; the militia and the people and the context, are plural and collective.

And that's why the Second didn't say the rights of the people within the Militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Everyone but you are nuts, right?

it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary. the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.

No it doesn't, but do blabber on

yes, it does; the right wing has No Thing, but fallacy.

 

[Pop23]

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

plural, is all i need to deny and disparage the whole and entire right wing argument regarding individual rights.

Collective depends on usage; the militia and the people and the context, are plural and collective.

And that's why the Second didn't say the rights of the people within the Militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Everyone but you are nuts, right?

it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary. the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.

No it doesn't, but do blabber on

yes, it does; the right wing has No Thing, but fallacy.

And that is why the founding fathers wrote "and the right to KEEP and BEAR arms by the MILITIA shall not be infringed"?

I know they were short on parchment, but......................

 

[danielpalos]

plural, is all i need to deny and disparage the whole and entire right wing argument regarding individual rights.

Collective depends on usage; the militia and the people and the context, are plural and collective.

And that's why the Second didn't say the rights of the people within the Militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Everyone but you are nuts, right?

it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary. the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.

No it doesn't, but do blabber on

yes, it does; the right wing has No Thing, but fallacy.

And that is why the founding fathers wrote "and the right to KEEP and BEAR arms by the MILITIA shall not be infringed"?

I know they were short on parchment, but......................

You are short on understanding of what the militia is.

it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary. the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

A well regulated Militia (of the whole Body Politic), being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[westwall]

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.

Indeed, however, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime" in Article V makes it very clear that we are dealing with the INDIVIDUAL. Or do you think that person only applies to a bunch of people? You can singularly destroy any one single person, but if there are a bunch of them they suddenly have Rights?

So, we are not talking about the 2nd Amendment anymore?

The Bill of Rights, save for this one

Amendment X
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.

Deals exclusively with INDIVIDUAL Rights. The Tenth as you can see mentions individual States, but it also specifically names the PEOPLE as a SEPARATE entity from the State which blows the argument that the Bill of Rights is about collective Rights, right out of the water.

Funny how that works.

 

[Pop23]

And that's why the Second didn't say the rights of the people within the Militia, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Everyone but you are nuts, right?

it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary. the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.

No it doesn't, but do blabber on

yes, it does; the right wing has No Thing, but fallacy.

And that is why the founding fathers wrote "and the right to KEEP and BEAR arms by the MILITIA shall not be infringed"?

I know they were short on parchment, but......................

You are short on understanding of what the militia is.

it says, well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are necessary. the right wing merely needs to learn how to read.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

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.

Thanks again for explaining the part preceding the second comma, then if what you say is true, the part after the second paragraph was simply unnecessary, or would afford the right to "the Militia". Of course, neither is true

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Indeed, however, "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime" in Article V makes it very clear that we are dealing with the INDIVIDUAL. Or do you think that person only applies to a bunch of people? You can singularly destroy any one single person, but if there are a bunch of them they suddenly have Rights?

So, we are not talking about the 2nd Amendment anymore?

The Bill of Rights, save for this one

Amendment X
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.

Deals exclusively with INDIVIDUAL Rights. The Tenth as you can see mentions individual States, but it also specifically names the PEOPLE as a SEPARATE entity from the State which blows the argument that the Bill of Rights is about collective Rights, right out of the water.

Funny how that works.

Our Second Amendment is about States' sovereign rights, not individual rights.