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

[Pop23]

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.

In the US Constitution, many of our most important natural rights are explicitly stated in the Bill Rights. I'll have to take your word on the state constitutions as I'm not familiar with them.

Code law merely codifies civil rights.

You have a tough time making Friends, huh?

 

[Flopper]

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.

Not according to Flopper in post #612.

"Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable; that is they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws. Or as John Locke defined them, natural rights are privileges and basic freedoms people are entitled to simply because they exist"
If this is the case, how can they come from state constitutions?

"Natural rights become legal rights only when incorporated into the law. For example the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some our most important natural rights. Natural rights can only be enforced if they become legal rights"
According to Flopper, the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some of our most important legal rights. But you say the US Constitution does not do that.

I think he has it backward. The due process clause in the 14th amendment was used to extend most of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to state governments. For example, the 1st amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.." The Supreme Court used the due process clause of the 14th amendment to override state laws establishing a state religion.

Natural Rights without corresponding legal rights are unenforceable and basically philosophical. However, most of what is considered to be natural rights is covered by either the US Constitution, US statues, state constitutions, or state statues. In other words, the legal system has got you covered.

 

[danielpalos]

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.

In the US Constitution, many of our most important natural rights are explicitly stated in the Bill Rights. I'll have to take your word on the state constitutions as I'm not familiar with them.

Code law merely codifies civil rights.

You have a tough time making Friends, huh?

usually for free, under Any form of Capitalism.

 

[danielpalos]

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.

Not according to Flopper in post #612.

"Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable; that is they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws. Or as John Locke defined them, natural rights are privileges and basic freedoms people are entitled to simply because they exist"
If this is the case, how can they come from state constitutions?

"Natural rights become legal rights only when incorporated into the law. For example the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some our most important natural rights. Natural rights can only be enforced if they become legal rights"
According to Flopper, the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some of our most important legal rights. But you say the US Constitution does not do that.

I think he has it backward. The due process clause in the 14th amendment was used to extend most of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to state governments. For example, the 1st amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.." The Supreme Court used the due process clause of the 14th amendment to override state laws establishing a state religion.

Natural Rights without corresponding legal rights are unenforceable and basically philosophical. However, most of what is considered to be natural rights is covered by either the US Constitution, US statues, state constitutions, or state statues. In other words, the legal system has got you covered.

Civil rights are not, Individual rights even thought they apply to individuals.

 

[Flopper]

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.

Not according to Flopper in post #612.

"Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable; that is they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws. Or as John Locke defined them, natural rights are privileges and basic freedoms people are entitled to simply because they exist"
If this is the case, how can they come from state constitutions?

"Natural rights become legal rights only when incorporated into the law. For example the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some our most important natural rights. Natural rights can only be enforced if they become legal rights"
According to Flopper, the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some of our most important legal rights. But you say the US Constitution does not do that.

I think he has it backward. The due process clause in the 14th amendment was used to extend most of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to state governments. For example, the 1st amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.." The Supreme Court used the due process clause of the 14th amendment to override state laws establishing a state religion.

Natural Rights without corresponding legal rights are unenforceable and basically philosophical. However, most of what is considered to be natural rights is covered by either the US Constitution, US statues, state constitutions, or state statues. In other words, the legal system has got you covered.

Civil rights are not, Individual rights even thought they apply to individuals.

Why would civil rights not be an individual right?

 

[danielpalos]

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.

Not according to Flopper in post #612.

"Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable; that is they cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws. Or as John Locke defined them, natural rights are privileges and basic freedoms people are entitled to simply because they exist"
If this is the case, how can they come from state constitutions?

"Natural rights become legal rights only when incorporated into the law. For example the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some our most important natural rights. Natural rights can only be enforced if they become legal rights"
According to Flopper, the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some of our most important legal rights. But you say the US Constitution does not do that.

I think he has it backward. The due process clause in the 14th amendment was used to extend most of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to state governments. For example, the 1st amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.." The Supreme Court used the due process clause of the 14th amendment to override state laws establishing a state religion.

Natural Rights without corresponding legal rights are unenforceable and basically philosophical. However, most of what is considered to be natural rights is covered by either the US Constitution, US statues, state constitutions, or state statues. In other words, the legal system has got you covered.

Civil rights are not, Individual rights even thought they apply to individuals.

Why would civil rights not be an individual right?

The terms. Our social Contract is full of contractual terms.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Natural rights are those that are not dependent on the laws or customs of any particular culture or government, and so are universal and inalienable;

So, natural rights are inalienable and universal but...

Natural rights become legal rights only when incorporated into the law. For example the Bill of Rights gives legal force to some our most important natural rights. Natural rights can only be enforced if they become legal rights.

What happened to the inalienable part?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I think he has it backward. The due process clause in the 14th amendment was used to extend most of the guarantees of the Bill of Rights to state governments. For example, the 1st amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.." The Supreme Court used the due process clause of the 14th amendment to override state laws establishing a state religion.

It was the privileges and immunities clause, not due process.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Natural Rights without corresponding legal rights are unenforceable and basically philosophical. However, most of what is considered to be natural rights is covered by either the US Constitution, US statues, state constitutions, or state statues. In other words, the legal system has got you covered.

If they are inalienable, they are enforceable.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

inalienable

[in-eyl-yuh-nuh-buh l, -ey-lee-uh-]

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
adjective
1.
not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; not alienable :
inalienable rights, freedoms, and liberties; aninalienable territory; inalienable principles andvalues.

the definition of inalienable

 

[danielpalos]

Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.

the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.

 

[WinterBorn]

Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.

the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.

If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead. Prison is going to be rough.

 

[danielpalos]

Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.

the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.

If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead. Prison is going to be rough.

nobody takes the right wing seriously.

 

[WinterBorn]

Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.

the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.

If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead. Prison is going to be rough.

nobody takes the right wing seriously.

Ignorance repeated is still ignorance. Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.

 

[danielpalos]

Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.

the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.

If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead. Prison is going to be rough.

nobody takes the right wing seriously.

Ignorance repeated is still ignorance. Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.

 

[Pop23]

Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.

the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.

If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead. Prison is going to be rough.

nobody takes the right wing seriously.

Ignorance repeated is still ignorance. Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.

I guess the question that should be asked is, What would repealing the 2nd Amendment accomplish?

 

[WinterBorn]

Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.

the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.

If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead. Prison is going to be rough.

nobody takes the right wing seriously.

Ignorance repeated is still ignorance. Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.

Not true. Plenty of liberals appeal to ignorance. You are a prime example.

 

[danielpalos]

Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.

the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.

If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead. Prison is going to be rough.

nobody takes the right wing seriously.

Ignorance repeated is still ignorance. Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.

I guess the question that should be asked is, What would repealing the 2nd Amendment accomplish?

I am not advocating repealing the Second Amendment; it is current practice in our Republic. Only well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Natural rights are not a consideration, in that Case. It is All about the collective action of a well regulated militia of the whole and entire People.

The South, is a prime example of historical precedent.

The North Had to Win, Because, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; regardless of all of the other ones.

 

[danielpalos]

Good thing we have a Second Amendment as a Prohibition on Government propaganda and rhetoric.

the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be Infringed.

If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead. Prison is going to be rough.

nobody takes the right wing seriously.

Ignorance repeated is still ignorance. Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.

Not true. Plenty of liberals appeal to ignorance. You are a prime example.

dude; stories are all right wingers have.

 

[Pop23]

If you want to take up arms against the gov't over propaganda and rhetoric, go right ahead. Prison is going to be rough.

nobody takes the right wing seriously.

Ignorance repeated is still ignorance. Perhaps if you worried more about facts and less about posting nonsense about who takes who seriously, more people would......well...take you seriously.

only the right wing appeals to ignorance of our literal, supreme law of the land.

I guess the question that should be asked is, What would repealing the 2nd Amendment accomplish?

I am not advocating repealing the Second Amendment; it is current practice in our Republic. Only well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Natural rights are not a consideration, in that Case. It is All about the collective action of a well regulated militia of the whole and entire People.

The South, is a prime example of historical precedent.

The North Had to Win, Because, Only well regulated militias of the United States may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; regardless of all of the other ones.

But I asked, and I will ask again, maybe making a slight modification to the question. What is accomplished if you change the perceived meaning of the second? What would that change do?