CDZ Food for thought: Right to keep and bear arms.

[WinterBorn]

No. The legislative intent and purpose is that the people have a right to keep and bear arms. The inclusion of the word militia is simply part of the reason.

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. The highest court in the land has ruled that way, and most constitutional scholars agree.

Judicial activism.

Both terms, militia and the people are collective and plural not Individual or singular. Any dictionary confirms my opinion and not yours or that of the right wing.

Has the SCOTUS ever ruled that the 2nd was a collective right? Or are you claiming that throughout our history the justices have all been right wing activists?

And, if it is true that the use of the plural means it is a collective right, then you personally have to actual right to be safe in your person or your house, and have no individual protection from unreasonable search & seizure.

Judicial activism alleges to gainsay a dictionary definition.

And that same "judicial activism" has ruled that the 1st and 4th amendments are not collective rights either.

Would you like to see all 3 amendments be seen as "collective rights"?

 

[Auld Phart]

and that's all the further you read.

continue reading...

the Right to keep and bear arms was given to the People, not the Militia.

It says, a well regulated militia is Necessary. It does not say, the unorganized militia of the People, is necessary in any way.

As a militia they will be organized. But it does not say "...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Because it is the people who will make up the militia if needed.

It says, the security of a free State depends on well regulated militia not being Infringed.

No, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

which subset of the whole people, may not be Infringed?

no subset.

it says the people, not just the militia

 

[danielpalos]

only in right wing fantasy.

No, not fantasy. Actual history. Which gives us the context and the legislative intent.

Only in extreme left-wing fantasy does "the right of the people" mean a collective right in one amendment, and an individual right in all others. Your logic is like that of the christian fundamentalists arguing against evolution. You are looking so hard for only the facts that support what you want to be true, you ignore all other facts.

Context is King, even in our Republic.

And, in the context in which the 2nd amendment was written, the term "militia" was used to describe citizen soldiers who formed organized militia when needed. It was not a standing militia.

Only one subset of the whole militia is Necessary and shall not be Infringed when being so, for their State or the Union.

The Unorganized militia of the People is not declared necessary and may be Infringed, when necessary.

What 'unorganized militia'?

Thanks for demonstrating nothing but ignorance regarding this allegedly serious topic, right wingers.

 

[MaryL]

We heard so many times from the left how Trump is racist, Nazi etc.

Here's an interesting thought experiment for your leftist friends and family members:

Imagine your worst nightmares about Trump came true. Imagine that he was instituting the fourth reich using Muslims and liberals as a scapegoat to bring about a totalitarian state in the US. Imagine families were being rounded up and shipped off and never heard from again. Imagine the crushing power of the US government was brought full force against people who were its citizens. Imagine all the protests were put down, at first with tear gas and rubber bullets, and then with live ammunition and mass arrests.

What could you possibly do? What happens when the first amendment fails? You go to the second amendment, which specifically articulates the people of the United States be so equipped as to field real opposition to a tyrannical government with its fully equipped army. That means having access, at least in part, to equipment and weapons that would be capable of opposing it.

Now of course modern warfare is different and you aren't exactly going to have a counter to the air force and armor divisions. But you would, with high capacity weaponry and high powered rifles be able to do a significant amount of damage and perhaps if not overthrow than at least disrupt to the point of capitulation the force of tyranny you faced (through assassination campaigns, kidnappings, "terrorist" acts etc).

The second amendment isn't just for people on the right.

I voted for Trump, and I have never owned a gun in my life, We all come from different places in life. Trump is not my ideal of a president. My dad, whom died half a century ago, fought against the fascist, HE was a real hero. Later to be thrown under the bus because it was profitable to harm your employees back in the late sixties. I grieve, I moved on. He also had a big case of PTSD and a raging alcoholic, and stupid me, being naive I tried to help him, and he wiped out his gun and tried to shoot me. Life does go on , he's dead and well, I am still here. I understand why we need gun control, and then some.

 

[Auld Phart]

You certainly have problems with reading.

it does not mention an 'unorganized' militia.

It does, however, mention the People.

and it gives THEM the right to keep and bear arms, not the 'organized' militia.

The first clause states well regulated militia shall not be Infringed. The People and the Militia are terms that are both, plural and collective. Any dictionary will tell me so.

The first clause states well regulated militia shall not be Infringed.

no, it doesn't

yes, it does. Why do you believe that the context does not express, that the People are the Militia. Where is the well regulated militia coming from, if not the People?

twisting the words around is not making your argument for you.

the Militia is comprised of the people, but it does not include ALL the people

regardless; Only well regulated militia of the Whole, may not be Infringed.

Not what the Second says

 

[danielpalos]

No, it isn't.

Yes it is. The highest court in the land has ruled that way, and most constitutional scholars agree.

Judicial activism.

Both terms, militia and the people are collective and plural not Individual or singular. Any dictionary confirms my opinion and not yours or that of the right wing.

Has the SCOTUS ever ruled that the 2nd was a collective right? Or are you claiming that throughout our history the justices have all been right wing activists?

And, if it is true that the use of the plural means it is a collective right, then you personally have to actual right to be safe in your person or your house, and have no individual protection from unreasonable search & seizure.

Judicial activism alleges to gainsay a dictionary definition.

And that same "judicial activism" has ruled that the 1st and 4th amendments are not collective rights either.

Would you like to see all 3 amendments be seen as "collective rights"?

what does a dictionary say?

 

[WinterBorn]

You certainly have problems with reading.

it does not mention an 'unorganized' militia.

It does, however, mention the People.

and it gives THEM the right to keep and bear arms, not the 'organized' militia.

The first clause states well regulated militia shall not be Infringed. The People and the Militia are terms that are both, plural and collective. Any dictionary will tell me so.

The first clause states well regulated militia shall not be Infringed.

no, it doesn't

yes, it does. Why do you believe that the context does not express, that the People are the Militia. Where is the well regulated militia coming from, if not the People?

twisting the words around is not making your argument for you.

the Militia is comprised of the people, but it does not include ALL the people

regardless; Only well regulated militia of the Whole, may not be Infringed.

And the armed citizens are what make up the militia, when it is needed. A militia is not the same as a professional army.

 

[danielpalos]

It says, a well regulated militia is Necessary. It does not say, the unorganized militia of the People, is necessary in any way.

As a militia they will be organized. But it does not say "...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Because it is the people who will make up the militia if needed.

It says, the security of a free State depends on well regulated militia not being Infringed.

No, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

which subset of the whole people, may not be Infringed?

no subset.

it says the people, not just the militia

appealing to ignorance? The People are the Militia.

 

[Auld Phart]

No, not fantasy. Actual history. Which gives us the context and the legislative intent.

Only in extreme left-wing fantasy does "the right of the people" mean a collective right in one amendment, and an individual right in all others. Your logic is like that of the christian fundamentalists arguing against evolution. You are looking so hard for only the facts that support what you want to be true, you ignore all other facts.

Context is King, even in our Republic.

And, in the context in which the 2nd amendment was written, the term "militia" was used to describe citizen soldiers who formed organized militia when needed. It was not a standing militia.

Only one subset of the whole militia is Necessary and shall not be Infringed when being so, for their State or the Union.

The Unorganized militia of the People is not declared necessary and may be Infringed, when necessary.

What 'unorganized militia'?

Thanks for demonstrating nothing but ignorance regarding this allegedly serious topic, right wingers.

Thanks for demonstrating nothing but ignorance

The only one demonstrating ignorance, is you.

 

[danielpalos]

The first clause states well regulated militia shall not be Infringed. The People and the Militia are terms that are both, plural and collective. Any dictionary will tell me so.

The first clause states well regulated militia shall not be Infringed.

no, it doesn't

yes, it does. Why do you believe that the context does not express, that the People are the Militia. Where is the well regulated militia coming from, if not the People?

twisting the words around is not making your argument for you.

the Militia is comprised of the people, but it does not include ALL the people

regardless; Only well regulated militia of the Whole, may not be Infringed.

Not what the Second says

yes, it is.

 

[danielpalos]

The first clause states well regulated militia shall not be Infringed. The People and the Militia are terms that are both, plural and collective. Any dictionary will tell me so.

The first clause states well regulated militia shall not be Infringed.

no, it doesn't

yes, it does. Why do you believe that the context does not express, that the People are the Militia. Where is the well regulated militia coming from, if not the People?

twisting the words around is not making your argument for you.

the Militia is comprised of the people, but it does not include ALL the people

regardless; Only well regulated militia of the Whole, may not be Infringed.

And the armed citizens are what make up the militia, when it is needed. A militia is not the same as a professional army.

The People are the Militia; well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

Context is King, even in our Republic.

And, in the context in which the 2nd amendment was written, the term "militia" was used to describe citizen soldiers who formed organized militia when needed. It was not a standing militia.

Only one subset of the whole militia is Necessary and shall not be Infringed when being so, for their State or the Union.

The Unorganized militia of the People is not declared necessary and may be Infringed, when necessary.

What 'unorganized militia'?

Thanks for demonstrating nothing but ignorance regarding this allegedly serious topic, right wingers.

Thanks for demonstrating nothing but ignorance

The only one demonstrating ignorance, is you.

only right wingers, claim that.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yes it is. The highest court in the land has ruled that way, and most constitutional scholars agree.

Judicial activism.

Both terms, militia and the people are collective and plural not Individual or singular. Any dictionary confirms my opinion and not yours or that of the right wing.

Has the SCOTUS ever ruled that the 2nd was a collective right? Or are you claiming that throughout our history the justices have all been right wing activists?

And, if it is true that the use of the plural means it is a collective right, then you personally have to actual right to be safe in your person or your house, and have no individual protection from unreasonable search & seizure.

Judicial activism alleges to gainsay a dictionary definition.

And that same "judicial activism" has ruled that the 1st and 4th amendments are not collective rights either.

Would you like to see all 3 amendments be seen as "collective rights"?

what does a dictionary say?

That is not what I asked.

 

[danielpalos]

Judicial activism.

Both terms, militia and the people are collective and plural not Individual or singular. Any dictionary confirms my opinion and not yours or that of the right wing.

Has the SCOTUS ever ruled that the 2nd was a collective right? Or are you claiming that throughout our history the justices have all been right wing activists?

And, if it is true that the use of the plural means it is a collective right, then you personally have to actual right to be safe in your person or your house, and have no individual protection from unreasonable search & seizure.

Judicial activism alleges to gainsay a dictionary definition.

And that same "judicial activism" has ruled that the 1st and 4th amendments are not collective rights either.

Would you like to see all 3 amendments be seen as "collective rights"?

what does a dictionary say?

That is not what I asked.

why should i believe, right wingers.

 

[Auld Phart]

As a militia they will be organized. But it does not say "...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Because it is the people who will make up the militia if needed.

It says, the security of a free State depends on well regulated militia not being Infringed.

No, it says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

which subset of the whole people, may not be Infringed?

no subset.

it says the people, not just the militia

appealing to ignorance? The People are the Militia.

No, the Militia is of the people, but it is NOT the people

 

[WinterBorn]

no, it doesn't

yes, it does. Why do you believe that the context does not express, that the People are the Militia. Where is the well regulated militia coming from, if not the People?

twisting the words around is not making your argument for you.

the Militia is comprised of the people, but it does not include ALL the people

regardless; Only well regulated militia of the Whole, may not be Infringed.

And the armed citizens are what make up the militia, when it is needed. A militia is not the same as a professional army.

The People are the Militia; well regulated militia of the People shall not be Infringed.

But that is not how the 2nd phrased it. The well regulated militia is needed. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

"The right" is singular. It shows a right that belongs to "the people" which is plural.

 

[Auld Phart]

no, it doesn't

yes, it does. Why do you believe that the context does not express, that the People are the Militia. Where is the well regulated militia coming from, if not the People?

twisting the words around is not making your argument for you.

the Militia is comprised of the people, but it does not include ALL the people

regardless; Only well regulated militia of the Whole, may not be Infringed.

Not what the Second says

yes, it is.

Only if you ignore everything after Militia...

which seems to be your argument...


ignorance

 

[WinterBorn]

Has the SCOTUS ever ruled that the 2nd was a collective right? Or are you claiming that throughout our history the justices have all been right wing activists?

And, if it is true that the use of the plural means it is a collective right, then you personally have to actual right to be safe in your person or your house, and have no individual protection from unreasonable search & seizure.

Judicial activism alleges to gainsay a dictionary definition.

And that same "judicial activism" has ruled that the 1st and 4th amendments are not collective rights either.

Would you like to see all 3 amendments be seen as "collective rights"?

what does a dictionary say?

That is not what I asked.

why should i believe, right wingers.

Why should you believe me when I say that was not what I asked? Go back and reread what I asked.

Whether you believe me or not doesn't matter one iota to me.

 

[Auld Phart]

And, in the context in which the 2nd amendment was written, the term "militia" was used to describe citizen soldiers who formed organized militia when needed. It was not a standing militia.

Only one subset of the whole militia is Necessary and shall not be Infringed when being so, for their State or the Union.

The Unorganized militia of the People is not declared necessary and may be Infringed, when necessary.

What 'unorganized militia'?

Thanks for demonstrating nothing but ignorance regarding this allegedly serious topic, right wingers.

Thanks for demonstrating nothing but ignorance

The only one demonstrating ignorance, is you.

only right wingers, claim that.

no, the Bill of Rights claims that

 

[danielpalos]

this is the understanding that was ratified at the convention:

"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