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

[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?

It says "the right" is singular. So every single citizen has it.

 

[Auld Phart]

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

again, the same person, in the debates to ratify the Constitution.

Would you like to see the remarks of several presidents, and statesmen, of that era?

Some whose names have lasted far longer than Masons?

That believe the Right of the People to keep and bear arms?

or is he your only argument.

 

[WinterBorn]

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

And the whole people all have "the right" (singular) to keep and bear arms.

 

[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?

It says "the right" is singular. So every single citizen has it.

natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Your "one liners" explain the state of your mind. You keep throwing out the slogans and paroles, without being able to explain or back up any of your statements.

According to the history and The Constitution itself, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is exactly opposite. At the time, Congress had power to disarm state militias and create the standing army that was a threat to the sovereignty of the states. The 2nd Amendment prevented elimination of the militia by the Federal Government, and in order to prevent it, they protected people's individual rights to keep and bear arms.

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose, in the first clause.

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.

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.

It doesn't say the militia shall not be infringed, it says the militia is necessary to the security of a free state. What it says shall not be infringed is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. How do you keep managing to rearrange the wording? It's 1 sentence, it can't be that hard to remember.

 

[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

again, the same person, in the debates to ratify the Constitution.

Would you like to see the remarks of several presidents, and statesmen, of that era?

Some whose names have lasted far longer than Masons?

That believe the Right of the People to keep and bear arms?

or is he your only argument.

lol.

our Constitution was ratified. It is all the argument I need.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose, in the first clause.

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.

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.

It doesn't say the militia shall not be infringed,

the people are the militia. well regulated militia of the people shall not be infringed.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

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.

It doesn't say the militia shall not be infringed,

the people are the militia. well regulated militia of the people shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say that the militia shall not be infringed, and even if your interpretation that they meant "militia" when they said "people", it doesn't say that the people shall not be infringed, it says that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The rules of English don't cease to apply when it's convenient to your political opinions.

 

[Auld Phart]

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

again, the same person, in the debates to ratify the Constitution.

Would you like to see the remarks of several presidents, and statesmen, of that era?

Some whose names have lasted far longer than Masons?

That believe the Right of the People to keep and bear arms?

or is he your only argument.

lol.

our Constitution was ratified. It is all the argument I need.

Yes, it was.

with the input of more than that one, unremembered, man.

input that ended in the right to keep0 and bear arms to the people, not the militia.

 

[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.

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.

It doesn't say the militia shall not be infringed,

the people are the militia. well regulated militia of the people shall not be infringed.

twisting the wording again

 

[danielpalos]

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

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.

It doesn't say the militia shall not be infringed,

the people are the militia. well regulated militia of the people shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say that the militia shall not be infringed, and even if your interpretation that they meant "militia" when they said "people", it doesn't say that the people shall not be infringed, it says that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The rules of English don't cease to apply when it's convenient to your political opinions.

Why appeal to ignorance?

The People = The Militia. Well regulated Militia=People, are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[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

again, the same person, in the debates to ratify the Constitution.

Would you like to see the remarks of several presidents, and statesmen, of that era?

Some whose names have lasted far longer than Masons?

That believe the Right of the People to keep and bear arms?

or is he your only argument.

lol.

our Constitution was ratified. It is all the argument I need.

Yes, it was.

with the input of more than that one, unremembered, man.

input that ended in the right to keep0 and bear arms to the people, not the militia.

The debates at the convention, were more conclusive.

"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

 

[danielpalos]

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

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.

It doesn't say the militia shall not be infringed,

the people are the militia. well regulated militia of the people shall not be infringed.

twisting the wording again

not at all. it is current practice in our Republic.

 

[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.

It doesn't say the militia shall not be infringed,

the people are the militia. well regulated militia of the people shall not be infringed.

twisting the wording again

not at all. it is current practice in our Republic.

only your twisted concept of it.

you keep leaving out the wording, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

why?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

It doesn't say the militia shall not be infringed,

the people are the militia. well regulated militia of the people shall not be infringed.

It doesn't say that the militia shall not be infringed, and even if your interpretation that they meant "militia" when they said "people", it doesn't say that the people shall not be infringed, it says that the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The rules of English don't cease to apply when it's convenient to your political opinions.

Why appeal to ignorance?

The People = The Militia. Well regulated Militia=People, are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

You are just -dedicated- to achieving your goal through word games, aren't you? So typical of the modern far left.

No matter how much you try to complicate this rather simple sentence, it won't make factual your argument that the founders only meant for people to be armed in the context of well regulated paramilitary organizations.

 

[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?

It says "the right" is singular. So every single citizen has it.

natural rights are in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.

All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

No, the state constitutions do not over-ride the US Constitution. Quite the opposite.

 

[Ame®icano]

Your "one liners" explain the state of your mind. You keep throwing out the slogans and paroles, without being able to explain or back up any of your statements.

According to the history and The Constitution itself, the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is exactly opposite. At the time, Congress had power to disarm state militias and create the standing army that was a threat to the sovereignty of the states. The 2nd Amendment prevented elimination of the militia by the Federal Government, and in order to prevent it, they protected people's individual rights to keep and bear arms.

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose, in the first clause.

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.

Nope, it doesn't say that.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

again, the same person, in the debates to ratify the Constitution.

Would you like to see the remarks of several presidents, and statesmen, of that era?

Some whose names have lasted far longer than Masons?

That believe the Right of the People to keep and bear arms?

or is he your only argument.

lol.

our Constitution was ratified. It is all the argument I need.

WTF are you talking about?

And what that has to do with OP?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Right to keep and bear arms

Keep arms. Bear arms. I have no issue with individuals doing either. I have a problem with one's aiming one's unlawfully directing the "business end" of humanity's manufactured arms toward another person. I recognize that will happen to some degree no matter what policies be enacted; however, I'm of a mind that the degree to which it does and has happened in the U.S. exceeds the degree I find acceptable. Because I find that the frequency to which people in the U.S. "unlawfully direct the 'business end' of humanity's manufactured arms" toward others, I would see implemented policies that strive to reduce the frequency with which that act happens. Quite frankly, I'm largely indifferent about what policies, liberal or conservative, be implemented to achieve that end. Try them all, I say.

 

[WinterBorn]

Right to keep and bear arms

Keep arms. Bear arms. I have no issue with individuals doing either. I have a problem with one's aiming one's unlawfully directing the "business end" of humanity's manufactured arms toward another person. I recognize that will happen to some degree no matter what policies be enacted; however, I'm of a mind that the degree to which it does and has happened in the U.S. exceeds the degree I find acceptable. Because I find that the frequency to which people in the U.S. "unlawfully direct the 'business end' of humanity's manufactured arms" toward others, I would see implemented policies that strive to reduce the frequency with which that act happens. Quite frankly, I'm largely indifferent about what policies, liberal or conservative, be implemented to achieve that end. Try them all, I say.

The number of gun murders per capita has been steadily dropping in the US since the 1970s.